Originally Posted by
elcruxio
You have a very, very strange way on interpreting text...
the highest level athletes are essentially evolutionary one offs who can perform extraordinary feats and adapt to amazing feats. If a pro cyclist won the tour with the cleat hanging down the tip of their big toe, I would not take that as validation for a new amazing cleat position. Just as I don't take (almost) anything the pro's do as validation for my type of riding.
We don't know if the traditional cleat position has negatives. It did for me. I was looking up recumbents before I went from the traditional stuff to the stuff that worked. So mainly seat down, cleats back, reach back and real good insoles. But I'm starting to think that for anything below 100km the insoles are a bit of a faff.
If you need your calf then use a forward cleat. I don't sprint or do hard off the saddle finish line climbs so I don't want to deal with the increased instability a more forward cleat causes.
Again, where are you getting that from? You're the only one stating your way as the absolute correct method. But you never give any other reasoning other than "it's always been done that way so it must be good".
This is what you said. It sounds an awful lot like you are stating this as fact:
"Because that's not how a leg is designed to produce power? People evolved to walk, run, jump, climb trees etc (bit an eddie izzard reference there). Spinning pedals around doesn't equate to any of those activities. The calf has a minimal effect in power production even in running compared to the upper leg muscles. Some would argue that its job is mainly to function as a shock absorber/return spring. Its only job in cycling is to stabilize the foot."
So is the calf's only job in cycling to stabilize the foot or not? I don't think so, but I'm not telling everyone that I know that for certain.
And the idea that if some forward cleat is good, more would be better is daft. You know it doesn't work that way, so don't make such an "idiotic" argument.