Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Steve Hogg?
Quote | Reply
I have been reading a lot of what Steve has written and I am not really sure what I think. I certainly would have zero doubt the guy knows more than me about how bodies work on bikes and the cause of and solution for various pains.

That said, I work in a mid sized city with not very many fitters, of which I am the busiest and getting busier. There are a couple guys doing fits from the "untrained as a fitter but expert biomechanist / physical therapy point of view", and these are some of the worst fits I have ever seen. These guys generally put people way up high and slack, or recommend against tri bikes completely. Of course, there are times when this is correct, but for instance one fellow will absolutely never use the forward hole on a two position seatpost. He's done dozens of fits like this. I am not saying Steve would do this, but I am saying that I am not impressed with the finished product of those I have seen who approach fits as "movement experts". I feel this is approaching people looking for dysfunction and I try to avoid that unless it is slapping me in the face, or at least looking over my shoulder.

So I guess what I am getting at is, for me, a lot of this super intricate body movement analysis knowledge is wasted on at least 80% of the fits I perform. I use Swifty's process and tools for foot - pedal interface and have been getting a lot better at it over the years. I am no longer scared of knee pain, hip pain, low back,what have you. But that doesn't mean I don't get stumped sometimes or have to re-visit a particular athlete or knee a few times to get things correct.

And then there are the 1-2% of riders I have been unable to help through their knee/hip/foot/back issues.

So the question is, is what Steve is preaching necessary to be a professional bike fitter? In your practice how deep into this do you get?

When I first became FIST certified in 2008, I attended the class with Jon Cobb, so I got zero foot - pedal stuff. I did ok with bike fits, but got 'stumped' frequently by pain issues. Fast forward five years and I self educated and practiced a bit and now I feel I am pretty good.

How good are you? How good do you think you need to be in figuring out knee pain for instance, as opposed to nailing 145 degrees of knee, 100 degrees of hip and 90 degrees of shoulder and sending them on their way? How much success have you had with a strict process and how much do you need to deviate to address biomechanical issues, pain, and injuries?

Thanks for taking the time from your hopefully busy days.
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Me too, I have struggled with the "I don't have a physio degree" inferiority complex, but I know that I have spent thousands of hours riding behind people, riding myself (and experimenting on myself with different 'fits') and watching people ride all the time. Your third paragraph is exactly my experience too.

I have learned that the foot is the first point of contact with a bike, and for a small group of people, long-term problems at the saddle or in the upper body comes from an asymmetry at the feet. I do have some "problem children" who still have issues, but on the other hand I've certainly had the "a-ha" moment with people who have been to 3-4 other fitters in my area who could not 'solve' their problem.

Anne Barnes
ABBikefit, Ltd
FIST/SICI/FIST DOWN DEEP
X/Y Coordinator
abbikefit@gmail.com
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very interesting question and in today's climate of Fit in the industry one that is extremely relevant.

I will not presume to tell you how "good" or even educated you need to be to perform your practice. That is on you. I know for me I am always seeking to further my education on all aspects of fitting. I have been fitting over 20 years, Presented/ spoke right along side Slowman and others on fitting topics at Interbike, and sat in on others presentations to gleen from them. I have taught and assisted in the certification of other fitters for a couple of the popular programs and I still need to consult with others on some issues my clients bring me.

I believe the best thing you can do is be honest with your clientele about your knowledge base, experience level and skill set. If the client has an issue you have not dealt with before such as relates to the knee or other joint, be honest with your client so they understand your limitations and can adjust their expectations. So much of the industry is doing this fantastic job of touting the benefits of "proper fit", but the industry has not settled on what that means. And I have seen many a fitter promise something they do not have the tools or experience to deliver or that fitting in and of itself cannot deliver. Fitting has become much like Triathlon Coaching. people expect you to know a lot more than than the job description refers too. The vast majority of fitters out there are not specialist in aerodynamics, bio-mechanics, muscular or skeletal assessment, Functional movement specialists, nutritionists, injury assessment, but yet they make decisions and suggestions as if they were. I am not saying you need to be a specialist in any of these but you need to be at least versed in them somewhat and understand their function.

To answer some of your questions more directly:
  • How good do you think you need to be in figuring out knee pain for instance, as opposed to nailing 145 degrees of knee, 100 degrees of hip and 90 degrees of shoulder and sending them on their way? this is entirely based on the individual and their unique issues they are bringing to the fit. How good are you at diagnosing knee pain specifics. What is your medical training or do you refer to a specialist to give you a proper diagnosis then perform the fitting. How good are you at assessing injury, biomechanical issues, strength imbalances, etc.? I would personally not ever seek to "nail" a joint angle number but a number or a range is definitely useful as a tool. The number your shooting for is also related to how you measure.
  • How much success have you had with a strict process and how much do you need to deviate to address biomechanical issues, pain, and injuries? This depends on the type of process you employ in your fitting practice. I employ a process that allows me to adapt as issues manifest beyond what I witnessed during my initial assessment. I suppose it depends on what process your asking about. The process of the whole fit session, from client greeting to follow-up or the processes employed throughout the fit.
  • is what Steve is preaching necessary to be a professional bike fitter? No. Again I refer to my original statement, this depends on how you bill yourself to your clients. Knowledge is certainly necessary to be a competent professional fitter and it can't hurt to learn from other professionals. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. I frequently have a different opinion of a technique or "way of getting there" than even the program I am instructing in. That doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid, I just have found through experience a different way is right for me.

One last point: Fitters are limited by their tooling many times just as much as by their education and experience.


Retul Certified Master Fitter, FIST certified fitter, Owner of Hypercat Racing http://www.hypercat.com, and friend to the animals.
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm answering from a standpoint of a PT doing bike fits. I've been a PT for going on 17 years and I've been doing bike fits for most of those.

I can't speak for the movement specialists/PTs you are talking about in your area, but I can give you the view from my seat. I understand what you are saying, but the main thing I disagree with wholeheartedly is:
Quote:
for me, a lot of this super intricate body movement analysis knowledge is wasted on at least 80% of the fits I perform.

There isn't a day that goes by that I'm not reminded how hamstrung I'd be without my background and training. Each fit I do, I can't imagine being able to make the decisions I've made without, not only my education but my day-in and day-out assessments I've done on (conservatively) 15,000-20,000 patients (even outside of bike fitting) over the last 17+ years.

As the old saying goes, the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know. This understanding gives you a bit of circumspection and you begin to make different and better decisions, and your "process" becomes less rigid and governed more by the tens of thousands of data points (all throughout the bell curve, outliers, and mega-outliers alike) you've accumulated through a combination of your education and experience.

I had a radiologist in my studio yesterday afternoon and he mentioned something that struck a chord with me. He was asking a bunch of questions I get often about how long I've been doing this, etc, and he said he was impressed that I changed certain things about his fit, but he was more impressed about what I didn't change. He said it's the same in radiology -- reading an x-ray looks pretty simple when you get basic anatomy instruction -- but in reality you need to see 10,000 NORMALS before you can determine what's abnormal. Bike fitting is similar in this way -- the most important decision you make might be what you decided to leave alone, and making that decision is going to be based on all your background, all your education, and all your experience.

I'm certainly not saying you can't do this well without a PT degree, but you better have a ton of experience. Just look at the really skilled fitters who don't have a background in biomechanics.....they all see the importance of constantly digging and deepening their knowledge base.

So how much do you need to learn? How deep do you need to dig? More...and deeper...always. Otherwise how will you KNOW if the "super intricate analysis is wasted."

Good luck with it all...I really hope you continue to dig and have success.
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dave, because i know you, and your business, let me ask you this. do you feel you need to know a lot more than you do about how the body works in order to properly teach people how to swim? i mean, bearing in mind that the same bag of inabilities that an athlete has to drag around with him when he rides also are present when he swims?

i think i'm asking a rhetorical question. i'm attempting to ask a rhetorical question (but maybe my question is not rhetorical, i'll know depending on the answer). what i think you're going to say is, no, i don't need to know a lot about how the body works to teach someone to swim, and, no, i don't put my subject through a raft of tests to find out how i need to alter his stroke in order for him to swim efficiently.

maybe it's not an apt analogy. but if it isn't, i'd like to know why it isn't. i'd like to know, from those who say you pretty much have to be a physical therapist to be a bike fitter, why my analogy is not apt.

i ask this because there seems to be, on behalf of a lot of people, a wholesale change in their approach to teaching someone how to fit aboard a bike versus teaching that very same person how to swim. yet, swimming is easily just as likely to be the proximal cause of an injury, or to fall prey to a need to alter technique based on a limit in one's range of motion. or one's spinal or pelvic misalignment. i would say it's much more likely someone is going to get injured swimming or running than during cycling. yet, somehow, a strain of bike fit methodology treats riding a bike like walking on a tightrope through a minefield.

obviously i place a high premium on bike fit. but, honestly, most of the F.I.S.T. methodology is undoing the strange and arcane, and restoring someone to a position much more normal and natural.

i'm not a luddite, or a science denier. i've got a degree in biology, i've got an ex fizz background. but if i use it in bike fit it's subconscious. and i don't think steve hogg is a bad exponent of fit at all. as far as i can tell he's a very good fitter. this is no slam against steve. rather, i think it's helpful, if you've got a science background, to tell everyone that you can't be a bike fitter unless you don't have a science background, in order to cull the field of competition. but if it turns out that this is a valid argument then, dave, i think you're going to have to give up teaching people to swim as well.

in my opinion, if there's a background fitters lack, it is NOT a life science background. it's a math background. that would be helpful, because of the need to translate fit coordinates to bike solutions.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Appreciate both responses. Looking forward to next week.

You're right, I do not need to know a whole lot about the bodies workings to teach someone how to swim. I feel the same way about bike fitting, (with a lower confidence level.) You certainly hit the nail on the head with "walking a tightrope through a minefield." I try not to get caught up in the search for dysfunction in any sport, while being open to finding it and dealing with it when it is required.

In short, I feel I know enough to do excellent bike fits, but finding a site like Steve's was like discovering a lost language. Thanks for your input. It makes perfect sense.
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Since intent can so often be misconstrued online, let me start by saying that everything I write below is with 100% sincerity and without sarcasm.....I just really enjoy digging into these topics.

I wonder if we need to ask what is the role of the bike fitter? Is it "nailing 145 degrees of knee, 100 degrees of hip and 90 degrees of shoulder and sending them on their way"? I certainly don't think anyone commenting here thinks that running the rubber stamp fit protocol is the way to go -- and certainly not someone like you, Dave, who is asking searching questions.

If our role isn't that simple, then where do we stop? If the rider has a problem or a pain that is not bike related or perhaps not bike generated (or maybe only half the problem is bike-related), do we tell them to get help for that elsewhere before we do a fitting? Maybe.

From my vantage point, it doesn't stop there, because that's what my background is -- I can help them fix that off the bike, and perhaps adjust their fit to put as little strain on the problem area as is feasible.

I don't think you have to be a PT to be a bike fitter....I'm sure there ARE physical therapists out there doing horrendous fittings, and I KNOW there are non-PT fitters out there doing exceptional work. All I would say, is that the more arrows you have in your quiver, the more clients you're confidently going to be able to help.

Slowman wrote:
it's a math background. that would be helpful, because of the need to translate fit coordinates to bike solutions.
Agreed.

Slowman wrote:
maybe it's (bike fit : swim stroke instruction) not an apt analogy. but if it isn't, i'd like to know why it isn't.
Honestly, I don't know if it is or not. I'm not a swim instructor. Just like a PT who doesn't have experience or training doing bike fits, I don't have the training and experience in swim stroke, so while I might do a passable job, I likely won't do as well as someone who has no PT degree but lots of swim stroke training -- I'm guessing like Dave ;-)

At first pass, I would say that perhaps being on the bike involves more passive or external support. For instance on the bike, if someone's saddle tilt doesn't match with how their pelvis "rests" and likes to move, they might find that they are unbalanced and slipping of the front of the saddle -- pretty common, right. We don't tell them, "okay,just tighten your abdominals to keep that pelvis rotated back" to prevent that....rather we adjust their saddle tilt. and perhaps height. This is a very simple example, but imagine all the "passivity" in the foot/shoe/cleat position, especially when we use different shoe for their forefoot varus posting or support from inserts. The rider with inserts isn't actively controlling their foot position -- they have to rely on some integrated support.

In swimming, I'd argue that we don't have as many of these external supports or constraints that can be altered in order to allow freer/better movement. I would imagine a good swim instructor will first find some shortcoming in a swimmer's stroke, cue them to it, maybe show them video of it, give them a drill or two to help them "feel" the correct movement and upon returning to full swim stroke give them proprioceptive cues to help them continue this improved form. While good form and an efficient pedal stroke are the ultimate goal with a bike fit, I don't think anyone would argue that someone coming in for a fit expects (and is best served with) more than just work on their pedal stroke with a SpinScan assessment or the like. Alterations to the bike, pedals, and shoes are necessary to allow our full efficient movement, and having the best understanding you can for how these alterations will affect the body are important.

I'm not denigrating swim stroke instruction -- on the contrary, I think it's a remarkable skill to have. I just think that the checklists between the two are different.

Turning the question around a bit, I would ask, if you identify that a swimmer isn't rolling fully or appropriately to one side, and you can determine that an overly tight hip flexor on one side is the culprit....would being able to help that person fix that hip issue make you a better swim instructor?

thanks for reading,

j
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [john_dub] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
my answer is this: the role of the fitter is to drive the customer to orthodoxy, rather than to drive the customer from orthodoxy.

what i mean is this. whether it's swimming, cycling or baseball, the best coaches teach orthodoxy. here's how you swing a baseball bat. here's how you swing a tennis racket. a golf club. here's how you high jump. pole vault. put the shot. coaches identify these techniques to teach by observing what the best athletes in the world do, they identify the techniques, positions, postures, movements that these athletes seem to have in common, and they try to replicate these techniques, postures and movements in those who are in their care.

successful athletes tend to be those who: a) are very good at emulating what the best athletes do, in other words, they are very good at adhering to orthodoxy; and b) they produce unusually high power per specific unit of resistance (air, gravity, water).

only in cycling, and only in fitting, do we see the reverse paradigm. only in cycling do we find experts who, rather than draw their customers toward orthodoxy, search high and low for ways to talk their customers out of orthodoxy. only in bike fitting do we seem to try as hard as we can to find ways why athletes can't ride in the positions common to the overwhelming number of good athletes. only in cycling is every customer viewed as a challenged athlete when he walks in the door.

of course there are micro differences between athletes, and these small differences establish a range inside of which we are okay. the successful fitter finds comfort and power for his athlete while giving his athlete every chance to ride in a position any of us would recognize as at least reasonably orthodox.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'd agree with all of that. I think we can all agree that the skill lies in managing "the micro differences between athletes."

My bike fittings are hallmarked by constant explanation to the client why this or that change in their fit will "normalize" their movement. And when clients come in that don't have huge bike-related issue or pain, the bike fit proceeds "predictably" and smoothly.

What happens, though, when someone comes in with a bike-only issue, but their fit already ticks all of the regular boxes? All I'm saying is that it can be helpful to understand the root cause of the issue, and what steps might be taken, outside the norms of a "regular" bike fit to remedy the problem. Granted, this is only about 10% or less of my fittings, but that's still a few clients a month. I don't think deepening your understanding of the body is a detriment or unnecessary. I've come back from continuing education classes and learned something new that struck a chord regarding a client I had fitted in the past, and so I've called them back in because I could alter their fit in some small way to allow them to fit better on their bike.

I will stipulate that some over-zealous PTs or other movement specialists may be constantly seeking and "finding" zebras when they hear hooves, but I think you'd agree that someone who has just taken a weekend (or week) course in bike fitting is at least as likely to fall prey to poor decision making.

I'm curious, what, specifically, have you guys seen out there in the way of poor fittings that have resulted from someone's over-wrought methodology?

Thanks again

john_dub
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [john_dub] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I'm curious, what, specifically, have you guys seen out there in the way of poor fittings that have resulted from someone's over-wrought methodology?"

are you asking me if i've seen poor fittings because a fitter engages in a biomechanical diagnostic of the subject, and the results of that diagnosis informs the fit? with laughably bad consequences? constantly. i see that routinely.

the most common problems i see in fit among the expensive boutique fitters are: 1) diagnosing and identifying problems that really aren't major problems; 2) prescribing macro solutions to micro problems that create more problems than they solve; 3) identifying a problem as fit related when it is really contact-point related, i.e., "because if the transverse insertion of your polynomic ilotibial psoas, we need to put 8mm of wedges under your left cleat, and also turn your cleat around backwards." in fact, the problem might well be an uncomfortable saddle. but because that fitter only traffics in 2 saddle brands (because he's cheap) he can't really find out if it's a contact point, point-tenderness problem.

and, 4) the sale of a custom bike to fit this cockeyed position, which is not only an $8000 solution to a $130 problem (if it is just an uncomfortable saddle disqualifying the customer from riding comfortably in an orthodox position), it's also a pretty dangerous gamble, if you think about it. as a former bike maker i can tell you that when we made a new geometry, we went out and rode the hell out of it, times a number of people, to see if the bike worked. by definition, these geometric frankensteins prescribed by these fitters have never been tested, because they're "unique to the individual." nobody has any idea how this bike is going to handle.

i'm not against custom bikes. i love them. but these guys who are biomechanical experts, fit experts and, as it turns out (who knew!) bike geometry experts, design these monstrosities that handle badly and, by the way, aren't even close to the right geometry for the customer.

so, yeah, i do see this problem ;-)


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Steve Hogg? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
are you asking me if i've seen poor fittings because a fitter engages in a biomechanical diagnostic of the subject, and the results of that diagnosis informs the fit? with laughably bad consequences? constantly. i see that routinely.



No, in fact I wasn't asking that. I'd already stipulated that I didn't doubt you'd seen silly fits come from biomechanical "experts". I live and work in a small-ish market and the many bike fits I have to re-do all come from fitters with a couple days of bike fit training or less, so I was asking out of sincere curiosity WHAT you've seen....not IF you've seen.

Slowman wrote:
the most common problems i see in fit among the expensive boutique fitters are: 1) diagnosing and identifying problems that really aren't major problems; 2) prescribing macro solutions to micro problems that create more problems than they solve; 3) identifying a problem as fit related when it is really contact-point related, i.e., "because if the transverse insertion of your polynomic ilotibial psoas, we need to put 8mm of wedges under your left cleat, and also turn your cleat around backwards." in fact, the problem might well be an uncomfortable saddle. but because that fitter only traffics in 2 saddle brands (because he's cheap) he can't really find out if it's a contact point, point-tenderness problem.


Interesting, I mean that sincerely, that's interesting....they are the exact same problems I see, except that there is little and flawed reasoning behind the fit decisions (none of the "because if the transverse insertion of your polynomic ilotibial psoas, we need to put 8mm of wedges under your left cleat, and also turn your cleat around backwards." which of course is just equally flawed) I guess proof that little training and little experience are equally dangerous?

I do think that someone who is a physical therapist and doing this type of work is a bigger problem because of their ability to convince clients they know what they're doing by virtue of their vocabulary and station. Many "experts" will use complex or unfamiliar vocabulary as a mask, of course. I'll definitely stipulate that as well.

Slowman wrote:
]and, 4) the sale of a custom bike to fit this cockeyed position, which is not only an $8000 solution to a $130 problem (if it is just an uncomfortable saddle disqualifying the customer from riding comfortably in an orthodox position), it's also a pretty dangerous gamble, if you think about it. as a former bike maker i can tell you that when we made a new geometry, we went out and rode the hell out of it, times a number of people, to see if the bike worked. by definition, these geometric frankensteins prescribed by these fitters have never been tested, because they're "unique to the individual." nobody has any idea how this bike is going to handle.

i'm not against custom bikes. i love them. but these guys who are biomechanical experts, fit experts and, as it turns out (who knew!) bike geometry experts, design these monstrosities that handle badly and, by the way, aren't even close to the right geometry for the customer.



I agree 100%. I currently have my third "custom" bike re-do of the year in production right now, meaning a client has come in owning a "custom" bike that has served to solve none of their problems and handles poorly to boot, and we're in the process of making them a new one.

Slowman wrote:
so, yeah, i do see this problem ;-)



Ditto ;-)


Thanks. Good information.


John Weirath
Quote Reply