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. 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.

Is The Podiatry Arena a Positive Force For Biomechanics?

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by drsha, Dec 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. drsha

    drsha Banned


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    After days of silence, I wish to review The Arena from the 2004 wake-up call Dr Payne made when he observed the following:

    I am interspersing 2011 comments IMHO in Red:

    Foot orthoses outcomes and kinematic changes
    1. We all use various types of foot orthoses in clinical practice in an attempt to alter the pattern of rearfoot motion to "improve" biomechanics and make patients better.
    Still Do, for the most part.

    2. Numerous outcomes studies, patient satisfaction surveys (many with methodological flaws) and RCT's show patient do get better with foot orthoses that attempt to alter the pattern of rearfoot motion.
    So that calls for thinking out of the STJ Box IMHO

    3. The numerous kinematic studies (many with methodological flaws) are about evenly divided as to if foot orthoses do actually alter the pattern of rearfoot motion or not. Half show no differences in rearfoot kinematics and the other half show such small (but statistically significant) differences that the biological significance of those differences need to be questioned.

    That's because, as I continue to state IMHO, the rearfoot is not the location of the root of our problems and cures for most feet, functional foot type specific,
    Does anyone see the paradox here? What we do clinically works, but not by trying to do what we think we are doing (... as I tell the students - I used to know what I was doing)
    There is no paradox. For three years now, you just have allowed me to make foot typing a dirty word on The Arena and you will die before admitting any validity to my work rather than examine it or admit that it may solve some of biomechanics mysteries that you cannot solve.

    In an attempt to resolve this paradox, one of our projects this year measured patient symptoms (FHSQ) at issue of foot orthoses and at 4 weeks follow up. At issue of foot orthoses, rearfoot kinematics was also measured with and without the use of the foot orthoses. Guess what we found? ---- there was no correlation between changes in the pattern of rearfoot motion and symptom reduction
    So why have you continued to taut STJ Axis and the STJ and (whether you admit it or not) subtalar joint neutral casting position as the starting place for your engineering?
    What about changing the stiffness of your shells on a case to case basis seeking an Optimal Functional Position
    ?

    This is troubling as I have spent most of my professional life trying to alter patient's pattern of rearfoot motion .... they get better, but not because of the changes in rearfoot motion
    That is because you are accidentally or blindly and luckily vaulting the foot or correcting the sagital plane of the forefoot, FFT Specific, IMHO.

    What say you?

    I say that last year, as in previous years, you continue to laud yourselves and deface any outside input and the outcome is:
    1. You are great and the rest of us are abused and bullied.
    2. You have accomplished little, added little to high level evidence and cannot even resolve what an orthotic is (the dead "concensus project) for yet another year.
    3. You agree on virtually nothing but unite to piss on the competition and then slap each other five while the whole internet world is watching
    and worst of all,
    4. As valid clinicians, scientists and researchers you deserve to be listened to and you use that pulpit to provide a huge sludge and dampening to the free thought of biomechanics and those students who wish to study and expand it.

    IMHO, you remain clinically impotent and stagnant and Eric Fuller DPM remains limp for not accepting my challenge as an opportunity to move forward united and undeterred by the bullying and bias that festers on these pages.


    I bet 2012 will see a reversal of the anger, jealousy, petty sloth and close minded status of The Arena and I will be an invited guest at PFOLA or one of the meetings you control and attend.
    NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH


    and I take credit for being the only one with enough staying power here to have the right and the guts to say it.

    Happy New Year to All

    Dennis
     
  2. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Of course its a positive influence.
    It holds the makers of claims accountable.
    You have made claims. You constantly fail to answer questions about them (anyone can go back and read your threads to see that).
    you take critical appraisal of your claims as bullying and personal insults. Rather than answer the critiques or modify your claims, you attack back.

    As Paul Shearer said:
     
  3. Nah, its because its perfectly possible to alter internal kinetics without changing kinematics.

    Can't help you there slick. But I will say this. Last year I organised a debate between several rather excellent speakers on the relative merits of different orthotic production methods. Twas great fun. If I do another one like that, I'll do you an invite.

    Tissue stress, vs FFT vs classical Root. Assuming we could find someone to represent classical root of course* Could be fun.

    Or, you do it. Ed and Kevin have faced off in a few debates on Mass vs Tissue stress. I don't know who set those up or how. I'm sure you'd have no shortage of volunteers to stand across the ring from you on either side of the pond. If not, for that, I'd travel.
     
  4. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    All

    I had decided to leave Dr Sha alone on his own home ground at Present Podiatry but, since he has strayed here once again promoting his idiosyncratic ideas and chucking insults at everyone, have a look at one of his latest publications (masquerading as an academic paper) in an e book that he is promoting there.

    [​IMG]

    http://podiatry.com/etalk/The-Biomechanics-of-The-Diabetic-t4992.html

    Read it critically, you might think that never was so much rubbish compiled in on place since SITA UK opened Clifton Marsh land fill site, You may be surprised that this wasn't written by a teenager on Ritalin (can I say that, is it PC?) You might come to the conclusion that never has such an egotistic buffoon been left unbridled since Alan Partrige was let loose on TV, this is entirely a matter for you.



    Dave
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Stop beating around the bush dave, tell us what you REALLY think!
     
  6. DrPod

    DrPod Active Member

  7. After years of searching for the best mathematical description of the interrelationship between Dennis Shavelson, Podiatry Arena and a Positive Force for Biomechanics, I have finally discovered that it all comes down to a very simple and elegant mathematical equation:

    Podiatry Arena - Dennis Shavelson = Positive Force for Biomechanics
     
  8. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    The question should be does Dennis Shaveson present a positive force for biomechanics?

    To which I and I am certain may others would answer:

    374784_290240244361600_100001268807907_952309_262071546_n.jpg
     
  9. drsha

    drsha Banned

    The Arena faithful have cleverly diverted this thread with all of its posts from
    Is The Podiatry Arena a Positive Force for Biomechanics to
    Is Dennis Shavelson a Positive Force for Biomechanics

    I have selected Dave Smith's rant as the most extreme example of the bias, anger and dare I say it, prejudice that befalls those who don't tow the theoretical mantras of The Arena.

    The book David refers to is a medical textbook, 278 pages, edited by Thanh Dinh D.P.M., an academic podiatrist who holds titles which include Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School.

    It contains chapters from such podiatric greats as Arthur Helfand D.P.M., who published the results of his federal grant on Diabetes and The Aged, which has been adopted across the country by Nursing and Physician organizations.

    My chapter contains over 90 (ninety) references, including names like Kevin Kirby who
    is the champion of labeling those not in accord with his theories negative to The Arena.

    It has already been called "A Clear Protocol of Biomechanics that Medicine Can Follow".

    It contains 24 pages that include diagrams and tables that Mr. Smith wants you to believe reflects hundreds of hours of the biomechanics observations, experimentation and theorization he critiques as:
    "never was so much rubbish compiled in on place...You may be surprised that this wasn't written by a teenager on Ritalin...an egotistic buffoon".

    I maintain that the biomechanical witchhunt of The Arena, which admittedly challenges outsiders to the task as they should be challenged, stifles students and free thinkers in the field of biomechanics therefore creating negativity in the field.

    Could any of the posters (or others that are viewing it) please list the high level evidence they have come up with in 2011.
    Their failed research projects of 2011 that did not prove their point.
    The level to which they have actually inspected conflicting work and theories so as to conclude that there is nothing and I do mean nothing valid or important or worth investigating in it.

    So lets say I have self published three books that contain 20 + years of anecdotal and unproven biomechanical theory that come from the lab I consult for such as my subtalar joint axis theory that cannot be measured or applied clinically. Let's say Simon Spooner writes the openers for some of my work and lets say Paul Scherer, whose text I helped develop and write gets quoted about the "charlatans that lurk within the biomechanics community" every chance I get and lets say that my work is not accepted by most of those practicing lower extremity biomechanics and fabricating orthotics in the world.
    Lets say I have promoted myself as "The Angry Podiatrist" in the barefoot and other communities, lets say I'm edgy and probably have some personality flaws that even my supporters allude to frequently...
    Dennis Shavelson DPM, right!

    Glass Houses, Kettle Black!
    Casting Stones

    Can we get back on topic?
    As I have admitted I, Dennis Shavelson have observation, anecdote and outcomes equating to low level proof of my work, I am a Charlatan as my passion and faith outweighs my scientific, newtonian substance, I am profit motivated as I was born into a capitalistic society. But doesn't all of these facts hold true for most of you as well?
    and
    Proving Dennis Shavelson's work to not be very important should not be your judge of how The Arena is a Positive Force of Biomechanics.

    Can any one of you get back on topic.

    Is The Podiatry Arena a Positive Force for Biomechanics?

    Remember, the whole internet world is watching and judging!

    Dennis
     
  10. Ok
    Yes.
     
  11. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Dennis

    446 views, of your post on Present Podiatry, results in zero replies. Is this an indication of the complete lack of interest in navigating the link to your book chapter or is it that the content of your paper merits no worthwhile response?

    Dave

    Dave
     
  12. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Foot typing is not a dirty word. It's a paradigm that has one supporter. What little that has been written about was examined and found lacking. The inventor of the paradigm has been asked simple questions about it and has been unable to answer them. For example how is an orthotic altered for various foot types. What biomechanic mystery would like me to use to solve using tissue stress? I could make a comment about functional foot typing but that's bio-architecture and not biomechanics.



    Dennis, we have said that you can use any casting position and then apply engineering principles. We do alter shell stiffness.

    Dennis, one of the problems with FFT is the notion of an optimal functional position. I doubt you could even define the term. If you came up with a definition, I doubt you could explain why one position was better than another. If you get that far, then you could attempt to explain how foot typing relates to FFT. Finally how does an orthotic get the foot into its optimal functional position. The lack of answers to these questions is why we deride functional foot typing.

    Centering is just another word for arch support. The logic that you are presenting to us is that feet need arch supports. That might have some merit if you could explain why one foot type needs a different arch support from another foot type. You complain that we haven't examined your system. You haven't even finished your system. If you answered those questions then we can examine your system. From your past performance, I doubt that your explanations would make any sense.



    Dennis, I've seen your debating technique here on the arena. It's not pretty. When it's not bullying it's whiny. You got your fair evaluation and you failed to convince us there was anything to what you say.

    As for your challenge. The promise of you remaining silent for a period of time was too good to pass up. I had no problem swallowing my ego and taking one for the team so that we didn't have to hear you whine about how you aren't treated fairly on the arena. (Why do you keep coming back?) Besides, you aren't even on the schedule at the conference. Your side show would be in a hotel conference room with maybe 30 chairs. There will be maybe 15 people in the room when you start with a good percentage sitting by the door to make a quick exit should they find the presentation uninteresting. There might be a few that would stick around to the end of your presentation because they can't think critically and see that you have nothing to offer. I can see no reason why I should travel to New York when the extent of my contribution could be served by a rotating sign that on one side said FFT is an intellectual dead end and on the other side said Dennis, answer the question.

    Limply yours,

    Eric
     
  13. In the interests of accuracy, that's not actually true...
     
  14. drsha

    drsha Banned

    So Eric:

    I simply teach my students and those practitioners who wish to grow biomechanically to use any casting technique they wish?

    I suggest for 2012, you use MASS Casting for all your shells and then work your tissue stress magic.

    Dennis
     
  15. drsha

    drsha Banned

    [QUOTE As for your challenge.
    Your side show would be in a hotel conference room with maybe 30 chairs. There will be maybe 15 people in the room when you start with a good percentage sitting by the door to make a quick exit should they find the presentation uninteresting.
    There might be a few that would stick around to the end of your presentation because they can't think critically and see that you have nothing to offer.
    I can see no reason why I should travel to New York when the extent of my contribution could be served by a rotating sign that on one side said FFT is an intellectual dead end and on the other side said Dennis, answer the question.
    Limply yours,

    Eric[/QUOTE]

    Eric:
    Your ability to examine, evaluate and then appropriately critique my challenge gets a 0/5 as does your ability to examine functional foot typing and foot centering.

    You have not done any research and have no foundational knowledge in either case.

    You have not judged either "the great biomechanical challenge of 2012" venue or my work "fairly" as you state you have.
    You are too deep in your own prejudgements for me to discuss either rationally.

    There are two exhibit halls at The NYPMA Conference.
    One has a stage that is quite large. You could perform The Nutcracker on it.

    It holds 1-200 chairs and then SRO for another 100 or more, if filled.
    It is an open stage at the entire West end of the exhibit hall not a closed conference room of 30 chairs as you so incorrectly would have us believe.

    Although I agree with one aspect of your quote and that is that you would not have much more to offer in a clinical sense as we both examine the same patients beside holding up a rotating sign.
    However, I would suspect that armed with the swift and all knowing biomechanical sword that exists in your mind, you would relish blowing me out of the water once and for all clinically and in front of the world.

    I am supporting my organization (NYSPMA) to the tune of $6,000 by taking exclusive action to this area for the entire weekend and have offered you free access (I'm funding).

    We could even add a question and answer debate from the audience as an additional forum for the attendees.

    I am quite prepared to debate Tissue Stress, I think your ability to debate FFT is what your real reason for not accepting my academic challenge is but I can only assume as you offer B---LS---T for replies.

    Finally, once you have accepted my biomechanical challenge, promotion by all of us will fill the stands and make it a real biomechanical moment for the ages.

    "What have you got to lose"
    Crosby, Stills and Nash

    Dennis
     
  16. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Eric:
    Your ability to examine, evaluate and then appropriately critique my challenge gets a 0/5 as does your ability to examine functional foot typing and foot centering.
    [/QUOTE]

    Dennis, you only offer your opinion without backing it up with facts about my knowledge of FFT. I maintain that I know as much about it as you do. You could blow me out of the water by explaining how orthotics vary for each foot type.


    Dennis, I've read everything written on it. Are you hiding more of it so you can play I know something you don't. You probably haven't written it yet. So, do you have a manual for your lab techs to follow when they make an orthotic? You could blow me out of the water here too.


    So, I was wrong in the number of chairs that you'll be talking to. Send us a picture of the audience.


    You'd pay for my air fare and room? I might have come if you'd said that up front.

    Dennis, the arena is a much better forum for the debate. When you made the claim that the flight of birds had not been explained by physics, I just laughed. It's so easy to google and see a bunch of web sites that explain the physics behind the flight of birds. In a lecture room you could make all kinds of outlandish claims that could easily be disproved later but could not be done when you make them.

    By the way typing the foot is not providing a diagnosis.

    Eric
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page