(NEURAL) BIO (MECHANICAL) ENGINEERING: DOES IT WORK?


The proof of a performance concept lies in the data. If neural bio mechanical engineering can improve human performance in a specific application such as skiing, skating or cycling then it should be possible to demonstrate meaningful performance improvement with quantifiable metrics generated from data captured from the actual activity. In the case of cycling, meaningful improvement would be shown by an increase in metrics such as peak force transferred to the pedal spindle that cannot be explained by other factors. In order to attribute any change in performance, whether positive or negative, to neural bio mechanical engineering the effect must be immediate, reversible and reproducible. In the case of the improvement seen with Podborski’s performance using ski boots fit with the dorsal fit system, reverting to identical boot shells fit with a conventional liner reversed the improvement in performance.

Where possible, standard protocols should be used and testing performed by experts in the field. In the case of the cycling shoe Tekscan F Scan data comparison, my only involvement was to analyze the human lower limb requirements for cycling and generate the design and specification for the device that produced the neural bio mechanical engineering effect. I played no role in designing the test protocol or conducting the tests. I was not even an observer.

So how did the neural bio mechanical engineering system work in the application to cycling?

Performance Metrics

There are numerous metrics that can be used to assess and compare performance. The subject test was limited to pressure analysis using the Tekscan F Scan system.

In the graphic below the upper image outlined in red is the F Scan pressure image of an elite cyclist captured at 3 o’clock in the crank cycle at moderate to high load using their own conventional cycling shoe. The F Scan pressure image outlined in green below the first image is of the same cyclist using the device that bio engineered the foot and lower limb.

Results

There are a number of significant differences between the forces applied with the same cyclist with the conventional cycling shoe and the bio-engineering. In the 2 F Scan images, the contact area of the application of force across the heads of the metatarsals over the pedal spindle with bio-engineering is much greater and the force much higher than the force applied to the heads of the metatarsals in the conventional shoe.

The two significant, quantifiable (measurable) metrics that relate directly to cycling performance are: Peak Force and Anterior-Posterior (forward-backward) Excursion of the Center of Force.

Peak Force

The peak (maximum) force with the device that bio-engineered the foot and lower limb was 140% of the peak force applied with the conventional cycling shoe.

Anterior-Posterior (fore-aft) Force Excursion

This is the range of forward-backward movement of center of force through the crank cycle.

The graphic below shows the tracking of center of force forward and backward in the pedal stroke. Notice how straight the force tracks in the lower image with bio engineering compared to the upper image captured from the conventional cycling shoe.

The ability to move the center of force forward and backward, not just down and, more important, substantially aligned with the crank rotation is both more consistent and efficient than the excursion tracking with the conventional shoe. The bio engineering device improved excursion by 175% in rearward tracking force (long bars) and 200% in forward tracking force (over the top) as shown by the short bars below the images.

In my next post I will discuss how I designed a ski boot from the snow up using principles of neural bio-mechanical engineering.