Just to be sure I understand the mechanism of what you created here. The idea of the Cleveland Clinic Study with Dr Jay Albert for forced exercise is that you are forced to exert yourself at faster pace than you otherwise would set for yourself. Hence you work harder than you would choose to exert yourself. In this case on a tandem bike where a trainer sets the pace faster than the patient would set it. This was believed to release chemicals worked to reduce PD symptoms. Is the study to which you refer?

I'm wondering on your drill if you set a rotational speed or torque if you are actually exerting yourself faster or if you are moving your arm at a set speed driven by the rpm of the drill with or without exertion. In essence do you have the ability to measure torque or rpm then exceed continually that torque/rpm throughout your workout? If so then you would be duplicating the study. Is that your purpose or is it to test a different aspect of movement at a certain rate not necessarily exertion? In other words is this forced exercise or forced movement?

In the study it was the legs tested but hands (taps/twists/etc, gait, station, leg taps etc (standard neuro testing you do in the doc's office) that measurably scored better. The better neuro exams lasted 4-6 weeks after stopping the exercise. I didn't see any note of how long the CC patients participated before noting improvement (unless I missed it).

Forgive me if I misunderstand, I'm just trying to get your idea here. A drill has a set torque/rpm. Are you by some mechanism able to exceed its speed through gearing? If so you meet the criteria in the study if you could measure or exceed rpm for the whole of your workout. If the drill runs at speed and you go along with it then that would not meet the criteria of the CC study. Not to criticize though, this is a novel and interesting approach.

The enticing question is would you notice improvement if you followed through with more than two days? If you were able to do this for a few months and film standard neuro tests (like timing x number of finger taps or foot taps) which would be measurable hard data and show an improvement on time to complete x number of taps other than just rpm of your taps.

If so maybe Cleveland are on sort of right track with this test but not entirely. They are not testing most affected limbs but are going more for exertion of whole body (i.e. heart rate, respiratory) or cardio. If you notice help without the entire cardio or measure your pulse rate and are able to achieve a similar pulse or cardio benefit then that would be notable. It would be helpful for people who could not walk to use hand bikes or in your case affected limbs only. It would also be notable that not achieving a high pulse rate but exerting an affected limb at a given rate.

There is also a study at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, with Dr Quincy Almeda, where they are trying to understand what specific movements help activate the basal ganglia based on animal models to activate critical areas of the brain and crucial neurons to slow progress. The study is 6 months. The idea is to find out what type of movement activates things. These are not nec cardio or leg driven movements. Animals don't all show that cardio or leg driven movements nec activate the basal ganglia. The precise movement mechanism is not yet known. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Q7DZKVpHw

Since you noticed no real correlable results yet, and I wouldn't expect you could after 2 sessions maybe keep at it for several months and keep a log especially a video log would be helpful and provable. Noting when you are on or off and or do it at the same time each day for a while then change times. The keys you would be looking for to match the study would be improvement during and directly after the exercise, which lasts for hours. All of the patients interviewed but one had been OFF when they started but much better while exercising and after for many hours and weeks.

Since they don't know the mechanism if you had better statistical results then you might be able to throw a new variable into the mix. If over several weeks you could demonstrate through measured results improvements then you might be on to something. I wouldn't expect results given the study parameters after two times so I wouldn't nec be discouraged. You might Google the Cleveland Clinic and see if you can find out more about how they measure or record

See interviews for Cleveland Clinic with Dr Jay Albert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJoTYLrm1Ak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRGCW...4ACB52FC8DB30E

Similar study done by layperson like us starting with standard neuro tests and timing, then work out, then you have some results to be noted. This guy shows a clear improvement after one vigorous workout to his neuro testing times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-nRQmO8ko

This is how problems get solved. Novel approaches.

I recently hurt my hip trying to get off sinemet and went thru PT to help strengthen things and noticed a large improvement in gait and station by making myself stronger. This is a use it or lose it process. But tinkering with the fine adjustments might make it possible as you suggest to allow lesser able people to make things better for themselves.

Be careful! I'll be interested to hear how you fare. BTW I recently was diagnosed after 10 years as NOT having PD but perhaps sinemet induced PD or a mimic of PD. Might this be a means by which to separate those misdiagnosed? It's very interesting to hear that some people are very negatively impacted. I think it also goes to show that there are probably more than one type of PD and hence should be many types of treatments not just a standard l-dopa & agonist treatment. I still think there are many misdiagnosed that could be living normal lives. It doesn't take a doctor to come up with the solution. I asked many years ago about several things that were coincidental about my diagnosis and was dismissed out of hand. Now I find many of my questions are now proving to have been spot on. The docs need to be looking more to the patients not the other way around.

This goes with Paula_w's post of a Ted Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_debron...ient_dave.html of patient based treatment. This always made more sense to me.