Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Do We Overcomplicate or Oversimplify Biomechanics.

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Robertisaacs, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    Newtons law applies to every GRF with or without an orthotic or other modification. It applies to hydro-dynamic tech as well. How does Newton support tradittional tech?

    BTW--It isn't that I need to update--I've added by imcresing the surface area and reducing the force per unit area and also the fact at midstance, the area under the tarsus reaches an equilibrium state of stability--I know you know what that means.
     
  2. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

     
  3. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    Of course data can change, because the pt may not move exactly the same way, but the force amplification and proportionate peak pressures should be nearly the same and consistent. Then you can look at loading time and foot contact to the surface time and see what the differences are.

    As for the different surfaces, here again the intrinsic function should be nearly the same. Only the forces may change. If you take a pulley to pull up 1 ton, the mechanics is the same if the same pulley has to pull up 2 tons, yes/no? Only the force and time it takes is what changes, it takes the same mechanics to pull the wt.
     
  4. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    I finally see someone recognizes the minimal motion of body planes--very good, this is what I'm talking about when I say kinematics doesn't have a place in the foot, because the motion is so small. I compare this to vsion correction by diopters. To change the ROM of the MTJ that affects all 3 planes of motion can take as little as .2 mg of fluid--I wonder if there is some kind of laser measurement that could see that?
     
  5. Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam... The reason no-one engages on Podiatry Arena anymore? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dennis Kipper. Here for one reason, here to try to sell a product.... Spam, spam, spam, spam... spam, spam, spam, spam.... Spam, spam, spam, spam........
     
  6. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    Since when is talking about a scientific technology spam?
    The questions and complications of traditional tech hasn't changed in all these years. Karl Landorf wrote an article in JAPA , stated in 2006, “there is still a lack of scientific evidence that is of suitable quality to fully inform clinical practice” . This holds true, still today, predicated on current standards in practice.

    The reason Simon and those who make their money writing books, lecturing and etc are so afraid is because they would become relics. Posting how the profession needs to improve their modus operendus is not possible with a technology that doesn't work as well as it should.

    If the profession really wants to do well for their pts and their families, they should think about looking at something different. There's nothing to buy from me.
    The fact is that Simon and those who fear better technology don't even want to discuss or challenge this, because they can't get over that they were not the ones to come up with it, they don't know how it works and this is what makes them so afraid.
     
  7. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    Maybe those who don't engage anymore are tired of hearing the same old same old--that gets you no where.
     
  8. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    How good would it be for you if you could confidently fit someone and start to get the results you want? (provided the technology fits the 70-80% of the foot types out there)
    The flat feet and anomalies are still the biggest problem, but being able to be successful with the rest--once the population recognizes that podiatry is working with a scientific technology that works and is a health benefit to wear, rather than just fit symptoms and injuries. Your offices would be filled to capacity if they could be confident in you.

    Simon keeps accusing me of "selling"--I'm the messenger.
     
  9. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    I believe the motion may be so small because the measurements are carried out on a gait lab floor. That surface is, in itself, restricting normal AJC motion. This may be obvious to a 5 year-old, but less obvious to a Podiatrist or Podiatry student who has already observed that if you want to study gait you go to a gait lab (and therefore by inference hard, horizontal surfaces are our natural supporting habitat).
     
  10. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    I disagree that the motion is so small because of the limitation on a lab floor.
    I do think that there is a greater limitation as you say because of that (the uniformity of the plane is more limiting-yes I think so too) but the add'l motion that comes from say grass would add a minor minor (a fraction of a degree –empirical) difference in my opinion. With HD tech, the fluid moves to the “area of least resistance and greatest need”-that's the way I learned it. So the fluid would correspondingly move in reaction to that force.

    The motion itself is such that pronation is a collapsing (don't take this literall—just describing) on all 3 planes, but it is also rolling medially and anteriorily. In most all cases I have found that navicular drop is abot 1/4” or roughly 8-9mm.The fluid throughout stance only move about 1/4" back and forth.
     
  11. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    We have a point of agreement, at which I'll leave the discussion.

    Dr Kiper, thank you for your opinions.

    Regards,

    David
     
  12. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Yeah know how you feel David H :rolleyes:
    Anyway, to get back to Robert's OP - I was writing what you might call a sermon thie week and, with 'over complicating' in the back of my mind, it revealed something interesting about myself that I had not fully noted before. Some would write this preach as a teacher but I write it as an investigator - what I love to do is delve into the mystery - untangle it and pull out a thread with a logical progression from premise to conclusion, and that is what I present. I present my findings but I don't teach.
    I think a teacher will take the most significant points and connect them in a useful and interesting way but not necessarily having a fully cogent progression. What the teacher desires is useful understanding, for instance no-one truly understand what gravity is but the teacher can convey a useful understanding of how to understand and use the gravity we experience. A teacher will use their own authority to carry the assumptions, ommisions and gaps whereas the investigator will use logic as their authority. If there are assumptions, ommisions and gaps in the story then this is a loss of authority for the investigator and it needs to be recovered. How is this done, dig into the mystery and detail and unravel the finer point until there is a coherent logical progression - no gaps. This is complication, which is not necessarily or entirely useful and can be boring and offputting (so watch out for that)
    It not a constant tho, sometimes we are teachers, sometimes we are investigators and sometimes we are pupils and sometimes we're just the git that doesn't give a monkey's. Sometimes we want to make a useful point, sometimes we want to really drill down and get to the bottom of it, sometimes we just want to learn something useful and sometimes we just want to enjoy our beer and not have to worry about how it was made how it got there and what its doing to my brain. I drink, I get drunk, No problem - until it is a problem and then I might investigate.
    Am I making sense or just getting too complicated (that's what I do you know) Cheers Robert :confused:
     
  13. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    David

    You never answered my question about how Newton supports traditional orthotic technology??

    Are there any other principles of physics that supports it?

    Why is it that the luminaries at this site don't want to inquire as a scientist should? All the talk by Kirby to improve the profession and do the best for patients,

    The questions and answers (and inability) at PA haven't changed in 8 years. It never will change, it can't change unless the profession looks within itself.
     
  14. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Hi Dennis
    I would be interested to hear your views on the importance of the " initial windlass phase of gait " . See ref below

    Also , did I read somewhere that you feel the foot should be viewed as a solely mechanical structure and not as a biological structure ?
    Ref
    Windlass mechanisms - plural - and diabetes - Biomch-L

    https://biomch-l.isbweb.org/threads/31054-Windlass-mechanisms-plural-and-diabetes
    2 Mar 2018 - 8 posts - ‎1 author
    Post 1 So during the gait cycle the windlass mechanism is engaged and reversed twice . Going from heel strike to heel strike we have windlass ...
     
  15. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    I believe I said, I see the foot structure, its components and function as a mechanical object first, its effect on living tissue second.

    The structure and the dynamic mechanics of the foot is a functional matter.
    Mechanical efficiency will have its effect on living tissue.

    As for the mechanical foot, it has been established, increasing joint axial congruity, increases lever arm efficiency. Joint stability is determined by anatomical/mechanical factors. The issue between all technologies becomes by definition the “best fit”-congruency or an open-pack or a loose packed position, where joint play can occur”.

    The WM will also function more efficiently in its mechanical operation. This goes back to other parts of the thread that talks about ROM. The technology to measure this motion is not available (that I'm aware of).

    Systems like Tekscan can give us the data to increase accurate interpretation
    of bio-mechanical function which leads to a higher predictability of outcome.
     
  16. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Dennis

    Any mechanical system can be analysed in terms of Newtons laws. Mechanics is the study and analysis of Forces and motion, in this gravitational reference frame that we live in Newtons laws perfecty describe the actions caused by force. Newtons laws are what every physicist, engineer and biomechanicst uses to analyse forces and motion. If we assume the body is a mechanism, which clarly it is - hence biomechanics, then we can analyse its actions and reactions, internal and external forces, moments, stresses and strains using Newtons Laws. Therefore we can also understand by using Newtons laws how some external agent acting on the body (the foot in this case) will cause changes to those aformentioned parameter in the mechanism of interest.
    What we cannot know for sure is how the control mechanism will respond to mechanical changes ie the CNS - neuro-muscular output response to a mechanical input. In a nutshell - How's that?? Any engineer - biomechanist worth their salt would understand that - You have my permission to cut and paste this into your blogs and advertising so that you sound like you kmow what your talking about. I've noticed you've done that before :rolleyes:
     
  17. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Yes , what David just said .
     
  18. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Actually , on Root theory , my understanding is that this system considers foot biomechanics but does not factor in the intrinsic muscles of the foot ( plantar or dorsal ) or the Windlass mechanisms .

    In view of a swathe of recent clinical evidence , surely that means the theory is seriously out of date ?

    Its not just "Mechanical efficiency will have its effect on living tissue" but also - living tissue will have its effect on mechanical efficiency - through neural control .
     
  19. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    Any mechanical system can be analysed in terms of Newtons laws.

    Agreed, so that is the strength of the science behind traditional orthotic technology?


    If we assume the body is a mechanism, which clarly it is - hence biomechanics, then we can analyse its actions and reactions, internal and external forces, moments, stresses and strains using Newtons Laws. Therefore we can also understand by using Newtons laws how some external agent acting on the body (the foot in this case) will cause changes to those aformentioned parameter in the mechanism of interest.


    So why is it that the data we get from systems like Tekscan are unreliable, inconsistent and inaccurate for traditional technology? Why is it that the avg podiatrist finds Kirby's teachings of engineering and physics so confusing? Why is it that the results of orthotic treatment have been inconsistent? why is it that comparisons of clinical test between Rx and generic/pre/fab orthotics are about the same in medical performance and mechanical factors that alter plantar pressures?
    Why is there so much discrepancy between different practitioners in trying to quantify biomechanical values for the same pt? Why are there so many unanswered questions?



    You have my permission to cut and paste this into your blogs and advertising so that you sound like you kmow what your talking about. I've noticed you've done that before

    My site has been on the web since the early 90's, long before your posts. My question is what about all you said supports your traditional technology?




    Its not just "Mechanical efficiency will have its effect on living tissue" but also - living tissue will have its effect on mechanical efficiency - through neural control .

    If neural control has an effect (dominant effect) on ME, then this would result in an anomalie. As I've stated before, my references are for the majority of foot types, anomalies aside.

    This is about efficacy in technology.
     
  20. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Hi Dennis
    I do not think that the idea of providing a tailored ,fluid arch support is without merit since in my opinion it will likely reduce work partitioning in the underlying musculature when compared to other types of arch support . (see ref below )

    You said
    " If neural control has an effect (dominant effect) on ME, then this would result in an anomalie. "

    Its not about dominant , it's about significant . If you accept that the initial windlass phase of gait exists ,and I believe you must , then you must also accept that it significantly reduces the stresses on the plantar tissues of the foot with every step .

    Root theory does not recognize significant aspects of foot function and is therefore outdated .

    Ref . (note see post #6 in particular )

    Plantar venous plexus and the intrinsic muscles of the foot ...

    https://podiatryarena.com › Forums › General › Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses18 Dec 2015 - Some time ago I placed a few posts on a site run by OESH shoes . The posts have since been deleted and I still have no answers to the
     
  21. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis,
    If you are going to criticize "traditional orthotic therapy" you should explain what you think that is. Do you think Kevin Kirby practices traditional orthotic therapy? Your comments about podiatrists not understanding what Kevin has been teaching are just wrong. I've had the pleasure of teaching those concepts to podiatry studnets and they understood those ideas quite well. You apparently do not understand what you criticize. You have confused the term moment by taking the "a point in time" definition, instead of the "torque" definition that engineers use.

    In your sales pitches you have made many claims. Most of those claims are just word salad. How does any orthotic improve mechanical efficiency? What is the definition of mechanical efficiency?

    An example of word salad from post 55
    "As for the mechanical foot, it has been established, increasing joint axial congruity, increases lever arm efficiency. Joint stability is determined by anatomical/mechanical factors. The issue between all technologies becomes by definition the “best fit”-congruency or an open-pack or a loose packed position, where joint play can occur”."

    As for your questions about techscan an orthoses. Do you think you should put the techscan sensor on top of, or underneath the traditional orthotic if you wanted to compare the traditional orthotic to the silcon bag orthotic? The stuff you posted in the past appeared to have the rigid orthotic on top of the sensor. This is wrong if you wanted to compare the effects of the orthotic on the foot.

    It's not that we don't want to engage. It's we've been there, done that. We said why we disagreed with you and you never acknowledged the criticism. If you want us to engage, don't just say our tecknology is bad, explain why you think it is bad.

    I'm probably just wasting my time. It's hard to get someone to understand something when his paycheck is dependent on him not understanding it.

    As for your claim that you are not trying sell anything. Bull feathers. Have you sold off your interest in the silicon bag orthtoic? What is this technology that you have been talking about in the last few posts.
     
  22. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    As a professional of the healing arts, your'e all an embarrassment to me.
     
  23. Wow. Just fucking wow. Like I said: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam , spam, spam, spam, spam, spam ,spam.... And so it came to pass that absolutely no-one of any integrity bothered to engage on Podiatry Arena because the snake oil salesmen were left to run amok, unchecked.... until the last people that cared just stopped caring anymore and stopped writing on there anymore. The website was heard to rattle out one last cough and then it was gone, forever lost. Everything has it's time and everything dies. Everything has it's time and everything dies. Everything has it's time and everything dies. Podiatry Arena is forever lost.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2018
  24. As a professional who greatly appreciates the English language, Dennis Kiper, your use of the English language is an embarrassment to me.

    The proper contraction for "you are" is not "your'e", but is "you're".
     
  25. For all of those following along (I have not been paying much attention to Dennis Kiper since he is nothing more than a salesman for his silicone-filled plastic bags) there is a bit of history here on Podiatry Arena with people like Dennis Kiper.

    Over the past 10+ years of Podiatry Arena, we have other people like Dennis Kiper, including Dennis Shavelson, Ed Glaser and Brian Rothbart come here on Podiatry Arena and then try convince us that their products/techniques are the best in the world by making various ridiculous statements. They fabricate technical-sounding mumbo-jumbo about how their product and/or technique is better than what most of the thought-leaders in foot orthosis therapy do or use, but never, ever, offer any research evidence to back up their outrageous claims.

    If you want to read more about why Dennis Kiper comes on here to Podiatry Arena, just go to his website where he sells his plastic bags filled with silicone gel which he calle "Silicone Dynamic Orthotics" at[​IMG] http://www.drkiper.com/

    Dennis Kiper is motivated only by trying to sell more of his product. He is not motivated by doing research, publishing in peer-reviewed journals or making an effort to do anything that actually would gain him respect within the podiatry profession.

    Like Dr. Spooner said, spam, spam and more spam. This is why I spend less time on Podiatry Arena. Life is just too valuable to be spending time trying to discuss with a salesman why his product is just a bunch of bull manure.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 16, 2018
  26. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    I wasn’t going to respond to this thread… albeit, it was frustrating reading Kiper’s contributions (however, it was his post at #62 that did it for me). As stated earlier by others… been there, done that with Kiper… i.e. on a thread called “More 'snake oil' as orthotics”… as well as via hours of verbal communication (via Viber) & thousands of words via email, due to the testing of the Silicone Dynamic Orthotics (SDO – the product Kiper is peddling). I was warned against doing so… but I like to sus things out for myself… & @#$%, it was one of the most frustrating periods of my life… due to the following issues i.e....

    Firstly, I gave Kiper the benefit of the doubt - I was sincere... patient & tolerant. Sincere in wanting to know what he was on about & what the SDO was like (i.e. how it performed)… patient with his poor grammar, spelling mistakes & inability to express himself clearly & to grasp simple concepts... & tolerant of his condescending, ignorant & arrogant conduct. I gave him a chance to prove his point, his views, the “fluid technology” within the context of Podiatry orthotic therapy, the effectiveness of the SDO... he failed on all accounts…

    - Kiper doesn’t express himself well, hence making it extremely difficult for effective dialogue, especially written dialogue (i.e. explaining the concept he wishes to convey… which is subsequently complicated via the following points)…

    - Kiper doesn’t write clearly i.e. use appropriate grammar & his spelling is atrocious (yes, we all make the occasional grammar/spelling mistake – but with Kiper, it was habitual/frequent)… & thus frustrating to read. Admittedly, one (at least, I) starts to question the intelligence (education level) behind such traits (which was one of many red flags to appear).

    - Kiper confuses the science with reality (particularly within a Podiatric biomechanical context) i.e. the SDO product does not support the intended science in action/function (it does not reproduce his desired results/intentions) - the SDO fails in effectively carrying out conducive hydrodynamic (or as Kiper sometimes calls it – “fluid technology”) effect for optimal foot/lower limb biomechanics (i.e. fails to effectively address adverse forces… & in fact, helps to contribute to potentially adverse forces/moments).

    - He has an antiquated view of biomechanics… ignorant of later developed concepts… ignorant of such phrases i.e. supination resistance force (hence, making it difficult to explain biomechanical concepts associated with the issues at hand)… that being, the numerous failings of the SDO product.

    - He is bias towards the principles of hydrodynamics (“fluid technology”) within orthotic therapy (along with being closed-minded & dismissive towards anything else).

    - He has a poor understanding (antiquated view) of Podiatry based orthotic therapy i.e. addressing adverse forces (e.g. pronatory moments) & promoting better function (e.g. initiating Windlass effect/mechanism)… of which the SDO fails to achieve. He has (evidently) been unsuccessful in this (traditional orthotic) therapy… & thus because he has failed at this, he now rubbishes it & anybody who uses traditional orthotic therapy.

    - With the above point in mind… Kipper has a habitual condescending & arrogant attitude towards anyone who doesn’t agrees with him (as seen in virtually all contributions on this forum)… i.e.... all whilst Kiper perceived I was accepting his point of view, all was amicable; then the more I provided evidence that the SDO was failing to achieve optimal biomechanical value, failing to support his wishful views… the vile attitude resurfaced (narky & condescending).

    Red flags started appearing from the get-go when attempting to get hold of the SDO. After paying for the device, it then took over 4 months to get them (over 4 months!). He apparently had problems with his supplier (no doubt burning that bridge as well – they likely got tired of his foul attitude). As suspected (with my initial perceived assessment on the “snake oil” thread), problems with the SDO was soon apparent when I started wearing them in day to day activities & training (running) with them.

    The above is an outline of the problems I experienced. Stop here by all means. Following is a more detailed description based on (personal) testing the SDO device & subsequent interactions with Dennis Kiper via talk & something around 25-30,000 word email exchange… of which the following is a summary. There are photos & videos of the SDO in action i.e. with a force/pressure mat (not ideal, but that’s what I had at the time) & with varying patients (of which I’m not going to bother to post here).

    Kipper keeps on harping on about the "science" (the “technology”, the “hydrodynamics”)… keeps on carrying on about being a "scientist" – yet, he abuses such terms with poor reasoning & understanding. He throws around such terms like catch phrases... hoping that someone might actually be impressed & believe him & the validity of his product... & that the SDO could be seen as something that it isn't - a valid orthotic product.

    Kiper contradicts himself frequently... he twists his agenda (narrow-minded paradigm) to suit the evidence... then twist it again when the evidence shows something different i.e. the lack of SDO "support" evident on the scans pertaining to e.g. the forefoot (Met. head) loading pressures (i.e. higher SDO pressure readings compared to my [traditional type] orthotics). He later states that… “Orthotic therapy to me takes 6-10 years (2--5 Rx changes)… to a pain free state or considerable relief” (how convenient, does anybody else here expect such time periods for pathology relief – let alone patients). I questioned the durability of the SDO on Podiatry Arena… of which he stated there wasn’t a problem with breakage/leakage of fluid (i.e. they were durable)… but in emails he states that (& I quote)… “One of the biggest nuances of this orthotic is breakage”. He stated (or at least alludes) that the SDO device is for everyone; apparently the ultimate “technology” within orthotic therapy (& that traditional orthotics are useless)… but when I tested them on some of my patients (& was clearly shown to be ineffective), Kiper states that they were unsuitable for them - I apparently tested his endorsed SDO product on the “wrong feet” (how careless of me). I see that he has now changed his tune on the degree of suitability of the SDO device – this apparent optimal form of (& I quote)… “technology” is suitable for “70-80% of the foot types out there” (which in my view is still a gross exaggeration)… & that (quote from post #48)… “The flat feet and anomalies are still the biggest problem”. Oh dear, how inconvenient… particularly in the field of Podiatry!

    Kiper states that it's all about the "technology", the “science”… he means the concept/physics associated with hydrodynamics - the displacement of fluid from area of greatest pressure to area of least resistance i.e. arch/MLA support at midstance to then address pronation/MLA lowering. Kiper states that the SDO… “stabilize the MTJ, the RF and FF - simultaneously at midstance” &… that the SDO "hydrodynamically balance the GRF"… to achieve what he wishes to see as “dynamic structural congruity”. This may potentially happen on a flat/even & hard surface, whilst standing still or walking in a straight line (putting “dynamic structural congruity” aside)… with someone with reasonably optimal foot posture/mechanics (of which, one normally wouldn’t require orthotics). However, this fluid/hydrodynamic effect is influenced by (potential adverse) internal & external forces (i.e. varying lengths of pronation moment arm: the longer of which -> more medial deviated STJ axis ->more medial GRFs) of which the SDO was seen not to adequately address i.e. provide adequate supination moment to resupinate the foot (to that supposed “equilibrium”/"structural congruity” he frequently harps on about) to thus dampen pathological forces. Also, SDO fluid was noted being dispersed/displaced from an area where greater “support” was ideally required... due to the influence of greater (adverse) internal &/or external forces (i.e. fluid displaced laterally, creating a pronatory moment) – this contributes to an unstable (fluid) medium & thus contributes to instability (& no doubt poor muscle function/activation, amongst other issues). Then there are the external forces (i.e. surface gradient/surface camber) acting on the SDO, whereby not consistently providing adequate control/“support” of foot mechanics & subsequent forces contributing to a variety of potential pathologies (of which the SDO could potentially further contribute to – due to the instability of the fluid medium on certain surfaces i.e. wouldn’t want to wear the SDO on uneven terrain).

    As suspected, the initial queries I raised in that P.A (Snake Oil) thread were valid. That being the nature of the “Hydrodynamic pressure” within the SDO… particularly those patients exhibiting a higher supination resistance force i.e. those with a high degree of out-phase (prolonged) pronation (everted foot). I notice when I (intentionally) pronate my foot the fluid displacement (via “hydrodynamic pressure”) transfers to the lateral side of the SDO (thus lateral border of foot) subsequently providing a pronatory moment... not an ideal situation I would think for many of our patients (who fall in this category i.e. requiring a decent amount of supinatory force/moment from a device to address associated pathology i.e. plantar fascia, Tib. Post. stress, MTSS etc.).

    When testing the SDO whilst training/running I found that the SDO delayed the appropriate activation/establishment of the windlass mechanism… particularly with the left foot (likely due to the left SDO having more (fluid) volume in it & extending beyond the first met head). I felt my 1st ray frequently being dorsiflexed & foot sliding on the device. I also noted instability on the SDO particularly on irregular ground (i.e. grass, trail running; in fact any uneven terrain)… the fluid would sometimes be pushed too far laterally thereby creating a pronatory moment (not what I want). Instability was also noted going around corners. Basically, the SDO was acting inefficiently… not providing optimal economical function (i.e. foot sliding on the device; delayed activation of the Windlass)… not to mention, being quite heavy… the SDO weighed in at around 118 – 120 grams each [236 – 240g] (compared to my custom orthotics at 70 grams each [140g]).

    Thus, the SDO does not have the mechanical ability to address such adverse forces Podiatrists commonly see in their clinic which are contributing to pathology. The SDO exhibits insufficient external STJ supination moments via an unstable orthotic/plantar foot interface (due to impressionable moving fluid) to overcome any degree of excessive & prolonged magnitudes of STJ pronation moments… whether that be internal (i.e. medial deviated STJ axis) &/or external (i.e. shoe &/or terrain camber everting foot). Hence the science (Hydrodynamic pressure/fluid mechanics) is valid… but that doesn’t mean this product (SDO) is valid… particularly within the practical/real world… within a podiatry/clinical setting… within orthotic therapy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2018
  27. g-lo1

    g-lo1 Member

    Can anyone recommend online course where can go through clinical biomechanical assessments, why we do them, what we are testing for. Using your gathered results to complete a customised orthotic prescription form? Prefer linking the lab work of the cast with what is stipulated on the prescription form :confused:
    Much appreciated
     
  28. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Hi Dr Danaberg
    Once again you have marked one of my posts (this time as funny ,previously as dumb ) but do not elaborate . What about post #60 amuses you ? I feel as if I am being shouted at by a small boy from across the road , who runs away when challenged .

    You don't think there is an " initial windlass phase in gait " ? You don't understand the concept of work partitioning ?

    What's funny Howard ?
     
  29. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Did a little digging Howard .It's the "initial windlass phase of gait " isn't it ? And you think an emoji will put that back in the bottle ?
    Not a hope .
     
  30. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Active Member

    Matt,

    When you described how you could feel the transference of fluid under your lateral arch, you described or better paraphrased my description of the hydro-dynamics in my article in pod today. I laughed and said you didn't feel it that way, that was your imagination and you got angry like a little boy caught in a lie and reacted, telling me I was calling you a liar. I wasn't calling you a liar, I simply said you can't feel the lateral movement, because the movement is like filling up an upside down bath tub. the fluid moves under the foot only about a 1/4” (back and forth and up under the apex of the POM about another 1/4”==I've been wearing and doing this a long time and thousands of runners and assorted others. I know what it feels like, did you need to double down like trump?. I also expressed that there could be some lateral instability in sharp R hand turns. That's just something you warn roofers, fireman, basketball players and tennis players.
    Just don't do thpose activities in SDOs. So, instead of looking at the negative—recognize the positive.


    What you didn't do (and the rest of PA) is ask how the displacement affects the bio-mechanics during the pronatory/supinatory cycle –--the biomechanics you and everyone else knows is based on theory—
    that's why you ask about the windless mechanism instead of motion, momentum and forces--been there, done that. Supination resistance force, you think I don't know what that is? I just have to read the words, and I know all there is to know. It's part of your tech/theory, not HD technology. You and the rest are over 25 years behind me.

    Neither you nor anyone in PA knew what to ask, because you really don't know what you're looking for to let you know that you're in charge of the pt's biomechanics (that fits this technology) otherwise its a guessing game with traditional technology. The answers lie with a science based technology—and the scans confirm the principles of physics that lie in the data. You can't or won't see it, I got frustrated that you act like I haven't proven anything. I don't have to prove it, the science says its so! But I've always been willing to venture a clinical trial anywhere in the world-technology allows that.

    You said hydrdynamics is a valid science—doesn't mean it's a valid orthotic?--and you questioned my level of education??

    Any true level of education if they recognized the science at all, should then enquire about the POSSIBILITY?

    If I'm an embarrasement to you for my language and petty typos and misspekkings, you remain an embarresement to me as a scientist and foot specialist. In biomechanics you're an amateur.--normally I would fix all those errors—why shoukld I?

    And to you dear Mr Spooner—it's not spam spam spam, it's theory conjecture unreliable inconsistent inaccurate theory conjecture unreliable inconsistent inaccurate theory conjecture unreliable inconsistent inaccurate
     
  31. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    I see you still continue with your lies & deception Kiper. I remember your conduct on the “snake oil” thread about 3 years ago (which first introduced me to your rubbish); you were noted for spreading rumours/lies about someone else who tested your product, in a lame attempt to try & discredit someone who didn’t agree with your views or product. With this in mind, I thought it be a good idea that I copy every written exchange we had (via email)… so I have all the evidence at hand. Naturally I didn’t record the hours of verbal conversation we had over Viber… but there you seemed to come across as a more reasonable individual.

    The above is another lie, it didn’t take place at all Kiper, verbally or in written form. I think your subconscious is projecting your own feelings/character (i.e. angry little boy syndrome). Remember, I have nothing to lose on this issue… I really couldn’t care less either way if your product is valid or not (in fact, I was more hoping it would be a valid consideration)… hence, there is no reason for me to get “angry” on such. What does annoy me (& other people on this forum) however is your conduct (delusion, lies, condescending attitude etc…). The fact is, the product you’re peddling (the SDO) is not valid… I tested it out on myself & on various patients… of which, reconfirmed my initial thoughts (& those of others) that the SDO is rubbish… it is invalid as a legitimate form of orthotic therapy because it doesn’t adequately (if at all) address the pathological forces behind the patient’s condition… & quite possibly encourage adverse pathological forces in some patients.

    You (& others) want to know what you said with regard to the topic pertaining to the lateral displacement of fluid under the lateral column issue? Well, I did a word search of the word doc files of our email exchange (of about 22000 words). Firstly, I did a word search for the words “lie”, “liar” & “angry” (as per your above account) – nothing showed up (oh dear). Then I did a word search for the word “lateral” & the following came up in relation to the subject matter (i.e. lateral fluid displacement)…

    - Kiper quote (1): //You stimulated my thoughts today, re when were talking about pronatory force—displacing laterally (while it does do that if overcorrected). I think I said pron force is not that strong and I pointed to the combined force of the lat col-rf and ff being greater than the forces under the mtj.--the grf as measured would indicate to me that this goes to the issue of congruety.\\

    Whoops… vastly different to the B.S you tried to spin above (in post #70).

    Then there’s this one… pertaining to the same topic regarding lateral fluid displacement potentially creating an adverse pronatory moment…

    - Kiper quote (2): // Yes, this is essentially true but, this really only applies to this med dev t, an over correct of fluid --unless excessive is a nuance and easily corrected. --pts say it just feels like they are “sloshing” I specifically warn in my instructions, which I've attached against running until the Rx is correct, just to avoid any incidents.\\

    Whoop again. Then there is the following gem... just another lame attempt to worm yourself away from an inconvenient truth…

    - Kiper quote (3): //. those pronatory forces can also be significant in some individuals. As you say, if there is greater fluid in the SDO for their specs, then this would lead to greater potential for the fluid to disperse laterally (hence providing a potentially adverse pronatory moment)\\

    Well, there you have it Kiper… more of your lies (& contradictions) exposed!

    The fact is… I (& most of my patients) do not want any potential pronatory moments under the lateral column (i.e. Calcaneocuboid joint) where the space/height is much lower & thus potentially influenced by the fluid/gel of the SDO. Most of my patients need support (supinatory moment) under the opposite side of the foot – the MLA – the Talonavicular region… of which the SDO does not have the mechanical properties of supplying… as well as the SDO not even being able to reach the underside of the MLA to have any impact. In those cases where the SDO can meet the underside of the (lower) MLA/Talonavicular region, then these patients usually display a high supination resistance force (i.e. from having a medial deviated STJ axis), in which case the force is far stronger than the supination moment potential of the SDO (as shown in following photos)…

    1. The SDO side view... yes, there are (generic) gel pillows in there (I should dissect the things)…
    [​IMG]

    2. Patient X (new patient with Tib. Post. tendinosis) - one of the patients I tested…
    [​IMG]

    3. Patient X… symptomatic with (previously prescribed) orthotic (hence visit to clinic)…
    [​IMG]

    4. Patient X with my prescribed orthotic (symptoms resolved within 2 weeks)…
    [​IMG]

    5. Patient X on SDO… if symptoms were present with previously prescribed (image 3) orthotics, how would the condition fair on the SDO… there is virtually no change of foot posture in relation to image 2 (barefoot)… [​IMG]

    … & please don’t tell me again that I tested your endorsed product on the wrong feet!

    I’m not going to bother providing a reasoned explanation to the above arrogant bullcrap Kiper. It has been done – numerous times… it is just you don’t like the answers… you don’t like the empirical evidence staring you in the face… you expect others to be as delusional (& bias) as you are & also be blinded by the same empirical evidence… which should be glaringly obvious to anybody who is non-bias & exercising half a brain. Those bloody generic gel pillows of yours do not address the varying adverse forces contributing to a myriad of conditions we face day to day within out Podiatry clinics… & they do not hold the foot in some kind of joint congruent state you keep on harping on about… the gel medium is too bloody unstable – period!

    “Enquire about the POSSIBILITY?” That’s what I bloody did Kiper – I enquired about the POSSIBILITY! It started in that “Snake oil” thread over 3 years ago. It then progressed to me purchasing the (SDO) product from you. It took you over 4 months to get the bloody product to me. I tested it on myself. I tested it on my patients. I did force mat tests, took pictures & videos of the SDO performance (of which took hours to collate). All of which showed that it wasn’t performing in the way you kept harping on about. I sent the image & video files to you… on at least 2 – 3 occasions because you were unable to do a basic thing – click on a bloody link & open them up (how long did that take to sort out?). When we were eventually able to assess the images & videos together & discuss via Viber or email, you were unable to explain the inconsistencies of the SDO performance… you kept providing lame excuses (i.e. SDO was not placed on foot properly; I tested them on the wrong feet); trying to worm out away from inconvenient truths (i.e. high-pressure points at Met. Heads or CoP line indicating excess out-phase pronation not being addressed). I spent many hours enquiring “about the POSSIBILITY”… far more than I should have. Hours in verbal & written dialogue… many times helping you out with tips to make it easier for you (i.e. advising for you to increase the font size so you can see better)… things I shouldn’t have to do (for the supposed intellect you claim to be). It was time consuming… & it was bloody frustrating. But you had the audacity to get frustrated at me & start getting condescending & narky because I refused to see something that just was not happening… I refused to fall in line with your narrow minded (& deluded) world view. Oh the @#$%^ irony of it all!

    Oh, the irony of the above as well! In fact, it’s really quite funny (i.e. you even spelt *misspelling* wrong [as well as *embarrassment*])… in fact it’s not funny – it’s quite sad. Anyway Kiper, let’s leave the… [sic] “language and petty typos and misspekkings” alone. You are an embarrassment on other more pertinent issues i.e. your poor reasoning skills; your poor understanding of basic biomechanics; your poor understanding of orthotic therapy; your inability to distinguish fact from fiction; your bias towards a product you have vested interest in; your attitude of dismissal & condescending allegations towards anybody or anything that violates your SDO world; your misrepresentation of science… subsequently, an embarrassment as a “scientist”… & an embarrassment as a Podiatrist. There, that’s to name several embarrassing traits… being that you intend on being the pretentious assclown who wants to pursue this direction of condescending allegations (i.e. post #62)!

    With the above in mind… you’re not worth the time Kiper… that is why nobody else can be bothered talking to you anymore… & when someone like myself does give you the time of day & tries to give you, your ideas & your product some respect… you treat them like crap… as stated in my last email, you’ve burnt your bridges Kiper (& little doubt, you’ll always will do).

    You might have better luck peddling your snake oil to those clowns who work on cruise ships… who sell innersoles to the gullible… after all, the “sloshing” (your term, not mine [see earlier cited quote i.e. #2]) effect from the SDO will surely get them in the mood for a sea journey…

    Good riddance!
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page