adidas: BOOST; New midsole technology

You're right Dennis. I am afraid of stuff. Already thinking about my tee shot on the 1st at 8.30am tomorrow. Never been a fan of spiders. Haven't been able to watch Crimewatch on the BBC since they stopped saying "don't have nightmares" at the end. All genuine fears. However, all seem completely insignificant when I think of the way you practice. Literally terrifying!!

 

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven King
Aloha,

Ian,

Why are you stuck on foam ?

Mahalo,
Steve

Isn't it obvious? Stop sweating Gripsotite from your flesh- fool. Instead, start making everyone you know wear shoes with the entire sole unit made from carbon fiber, then add some more advanced composites (invented by Stevie Naivie King- he's a true sub-genius, the world just needs to catch up with him) in the form of an insole, get about 10mm of carbon fiber under the forefoot- don't **** about, you never know when someone is going to try to stab you in the bottom of your foot while your playing golf in the home counties.

 

J.R. Dobbs, those are excellent comments.:good:

I have a great idea, let's create a new website where Steven King, Dennis Kiper, Dennis Shavelson, Brian Rothbart and Ed Glaser are the only ones allowed to post questions to and answers from each other. They will not be able to respond to anyone else and not allowed to advertise any more new threads on other educational websites for medical professionals. In that way, they can battle each other over who can claim the title as having the "World's Best Orthotics".

The website will be called http://www.SubGeniusOrthoticPurgatory.com

 

JR,

I;m going to look at your picture (time period: “Leave It To Beaver”) and respond to the text and time warp in which it was conveyed (early 19th century)

Liquid filled insoles.

You missed a crucial word here Dodd. liquid filled technology, insoles, BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE, my insoles are calibrated (you can find this word in your 19th century books—don't even need to Google it) more closely to the repetitive individual dynamic bio-mechanical gait cycle.---------So, you'll understand I take exception to your BUFFOON version of a “liquid filled insole” as you presented it.

At only £27.99 including vat you can buy insoles which are "clinically proven to reduce peak pressure on the soles of the feet (the main cause of foot ulcers) by 21%." Don't buy these from Dennis Kiper as he charges an outrageous amount for his fluid insoles, if you go direct to the Chinese manufacturers you can get them wholesale for much less than £27.99 including VAT and you could then start selling them over the internet, just like Dennis does,

This made me laugh, because, this is exactly what anyone should expect in life. The difference is I'm backed by the science. In fact, regardless of “claims” made, the only orthotic technology backed by true principles of physics.

You know it, you don't like it, I can tell. Kirby is going to say, I'm “making it up”, but I can say anything I want if I know its backed by science.

Adidas, what do they know about designing running shoes? Stick with Steve "Naive" King, he knows far more about shoe design than a company full of people who've been in the game for years- he's your man, he invented modern composites you know. Nobody had ever made carbon fiber insoles before the boy "naive" came along, and nobody else but his company are making them to this day.

Why would I want to design “A” shoe design? I would like to add my technology which can be built and calibrated for very sedate pronation to high, high pronatory instability activities. (science tells me the proper Rx is the max volume of fluid I can get in (SPOONER'S ARCH CHAMBER) there to support the arch in the ideal medical, bio-mechanical Rx there is for that individual..
Beceause, it's quantitative, and I've had 25 years to work with it, in a variety of patients, many in various degree of full time wt bearing activities. I do have have an unlimited number of ideas of product design, targeting most any shoe on the market ( Any investors interested??)

(.It would take years for the mouth to mouth marketing in your own practices to bring you new and added business. I don't see myself benefiting from that. And if somehow that could happen to me, why not.? That's the American Way,-- I have a lifetime experience of how to improve biomechanical performance with anyone. For every functional plantar surface of the foot up to and including adventure racing athletes.Yes, I know the capabilities of this product. In a variety of marketing and marketed potential. I'm not here fore that—fame and fortune have already gone to the personna, I'm not a part of. It's too late for me to pass this on financially., While there are tons of product ideas, I've always felt this belongs in the hands of my colleagues. A medical, biomechanical functional, quantitave Rx measurement to within 2mg of the “optimal position” aka STJN at dynamic stance phase.

Who here doesn't want the “”PERFECT ORTHOTIC”? --Dodd, you had to be expecting that from me based on your opening address. Yes, I can sell them to anyone who has a hint or not of bio-mechanical pain. Why not wear something that's “healthy” for you to wear. I've used that in my marketing, because it's all backed by science.

The sensibility of minimizing and reducing wt bearing and pronatory forces with every single step. I call this basic wear and tear to my pts. Trying to get them to understand what you already do too? (I'm sure you're the exception)


So what you call a “liquid filled innersole” and the rest is everything I say it is. My article made no claims, except to support those concepts. And again, the typical remark here at PA has no substance, because you're intimidated to talk about the real issue of technology and bio=mechanics. I understand why, my article is irrefutable, if you disagree, be specific.
It's that simple for me.

Kingitics- they're absolutely the most knife resistant insoles you can buy, pretty useful when your out running in a National Park. You know it makes sense.

There is a great need for more specific orthotic functions or shoe design. It looks possible to incorporate this orthotic inside the boot. This sounds like one of them. definitely are different surfaces to encompass the best biomechanical efficiency for function, I have dozens and dozens of specific design utilyzing my own fluid tech nology .My technology would not work well in this design and function.

 

Kevin,

Originally Posted by Ian G
A good example of someone fixed in their ways, FYI, would be an individual who, lets say, has done he same thing for over 20 years (because they "know it works") and has not read any evidence to the contrary by virtue of having not read anything other than The Beano. Such an individual may look to promote their product at every available opportunity even in discussions where the focus of the conversation really has nothing to do with it. Keep an eye out for that - they are tricky to spot but I promise you they are amongst us.

Good one, Ian, but you aren't being blunt enough for this man.

Dennis, look in the mirror to see the one who is a legend only in his own mind.

Kevin, I've never met you, nor do I care to. But you need to look in the mirror when you say that to me, because fame and fortune is yours. I understand how a new technology would cut short your days as a valued speaker about old technology and inherently faulted traditional orthotics, when you look at the clinical trials. The results are truly shameful for a 60 year old medical technology. BTW-there is NO contrary evidence to my technology, so I'm better off reading the beano (you gotta love that English buffoonery).

 

I have a great idea, let's create a new website where Steven King, Dennis Kiper, Dennis Shavelson, Brian Rothbart and Ed Glaser are the only ones allowed to post questions to and answers from each other. They will not be able to respond to anyone else and not allowed to advertise any more new threads on other educational websites for medical professionals. In that way, they can battle each other over who can claim the title as having the "World's Best Orthotics".

It's ideas like this that have held back mankind through generations of people thinking out of the box.

 

Dennis, you can call me "Bob".

Believe every word of what Dennis Kiper is saying, he said it, so it must be true- he's "backed by science" and a true sub-geneii. Yet at only £27.99 including VAT here are the liquid filled insoles that do have some science to support their use http://www.healthandcare.co.uk/gel-i...FXLJtAodqi4Atg and here's the published clinical research that supports their effectivenss: http://www.diabetesalive.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BJDVD-Full-paper.pdf N.B. These are not the same expensive imitations the Dennis Kiper is flogging, for which there are no peer reviewed studies to support their use, but ignore that, Dennis will because Dennis knows how to callibrate his- with only an extra 2mg of Thorazine injected directly into your eyeballs, you can see the world like Dennis too and suddenly you'll feel much more comfortable; you'll become an "optimal" upstanding citizen and all of your problems will disappear; that's the "American way".

Dennis Kiper is a true sub-genius and anyone that says he isn't doesn't understand the laws of physics.

 

Science tells you no such thing, and don't drag my name into your sordid little world of trying to sell your insoles, Dennis.

 

there are no peer reviewed studies to support their use,

This is what I'm saying, because you're too intimidated to talk about the technology, you're not able to think outside the box. There's no need to have peer reviewed studies. Unlike products whose technology is not supported by principle of physics, any “beano bob” would be able to figure it out with a short peer reviewed course in biomechanics.


Dennis Kiper is a true sub-genius

I'm really too modest to accept that, but tks. I will decline any attempt to call me a true genius (without the “sub”), because it's just a science based technology that's been known since the time of Archimedes.

if you go direct to the Chinese manufacturers you can get them wholesale for much less than £27.99 including VAT and you could then start selling them over the internet, just like Dennis does

Absolutely, competition is the heartbeat of our Thorazine times. BTW—are you English podiatrists or chiropodists? Are you allowed to administer real drugs too?

 

Science tells you no such thing, and don't drag my name into your sordid little world of trying to sell your insoles, Dennis.

Simon,

You accused me of not even knowing what I'm selling myself. Arch chamber, heel chamber.
You should have included a picture of a torture chamber...another chamber.

Then you asked the most ridiculous question I could have imagined. You asked “how does the fluid volume “build” up”?

Simon, fluid doesn't "build" up as in the hydraulic picture you presented.

IT LOADS UP.

You need to hang around one of your chambers and think long and hard about that one. LOL

 

Atta boy, Dennis. You tell 'em. There's no need to perform scientific clinical research when you are backed by science and are "thinking outside of the box" that the frogs jumped out of. Thalidomide was an excellent hypnotic and anti-nausea drug, who needed clinical trials to test this drug when it was prescribed to pregnant women?

I'd love to attend your short course in biomechanics, I'm sure it would be special. I'd particularly enjoy the bit where you explain the "optimal position for the subtalar joint" during dynamic function without any of that 1950's mumbo jumbo that Rerton Moot spouted. Tell those non-believing pinks what you already know, the secret of the optimal position. Go ahead, Dennis, smash it to them... Smash it to those non-believers right here, right now. They'll see that X day is upon us, for today is the 5th July 1988.

I've always said it. Go forth and spread it. Dennis Kiper is a sub-genius, Dennis Kiper is a sub-genius, Dennis Kiper is a sub-genius. Sing it from the rafters my friend, you know they are just "intimitated" by your outstanding knowledge of biomechanics. Smash that optimal postion of the subtalar joint to 'em Dennis, they won't know what hit em. Don't just intimidate them with your superior knowledge, smash them into subservience so that they may humble at your hydraulically insulated feet.

Steady, Denny. Don't tell the pinks about your 40000% mark-up.

I'm a drilling machinery salesman, but I know a guy called Dave who can get you some if you like. What do you need: uppers or downers?
Don't get too stoned though Dennis, for tomorrow a new sale dawns.

 

Dennis, you were unable to answer any of my questions; your magazine article is a load of cobblers; your semantics notwithstanding, as Craig has pointed out, the burdon of proof is yours alone. Apparently, I said the volume of fluid "builds up", while you say the volume of fluid "loads up"; you say tomato, I say go away you annoying little prick since I couldn't care less about a tawdry little insole salesman from Pigsknuckle USA. But for the second time this evening, don't drag me into it; I have absolutely no interest in you or your product.

That said, I'd second Dobb's in that I'd like to hear your explanation of the "optimal dynamic subtalar joint position". Go ahead, don't be "intimidated". I could do with a laugh and since it will be at your expense, even better.

 

Hi Bobby,

who needed clinical trials to test this drug when it was prescribed to pregnant women?

Considering this is a medical grade silicone, it may be non-toxic, why don't you eat a pair and get back to me on that.

Don't tell the pinks about your 40000% mark-up.

Don't I wish

What do you need: uppers or downers?

You're too shady a salesman

 

Simon,

as Craig has pointed out, the burdon of proof is yours alone.

What do I have to prove? That's the beauty of valid scientific principles, it's already been proven.

I said the volume of fluid "builds up", while you say the volume of fluid "loads up"; you say tomato,

No, Simon, this is an egregious error of technicality. You were asking how does the “volume” build up—when the volume is an already established amount. You've made several glaring errors of this technology (which can be seen in previous posts).
As for not answering some of your questions, it isn't an issue of “inability”, but rather just ignoring you.

 

You right Denny, we shouldn't worry about the insoles you are selling being clinically ineffective or causing secondary problems. After all they're just wearing them in their shoes, not eating 'em. Since we've never actually seen the patient under your model of practice, as a DPM we could still plead ignorance since we didn't diagnose their problem- were just a vendor- right, Denny? We could still make the pinks eat them though, couldn't we?

Nice work Dennis, don't tell anyone that you are buying in those insoles from China at about $10 per pair, max. What is you current operating mark up? Shssssh. Don't tell me.

Coming from you, I'll take that as the highest compliment.

 

You're very tedious Dennis.

Clinical efficacy; is it not obvious when you are trying to sell a product which needs to be clinically effective? We know the physics of fluids in bags, any "o" level physics text will give us that. No, you need to show that a fluid in a bag can be used to treat, for example: chronic lateral ankle instability, peroneal tendonitis, plantar fasciitis, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, etc. And you need to show that it does that better than another, cheaper, therapeutic option. Failing that you need to show that your insoles place the subtalar joint in its "optimal dynamic position"- now that I'd love to see. Start by defining the "optimal" position... bet you can't. You made that statement, the burdon of proof is all yours. As Craig said, you are pseudo-scientific at best, although I think that is flattering to you.


I said the volume of fluid "builds up", while you say the volume of fluid "loads up"; you say tomato,

I was referring to the change in volume of fluid in one area of the insole relative to another area of the insole under loading conditions as you well know, or do you think that the fluid does not displace under loading from one area of the insole to another? So, lets take one of your insoles and place it on the floor, there is a finite volume of fluid in the insole, some of the volume of fluid is in the heel portion, some is within the midfoot protion and some is in the forefoot portion. Now, I place a 70Kg weight under the heel portion, the volume of fluid which was previously in the heel portion of the insole is displaced forward to the unloaded area of the insole, the volume of fluid under the heel is decreased and the volume in the un-loaded areas is increasd or "builds up"- like I said, god you're tedious, Dennis. You try to make out like you have some knowledge regarding fluids that the rest of us don't have. In reallity we just don't care for you or your lack of biomechanical knowledge.

It is an issue of "inability" Dennis, we all know you cannot explain your rationale for an "optimal position for the subtalar joint during dynamic function", any more than you could explain the concept of "stability" which is why you have been "intimidated" by Dobb's question; which is why your paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Unless you can explain this, no-one will ever take you or your product seriously.

Now, I have lectures to prepare. Good-bye Dennis. You won't provoke me further tonight. Please ignore me, just don't use my name in attempts to market your product in your shoddy posts on the forum.

 

Therein is the problem. Anyone with a real iota of understanding of 'science' knows that it has not been proven. Hence, why I prefer not to engage on this issue until you can see that. Nothing to do with me being threatened. I would be the first to use your product if the science tells me I should.

 

Aloha,

Craig, i trust your judgement and expertise in the our field.

Would you test our new gait system please?

I hope our initial research results for the US Department of Defense and Army Medical Research and Materials Command may be enough "science" to allow you to research this option of using a composite spring levered midsole instead of a foam midsole for your footwear and orthotics needs.

"I would be the first to use your product if the science tells me I should."

How much are your feet worth?

How should you protect them?

Mahalo,
Steve

 

Simon,

Clinical efficacy; is it not obvious when you are trying to sell a product

Here again, you've got it cock-eyed, I'm not selling you any products, nor have I tried to. I sell to the public only. I am discussing a technology of science. Why shouldn't I assume, that if I have an efficient means of modifying overpronation, I can expect a reasonable outcome of reversing many if not most of the pathological biomechancal inflammatory states? (including some path states like ulcerations). Why shouldn't I assume if I have a biomechanically efficient technology, in a pkg, that that wouldn't be a healthy thing to wear? Even if one doesn't have pain.

Too often I have seen colleagues say intervention only, well I believe in prevention as well.

you need to show that a fluid in a bag can be used to treat,

As for showing how well it works, well, that can be done at any time. More complex and chronic problems like post tib t. dysfunction can easily take much longer to respond. The easiest demonstration of effective applied biomechanics is with PF.

And you need to show that it does that better than another, cheaper, therapeutic option.

This would be so easy to do if I had a facility, where this could be done with pts and evaluated by a group of non-partisan colleagues as long as I fit and evaluate the fit with the pt personally.


We know the physics of fluids in bags –

Maybe the others do, I question your voracity of information. The issue isn't just the physics of fluid in a bag, it's the effect of those physics principles on the human dynamic bio-mechanics. With and without an orthotic at “Optimal position”. This is what you don't know. You can argue all you want, but I have science backing me up.

I was referring to the change in volume of fluid in one area of the insole relative to another area of the insole under loading conditions

If you knew what you were referring to, why did you ask such a dumb question? That's what I call as being a prick. “How does the volume build up?”--now that's tedious to me. Or maybe I should accuse you of really not getting it and you had Kirby help you with that fluid description.--you know, make you sound like something you're not?

we all know you cannot explain your rationale for an "optimal position for the subtalar joint during dynamic function

You must have fallen off a chair and hit your head. Are you nuts? I've written quite a bit about optimal position, that and the moment after is what separates our technologies. No wonder you're still confused about what I know or don't know.--

In reallity we just don't care for you

I don't care , you're not the only person I'm talking to. I initially came with good intentions to present this technology and got hammered from the outset. Is this not a professional site? I thought this site was open to all podiatrists. All ideas, good or bad. I've even see shoe marketers, lay people and drilling machine salesman on this site. Do you think because many of you all kiss each others bums that you are the last word?

or your lack of biomechanical knowledge.

There certainly seems to be a difference of opinion here. I am a trained conventional podiatrist. So, I think I know how to cast a foot as well as you and make a full Rx.
When I was able to finally visualize this technology and combine known scientific principles , took a ride and “be in the flow” of the initial displacement in the fluid. I looked up at the structure of the foot as the fluid loads the empty chamber and lo and behold—structural stability becomes crystal clear, followed by dynamic stability (this is optimal position/ and congruous joint stability, followed by dynamic stability at propulsion.)--if you understood this, you'd know what I know.
You just don't see it the way I see it.
Your technology is “static” mine is “dynamic”--you got yours and I got mine.

the concept of "stability"

Tell you what, ask your class or attendees to define it, let's see what individual answers we get, email the answers to PA—then in addition to my comment about your technology wizardry. we can have a worldwide discussion on the concept of stability and what it means. Students and the eminent professors here at this site, and whatever outsiders that are permitted.
Might be interesting and educational for some.

You see Simon, repeating the information that has already been said and documented, that you're not getting (and I don't mean the physics) now that's tedious.

Here's the real issue, so you've got the physics in a bag concept nailed, right? You don't know that that science means the technology works,with the foot right? Possibly , partly because that was never discussed, right? However, you're confused on one hand there really is more good science about fluids than the amount of science in your technology. But fluid hasn't proven itself. And yours has. I think that's the nightmare that should keep Smith up.

And Simon Science tells you no such thing,

Science tells me everything.

 

There is that inability of yours showing through again, Dennis.

As I said yesterday, there is really nothing you have that I need, so please don't mention me in your posts here again. I'm up to date on the published research on fluid filled foot orthoses thank you very much and so far there is absolutely no reason for me to change my practice in response to that research. Goodbye Dennis.

 

Dennis,

You are what we call a troll. You have totally hijacked a potentially good thread and made it all about your fluid-in-a-bag insoles. If you want any of us to be impressed with you or your product, then publish your data or theories in a peer-reviewed journal and let others decide if your fluid-in-a-bag insoles are as good as you make them out to be. Honestly, I don't think you have the intelligence or desire to do so, but go ahead, prove me wrong.

Dennis, you need to understand that Craig Payne, Simon Spooner and myself, who you all seem to be at odds with here on Podiatry Arena, have all published our research in peer-reviewed journals over the past three decades. We have paid our dues. However, for all your bluster and bravado, you haven't published anything and you are far older than the rest of us. By the way you pontificate about yourself and your knowledge, you should have already published more than any of us.

But, no, Dennis, you have been living the good life selling your fluid-in-a-bag insoles on the internet to unsuspecting consumers for a exorbitant price and probably making a good living doing so. Why would someone like you, who looks like a used car salesman on his internet site want to go through the effort and difficulty of actually making a valid contribution to the international podiatric and biomechanics community by attempting to get yourself published? You probably wouldn't and probably never will. Why? Because it wouldn't make any money for you. And that is what you are all about, isn't it, Dennis, making money?

Yes, Dennis., you will die a richer man because of your choice to love money over ethics. However, because of your self-absorbed decisions and actions, you will soon be forgotten after you have passed on. You will leave no legacy. No one will speak about you or your ideas with praise. After you pass on, podiatrists around the world will only mention your name when they talk about individuals within our profession that preyed on people in pain by selling them bogus orthotic products for a profit only for their monetary gain without ever examining them. You will only be remembered when you are gone as a pathetic example of someone who was only out for himself, a medical professional that contributed nothing to our knowledge of biomechanics, and was only interested in making more money.

Dennis, you still have time in your life to be remembered differently. Do some research with your insoles, collect some data, prove to us and the world that your insoles do what you say they do. Then you have a chance of being remembered as a much better man that spent his energies helping increase the level of intellectual development of your colleagues, and hasn't totally wasted his life by selling your fluid-in-a-bag insoles to the public for his own monetary gain without ever examining the people he was selling his product to.

There still is time, Dennis, to do the right thing. Now is your last chance to be remembered as you probably wish to be remembered by future generations of podiatrists.

 

Craig,

Therein is the problem. Anyone with a real iota of understanding of 'science' knows that it has not been proven –

the principles of physics that apply to this technology are established. I'm not going to reference it for you. Unless you're duping with word play.

“Anyone with a real iota of understanding of 'science' “, uses that knowledge to move forward.




I would be the first to use your product if the science tells me I should.

Nonsense

Nothing to do with me being threatened. –

So, you are reluctant to talk about biomechanical loading of a dynamic foot because one of the technologies hasn't proved itself. That sounds like an excuse to hide behind.
In this case, words would speak louder than actions.

 

Flog it to 'em Denny boy. Don't talk about biomechanical loading of a dynamic foot though whatever you do, keep your powder dry on that my son otherwise they might see that you don't know a whole lot about biomechanical loading of a dynamic foot. Keep telling 'em they are intimidated, that'll put them on their back feet, but whatever you do, don't offer any information about your understanding of the biomechanical loading of a dynamic foot (between me and you, I think they might find your knowledge base a bit wanting- don't worry, just don't ever actually talk about it yourself and the sales will keep coming to you, my friend). Keep up the front, you doing great, Denny. Just don't engage in a conversation about dynamic foot function and what research has demonstrated regarding this, whatever you do- otherwise it could screw everything up, and we're not at home to Mr Screw-up, are we Denny? Keep telling them you are backed by science, the lay public will buy into that, but don't show them this study http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-489c158b-5d81-35dd-806f-ac7c0524cee6 and for "Bob's" Sake, don't ever attempt to test your own insoles.

More importantly, and I can't stress this enough, never, ever, put a picture of your insoles on this website (if the pinks look at 'em, they'll rumble us).

Another day, a new sale. Keep up the slackness in your work. I know you will because slackness ooozes from you, just like the silicone from a breast implant.

Kind regards,
"Bob"

 

Kevin,

I have no claims to this product.

pts who've told me after several failed pr of trad orthotics, the docs thought the problem was in their head. You and your friends are the kings of your old and faulty technology.

After all, unlike some here who equate a foot orthotic to ingesting thalidomide, maybe you could have done more for your community
I don't worry about what will be said when I'm gone. Maybe, you'll be the butt of ignorant jokes for not at least treating a scienced based technology as a possible addition let alone alternative to what you've been doing for the last 60 plus yrs.

Your platitudes don't move me.

 

Don't talk about biomechanical loading of a dynamic foot though whatever you do,

Too late, I've already put out that information, you must not be current.

 

Didn't see it Denny, hopefully the pinks won't have either. Best we keep schtum on that here though. Keep to the sales, don't be put off, lest someone might see that you don't know what you are talking about. Least said, soonest mended. Nice work by not mentioning again. If any of them asks you to repeat it here, just don't. You're slackness is strong, don't fall into their pinkish traps by showing your sub-genius on the subject matter. Don't discuss your understanding of dynamic foot function here whatever you do. They'll all see that you don't know your arse from your elbow if you do that, and that might interfere with sales.

All my love,
"Bob"

 

Well looking at your last post it appears you are selling more than you are talking about technology of science, science, technology, or science of technology. If you are not selling why are you still posting on the arena. It doesn't look like you are going to convice anyone with what you have said so far.

If you wanted to discuss science you could explain how a bag silicon is going to influence over pronation. You are just throwing stuff out there like it is a proven fact. (modifies pronation in a good way, reversing biomechanical inflamatory states, curing ulcers, prevention.) Very little science and a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Sounds more like selling to me.

When someone pronates they will tend increase load on their medial forefoot. This will cause the silicon to be forced laterally. The incresed silicon laterally will increase pressure under the lateral foot causing an increased pronation moment. This won't happen for all feet, but it will happen for some.

Eric

 

Indeed, as one of the two studies on silicone insoles stated: "This mechanism for plantar pressure reduction, however, is effective only while fluid (i.e. silicone gel) is present beneath the entire contacting plantar surface. When no fluid exists beneath a portion of the contacting plantar surface, then that portion of the plantar surface is essentially in direct contact with the shoe sole, and substantial disparities in plantar pressure can persist."

They concluded: "The results of this investigation suggest that these silicone gel insoles have little effect on the magnitude of peak plantar pressures, peak heel pressure gradients, or the time of forefoot gradient rise."

http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-489c158b-5d81-35dd-806f-ac7c0524cee6

Like I said, when the fluid is squeezed out of one portion of the insole under loading, the voume of fluid builds up elsewhere else. But we should be mindful that once that fluid is displaced, we are left with nothing more than an empty sack in the region it was displaced from. And who want's an "empty sack"? We also need to understand the physics of fluid flow through pipes, which are essentially what the insoles have connecting the chambers together. See the image attached, we have a series of chambers connected by pipes- I'm sure someone can explain how the various factors affecting fluid flow from one chamber to another are influenced by the structural characteristics of the insole, and by the temperature and pressure of the known fluid therein, so I'll leave that to them. Or, they can show us a picture of their fluid filled insoles to show how my contention does not apply.... I won't hold my breath.

Breathe, now.

"15th of May, nine 0 five, door bell rings
Man at the door says if I want to stay alive a bit longer
There's a few things I need you to know. Three

Coming from a long line of travelling sales people on my mother's side
I wasn't gonna buy just anyone's cockatoo
So why would I invite a complete stranger into my home
Would you?

These days are better than that
These days are better than that

Every day I die again, and again I'm reborn
Every day I have to find the courage
To walk out into the street
With arms out
Got a love you can't defeat
Neither down or out
There's nothing you have that I need
I can breathe
Breathe now"

"Three"- pretty significant when we are talking about the direct mechanical effects of foot orthoses.

 

Aloha Simon,

Thanks for digging up the research on gel insoles. Although i do not know how it relates to the topic of adidas's new and improved foam midsoles.

"Like I said, when the fluid is squeezed out of one portion of the insole under loading, the voume of fluid builds up elsewhere. But we should be mindful that once that fluid is displaced, we are left with nothing more than an empty sack in the region it was displaced from. And who want's an "empty sack"? "

After personally testing them (trying them on and going grocery shopping at Safeway "note Dennis and Eric Not clinical testing in a lab) in a pair of skate shoes. The piping you discuss is more of a channel and it does allow fluid transfer rather quickly due to the larger bore/chanel size. Yes you can bottom them out if there is a low enough volume in the chamber. But since every one has been soo dependant on foam midsoles i did not find that a problem.

Where we may think more like an engineer is how is shear effected by a the twisting of the forefoot on this well lubricated pad? If only someone could invent a good in-shoe shear measurement device.

We are here on Podiatry Arena to explore, develope, learn from and if needed debunk possible solutions for the care of our paitents.

A hui hou,
Steve

 

Eric,

When someone pronates they will tend increase load on their medial forefoot. This will cause the silicon to be forced laterally. The incresed silicon laterally will increase pressure under the lateral foot causing an increased pronation moment. This won't happen for all feet, but it will happen for some.

You are one of those people who does not understand the physics of silicone in a bag

Computerized gait tests with the SDO show that the forces under the MTJ complex measured by the GRF is less than the combined GRF of the heel, lateral column, and forefoot together (increasing or decreasing the load under the tarsus has a direct correlation with the biomechanical loading measured in GRF). As a result the fluid is forced under the entire tarsus and forefoot (proximal to contact) and is not displaced laterally under weight bearing and pronatory forces (anomalies such as rigid or neurologic flat foot however would not be suitable for this technology).

 

Like I said, when the fluid is squeezed out of one portion of the insole under loading, the voume of fluid builds up elsewhere else.

This is completely incorrect. I can see now, you reaaly do not understand the “physics of silicone in a bag”--

There are no “portions” of the chamber—the image of the insoles you have posted are a generic, OTC brand. The design is not the technology that I represent.



But we should be mindful that once that fluid is displaced, we are left with nothing more than an empty sack in the region it was displaced from

Completely incorrect. When volume builds it supports, it doesn't leave behind any empty spaces.

 

Dennis, after saying "you don't understand the physics of silicone", you essentially agreed with me. I did say this happens for some feet.

The fluid going to the wrong place is much more likely to happen with lateral instability. When the foot supinates, the fluid is pushed medially, shifting pressure medially which increase liklihood of further inversion.

 

Sorry Eric, I may have misunderstood you. But, what kind of lateral instability are you referring to? And at what point in the gait cycle are you referring to the foot supinating?


When someone pronates they will tend increase load on their medial forefoot. This will cause the silicon to be forced laterally –In this example statement , I agree with your 1st sentence under normal conditions with a trad orthotic, because there is very little loading pressure on the fixed position of the orthotic until the forefoot touches and the motion decelerates and GRF increases.

The silicone is constantly under biomechanical loading pressure. (and unloading pressure at heel off)

With silicone, the fluid doesn't really stop to shift laterally, (more fluid may move into the area of least resistance and greatest need.) you've got a forward motion and the fluid is displaced from the rear portion of the orthotic, forward along the medial column and upward into the tarsal and tarso-metatarsal space. It fills the entire space in less than a heart beat. (not incl the rearfoot,) fluid then completes its loading after full wt bearing and pronatory forces (very little pronation movement) and the metatarsals seek their hydro-dynamic level of balance. --this is midstance (you can see this on my active scans).


At forefoot contact, fluid is loading the 1st met and tarsus. Transference of motion continues, Wt bearing and pronatory forces are now loading fluid under the forefoot. At midstance, the first area of dynamic stabilization is the tarso-met , metatarsals and rear foot. I think my article may be more complete.

 

Kevin..You don't know me, and it's not about the money. It's about the improvement in technology. So when you ask me to contribute to podiatry, I'll add that it's a benefit for mankind too. An accurate quantitative Rx to within 2mg of biomechanical function.

That's the difference in our technologies. Call it intimidation, reluctance, you really don't want to even talk and compare technolgies, when only one is irrefutable. Excuses that it hasn't been proven are irrelevant to the reasonibility of a science based evolution.

 

We now quantify biomechanical function in milligrams? Behave.

 

adidas Unveils the Reponse Boost Running Shoe

 

originally posted by Griff:

We now quantify biomechanical function in milligrams? Behave.


I'm not quantifying biomechanical function in milligrams--I'm quantifying a biomechanical Rx in mg.

In this way, I can either duplicate a Rx or quantify a new Rx and be scientifically accurate.

 

The Boost has been a winner for adidas:
The Ultra Boost Helped adidas Make a Comeback in America

 

Aloha,

I i may comment on a bit of anatomy please.

If president Mark King of Adidas North America states that "Success starts from the feet up" would that not then exclude the foam shoe system he is selling that is under the feet?

Perhaps success starts from the ground up. Which we should start doing to the redesign of our footwear systems with advanced composites and simple machine mechanics.

Just trolling for intellects...

A hui hou,
Steve King

 

Press Release:
adidas Running Celebrates Five Years of Industry-Changing Technology BOOST™ with Anniversary Pack with New and Re-Released Footwear
Pack Includes the First Ever BOOST Silhouette Energy BOOST OG,
Energy BOOST and a Limited-Edition UltraBOOST

Portland, Ore., January 29, 2018: Five years after adidas Running released their first-ever high-performance running silhouette made with industry-defining BOOSTTM technology, the Energy BOOST returns. To celebrate the landmark, the Energy BOOST is updated and re-released in its original black and yellow colorway as part of an anniversary pack that champions adidas’ most iconic and loved silhouettes – the Energy BOOST OG, Energy BOOST and UltraBOOST LTD.

BOOST™ is a superior lightweight cushioning technology that provides energy return for every single stride. Now, the state-of-the-art material that defined the adidas Running category and has broken two marathon world records with performance athletes Mary Keitany and Dennis Kimetto celebrates five years at the forefront of innovation.

The original Energy BOOST coined its name due to its high energy return and responsiveness, made possible because of a heel-to-toe BOOST™ foam in the sole and midsole that stores and returns superfast, lightweight energy every time the foot strikes the ground. Everything that made the silhouette unique lives on, while new updates and integrations, including an improved and simplified midfoot construction combined with a lighter cage for a more accommodating fit, make this a clean evolution of the original. Other defining updates include:

Updated Torsion System: moves with the foot for a smoother landing and midfoot support push-off
Enhanced Techfit: foot-hugging upper with zoned elastic support in the forefoot, identified using Aramis research and testing, provides superior comfort and a snug feel
Stretchweb: newly introduced into the Energy silhouette, the Continental rubber outsole adapts to every runner’s foot strike by moving in harmony with BOOST™ to provide a smoother, more flexible and enhanced grip
More BOOST™: now featuring 85% BOOST™ for even more energy return and economy

Matthias Amm, adidas Running said: “In 2013, we started a revolution with the release of the Energy BOOST and changed the face of running forever, one silhouette at a time. From then until now, our game-changing technology has provided runners across the globe with a high level of energy return, for exceptional performance in almost any condition. In the future, BOOST™ will continue to define our products as we endeavor to combine our most famed, performance-enhancing technology with further advances in innovation, aesthetics and design. We are already looking forward to a re-release of one of our most glorified silhouettes early in 2019.”

All three silhouettes of the “5 years of BOOST” anniversary pack will be starting Feb. 1 at adidas.com and in adidas stores worldwide for $150 (Energy BOOST OG), $160 (Energy BOOST), and $220 (UltraBOOST LTD). Follow the conversation @adidasrunning on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook using #BOOST.