Good article intent and appears generally correct but borders on being technically misleading possibly due to brevity apparently required for most of the article to be an advertisement. Under undesirable side effects, items 2 & 3 are quite a bit more complicated issues that don't appear to take into account anything but leg muscles and appear to assume a low power output spin vs a high power output mash. Maybe do a little reading on how ATP is produced and from what sources to get a better idea of what is most likely occurring here.
 
Note that I am an AC member, mostly for their good cycling maps, and notice that many of their articles are a little too brief technically to be generally useful. I think mainly they are targeting the novice rider and the articles are written to appear to be technically informative but really aren't. I'd recommend they choose a 'good suggestions' format instead. (scientists get really tired of dealing with pseudo-science of this nature)
 

Quote from MrOverdressed on Sep 8^th, 2009, 3:35pm:

 
Of course if you have short legs, your knee ends up in your chin

Quote from MrOverdressed on Sep 8^th, 2009, 3:35pm:

 
 
Uhhh, Terry, it seems that you're missing the point of the article....  they're saying that it's better to use a higher cadence...

Quote from FlyingLaZBoy on Sep 8^th, 2009, 10:27pm:

 
No Bro, I didnt miss his point.  His basis for recommending higher cadences is less knee strain.  At a higher cadence  we are pushing less against the pedals.  Im also saying that the same benefit can be obtained from a longer crank at the same cadence.  My 200mm cranks at 60rpm/cadence in a higher gear has the same amount of foot&knee pressure as 160mm cranks in a lower gear at 80rpm/cadence.