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.

Barefoot Science

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by pod6, Jun 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pod6

    pod6 Member

  2. Looks likes more snake oil to me. It seems that the only difference between Barefoot Science Insoles and Proprioceptive Insoles is that Barefoot Science has some orthopedic surgeons selling the snake oil....they even have the testimonials on their website for proof of their effectiveness :rolleyes: .....I wonder if these "world famous doctors" also have financial interest in the company?
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2007
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Yes, do a search for 'snake oil' here and you will see.

    Warning signs on that website include:
    - marketing hype
    - testimonials and no scientific data
    - "special TV offer" (that has to be a sure give away)
    - an advisory board that have published nothing in this area
    - ignoring already available evidence in the area
    - factual errors in the monograph
    - selective use of referencing
    - etc

    '....we seen all that before.
     
  4. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

  5. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

  6. dr.dan

    dr.dan Welcome New Poster

    I know Dr. Larry Bell personally and he’s one of the most respected MSK specialists in his field. He has absolutely no financial interests in the company. He recommends them because they have worked for him and his injuries along with many of his patients. I use them when I run distances and they have helped me with my medial tibial stress syndrome (which various different types of orthotics haven’t been able to help).I don’t have any financial incentives either. They help the user, during the propulsive phase of their gait, toe off the big toe instead of rolling off the outside of their foot. Dr. Fowler is another well respected Doctor who endorses them and he doesn’t have any financial incentives with this product. Don’t knock anything until you have tried it yourself personally. There is actually some research behind it and it gives the patient an affordable alternative to overpriced custom orthotics.
     
  7. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    You do realise that you have just reinforced the snake oil salesman quackery aspect of this. Did you read the link above about how to spot quackery? No one here will have any idea who these people are!
    I prefer reproducealbe scientific research rather than a snake oil selling approach
    Please provide us with links to that research. I have never seen any. Have you actually read the 50 or so papers of published research, outcome studies and randomised controlled trials that show that the success rates of custom made rigid orthotics? Or are you conveniently ignoring them?
     

  8. Dr. Dan:

    Please give us references of the "research" behind these snake oil insoles. By the way, Dr. Dan, what is your name, what are you a doctor of and who in the heck is Dr. Larry Bell and Dr. Fowler? We got plenty of insoles to choose from that already don't work for many people. And I see plenty of people buying useless insoles over and over again, wasting their money. And they buy these insoles on recommendations from people like you who claim that they are authorities on a subject, and are only snake oil salesman.

    You are going to have to be much more impressive than that for me to believe anything you say.

    Have a nice weekend.:butcher:
     
  9. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    I am wondering how this progressive arch, which appear to be in two completely separate locations (one is midtarsal and one is metatarsal) would help say a person with say a compensated forefoot valgus. In either case wouldn't this overload the lateral column?

    I am very cautious with regard to aggressive frontal plane forefoot wedging, especially with first ray mobility problems. This looks like the do-it-yourself version of another company we're familiar with that focuses on the MLA. In my humble experience that just does not work for every patient (or possibly any that I have seen for that matter).

    I much prefer the Vasilyi + Danaberg or like heat moldable for OTC or temporary purposes.

    Lastly as a C.Ped this last statement really provokes my sensibilities:

    http://www.barefootscience.com/us/choosingproperfootwear.html

    " Be sure that the shoe is flexible rather than rigid. A stiff shoe can cause the heel to rub on the collar around the heel pocket as it lifts up in the shoe with every step. A stiff shoe also prevents the muscles of the foot from adequate movement, preventing the foot from being able to stabilize itself."

    Yes when a patient with metatarsalgia, hallux rigidus or FHL dysfunction comes to see you let's put them in the most flexible shoe possible. Let's make certain the ball is VERY flexible and that there is no shank because we want that foot to work extra hard.

    Are you people serious?

    If it walks like a duck.....
     
  10. For Kevin,
    If we haves shoes without a shank, how can we put shank dependent orthoses in them? :boxing:;):eek:;):deadhorse:

    Some months on and I still don't agree with that terminology. Not that I'm bitter and twisted or anything. One for late night bar discussion and debate next time we get together me thinks :drinks
     
  11. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    I have come across Barefoot science insoles for the reason that Dr Peter Fowler is the Chief Medical Officer at our hospital, and he showed them to me...
    I don't who Dr Bell is, but Dr Fowler is one of the most respected Sports Orthopaedic Surgeons in North America. He has been CMO for the Canadian Olympic Team at several Olympics. He is very well credentialed *(see note below).

    He prompted me to investigate further, and I looked at their website. I have to credit them that it is quite good with the amount of information available.

    They have a detailed monologue on their rationale, which is quite an interesting read.
    They question current research on orthoses suggesting that lacks scientific rigour and essentially there is no evidence that orthoses work, and the theories that they are based on are flawed. Now... there is some truth to this... something that most contributors on this forum already know. However there is strong evidence that they are effective, and the theoretical rationale that they question is very old school.
    The irony is that following their criticisms of the science of orthoses, they themselves provide 'evidence' which has terrible scientific rigour, and as so far from being peer reviewed it is a joke.
    The theoretical base for their devices are that they promote plantar flexion of the first ray, by activation of the intrinsics and p. longus. I actually have no problem with this idea, and can see it as being not too far from saggital plane facilitation theory. As for their effectiveness... well I have difficulty believing that they are the cure all that they believe they are (sounds like snake oil to me...).

    It may be, however that parts of the design of their orthoses may be useful modifications to some custom functional orthoses that we all prescribe. This may be worth further investigation. Perhaps if they had written about their theory in the same manner that Kevin had, we would have viewed these devices differently- no money in that though... ;)

    *When I showed the website to Dr Fowler, he was somewhat surprised that he was on this medical advisory board... let alone the chairman. Says a lot to me...
    He definately has no financial interest:D
     
  12. yveslafortune

    yveslafortune Welcome New Poster

    re: CraigT's comment that Dr. Fowler is surprised that he is on Barefoot Science's advisory board.

    See this video link: http://barefootscience.com/usa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=56 with Dr. Fowler indicating his interest in Barefoot Science and his participation as head of the medical advisory board. Click on the Medical video once you arrive at the page. CraigT, perhaps you are referring to a different Dr. Fowler.
     
  13. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    US Patent 6301807 - Rehabilitative shoe insole device.

    Abstract
    An insole device configured to fit the profile of the human foot to promote
    proprioceptive stimulation of the golgi tendon organ. The midfoot section
    of the insole device has an asymmetric domed structure that is presented
    to the plantar aspect of the foot at a location found to be the anatomical
    apex of the foot's arch system. The asymmetric domed structure displays
    physical properties to catalyse muscle group balancing by using the body's
    proprioceptive feedback mechanisms.
    The asymmetric domed structure
    displays physical properties such that it does not provide functional
    bracing or support to the plantar aspect of the foot. The net result will
    be a more structurally sound foot capable of more energy efficient and
    less injury inducing use. The plantar aspect of the insole or midsole
    device is characterized by a dominant cavity having the ability to receive
    and interchange the biofeedback catalyst and the many forms therefore, as
    well as being characterized by provisions to ensure proper and permanent
    placement of the catalyst.

    Are they referring to a met pad by chance? Biofeedback catalyst...GTO dorsal spinocerebellar afferent firing to the cerebellum...proprioceptive input...brilliant

    Ground Control to Major Tom...your met pad's proximal to your MTJ joint capsule...there's something wrong....
     
  14. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    I cannot access the video from my work computer due to security setting from our server- I will look at it tonight.
    I can assure you it is the same Peter Fowler- I can only go by what he has told me directly.
    I was not surprised he was on the Medical Advisory Board- HE was surprised he was on the Medical advisory board
     
  15. Craig:

    After watching the videos on the Barefoot Science website with Dr. Peter Fowler promoting the product......I believe you will see that Dr. Fowler was not very forthcoming in regards to his financial interest in the company or their product. A high profile professional that is not always forthcoming regarding his financial interests......I've never heard of such a thing!:rolleyes:

    The marketing hype reminds me very much of the Good Feet chain here in the States and Ed Glaser's Sole Supports orthotics. What a joke!!
     
  16. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Agree- I almost expect to see them on a late night infommercial next...


    The thing that annoys me most is how they attack entire professions and suggest pseudo-science... then present evidence based on their own studies which have terrible scientific rigour


    As I said previously- he claims no financial interest in the product- I can only go by what he has said to me directly... I believe him as I have immense respect for him, and he has no reason to hide this from me if this was the case. The only 'promotion' he has given to me is to show me a pair he was wearing and asked my opinion...
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2008
  17. rburke

    rburke Member

    I would not go as far as saying "snake oil". There is considerable evidence out there illustrating that the ethics surrounding the use, over prescription, and successes with traditional foot orthotics is questionable. Rememeber that this traditional approach is a century old, there are patents for arch support devices going back into the late 1800's, Dr. Scholl launched his first over the counter arch support in the early 1900's. Yet his own web site states that he recognized a link between patholgy and "weak" foot muscles prior to that.

    A century ago the industry made a decision to cast, brace and support the weak muscles as opposed to strengthening them. Just because we did it this way for a 100years and many people have made millions of $$ doing so, does not make it the best way. We should always be looking for the better "mouse trap"

    This is a fresh approach that is different. To say it is snake oil without doing the research into the muscle physiology, neuro-physiology and biomechanics that it is based on is a little unfair.

    From what I see the approach plays on the properties of the GTO and muscle spindle fibres to create contractions and thus strengthen. A sound use of biofeedback and proriocpetive characteristics. Logically the repeated contractions will create stonger muscles, one bicep curl is not as effective as 5. Stronger msucles are better suited to deal with energy and thus can result in improved performance, reduced predisposition to injuury and the rehbailiation of injury.

    If we brace the foot with a support and tighten it up inside a shoe I fail to see how that is going anything more than encouraging muscle atrophy. So the question is... do weak muscle perform better than strong muscles?
     
  18. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Please could you provide us with this evidence.
     
  19. No, lets go back a step. The questions are: do these insoles strengthen muscles? Do traditional orthotics weaken muscles? Your references, please...
     
  20. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Here's the real question... is rburke going to hang around long enough to answer our questions? Dr.Dan piped up in 2008 with one lone post then disappeared again... a pattern we see all too much. Let's hope rburke has the minerals to see this one through
     
  21. rburke

    rburke Member

    1) please see the article "Levels of Evidence of Articles in Podiatric Medical Journals"
    2) please see the article "A Critical Review of the Literature on Foot Orthoses"
    3) please research periodicals in the helath insurance industries cited orthotic over prescription concern ing orthotic fraud, spefically benefits Magazine in Canada
    4) please see documentaries on Canada'a CBC's Marketpolace web site
    4) Please see article "Orthoses reduce pressure but fall short of biomechanical correction"
    5) Re; Strengthening - please see article " Insole System decreases plantar surface area" - supported by pilot reserach conducted at University of Hudders**** in the UK

    - With respect to does it strengthen - here we need to draw on some cause -effect logic, if A =B, B= C, does A=C. if there is a decrese in plantar surface area it could be a)muscle sthrengthening, b) shortening/tightening of other connective tissue c) osseous remodelling - Can't be #C, occurs over too short a period of time, could be "a" or "b", if it is "B" what would catalyze this type of shortneing all of a sudden, it might be "A". Rember the concept of Occam Razor.

    So to reciporcate - anyone have a study showing exercise as harmful?, anyone have a study showing person's using custom orthtoics out growing them and not needing them any more?. Here's a good one - I have never seen a published, peer reviewed study indicating that sticking your had in a fire results in the flesh burning - yet we all belive it to be true.

    Possibly with respect to this insole or others touting rehabiliation, or traininng barefoot to create foot strengthening, try it, and maybe you yourself will be the proof.

    gotta run - thanks
     
  22. rburke

    rburke Member


    I'll hang around for a bit, but honestly guys. There is a body evidence supporting one view and a body of evidence supporting another. Choose you battles and provide choices. If you are treating poatients through one method and getting succes then don't switch - if however you have patients that are are seeking better or differnet results thtan what you can offer your choice is to offer alternative or to lose your patinet/customer.

    This is about choices,

    I've been on the side on the desk where I have see a $3.00 piece of plastic and 1.5 man hours get turned into a $1000 product when the med pro actually never got his hands dirty, and I,ve seen glorified harris mats been used to pigeon hole people feet so that their "custom" device can be pulled out slot #4 and stuck in the mail with a $400 bill.

    It's about choices, there is good and bad everywhere.
     
  23. vbpedorthist

    vbpedorthist Member

    I am not at convince that running barefoot is good.

    I have no foot conditions/problems "yet", however i run 7miles per day/5 days a week and there is no way my joints would endure this without the proper support and cushion.

    From a professional view regardless of your foot structure pes planus or cavus to put your joints, muscle, tendons and ligament through that repeated trauma can not be good.
    With a custom orthotics and great running shoes, Podiatrists are telling me that long term alll that running is not good for the joints.

    Great marketing............... ,influx of shoes over the last couple of years making all types of claim.
    Please................................
     

  24. No, you got to provide the references, not just fragments. What is the reference to the paper you are referring to here.

    LOL, you can't be serious? Here's a starter for ten: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/41/8/469.full
     
  25. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Can you please show us just ONE study that has shown the traditional foot orthotics do not work? I can show you >30 studies that show they do work.
    Can you show us ONE study that showed that? I guess you missed the two studies that have looked at this. One showed they actually strengthened muscles and the other showed they did not weaken them ...
     
  26. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Welcome to Podiatry Arena rburke. I hope you stay around long enough to answer some of the valid questioning of your views as well as substantiate them with credible references - it will only give your position & intentions credibility.

    Would you be referring to this report... Is that thing in your shoe worth the money you paid?... which investigates the practices of chiropractors & the 'orthotic' company TOG. Of particular interest is 7.40 to about 9.00 min. in the video... with TOG coming under question as well as the chiropractors who used their system (i.e. GaitScan). (This is why it is good practice to reference your views on a forum such as this).

    I have no doubt this has happened, but I like to think this is rare & the practitioner (what type??) would quickly jeopardise his own business. You of course wouldn't be foolish enough to associate this type of practise with the profession (of Podiatry) on the whole would you?

    It is this comment I'm particularly interested in. If you have some specific inside knowledge on this I would be particularly interested in it i.e. company, method of dispensing the device, type of 'custom' device etc... If you don't feel comfortable in publicly forwarding the information on a forum such as this then please contact me personally via the links here. Thank you.

    I am sure all here endeavour to make the best possible choices for our patients based on the education & peer reviewed research available - I believe this is the underlying purpose of this forum. However, when alternative points of view pop up we need to analyse them carefully as history has revealed there are unfortunately too many charlatan types deceiving the public with a cure of their ailments (intentionally or ignorantly) to earn a quick buck.
     
  27. rburke

    rburke Member

    To, vbpedorthist
    Taking into consideration where most of live and work, hard flat concrete versus inconsistent soft surfaces, I might agree that running barefoot is not good, or at least can predispose you injury.
    However I guess in the big picture it comes down to defining the shoe condition. I am also of the opinion (of which I am entitled to and do not need to justify) that there are many factors in most conventional footwear that predispose them to be a less than ideal environments. Issues like heel flare, heel height, torsional rigidity, toe box volume and forefoot flexibility are considerations that are often overlooked in footwear development. I graduated Kinesiology with gait biomechanics with a dream of being involved in true athletic footwear R&D, I got there and quickly realized it was a business based on P&L’s and marketing.
    I have no idea what type of shoes your currently running in, you possibly have modified them yourself so they have certain attributes to suit your foot type, body weight, flexibility etc.., and you may be right, as well your Pod maybe right – running 7 miles 5 days a week maybe doing too much – all I can say is if you enjoy doing it, do it, it keeps you healthy and just make wise choices in how you treat your feet. Treat them well and they will treat you well

    To Simon – yes over training can lead to injury, too much of anything is harmful. Yes I have seen this study and others. I would consider these observations to be the result of over training. Everything has to done within reason. Our physiology has limits, but it is dynamic and these limits can be modified to we can generate greater force, resist greater forces, for longer periods of time – you get the picture. On the same note, too much “non-exercise” can be detrimental. Look at disuse atrophy and hypo-gravic environments.

    The title of the paper in Biomechanics magazine was “Insole System decreases plantar surface area”, the blah. Blah on a=c was my view on the ipso facto relationship between the trends shown in the study and how logically they can be attributed to improvements in muscle strength. The issue with demonstrating results directly correlating with the foot’s plantar intrinsic is how does anyone do that. Both surface and in-dwelling EMG’s are not feasible at the location and especially during weight bearing. The use fluoroscopy is a possibility if we can accurately assess intrinsic cross sections. However the jury is still out on this. Kinematic measures on navicular deflection velocity during midstance would be a logical indicator, but I have never seen anything on that.
    PS - I wasn’t serious, but I thought it might raise an eye brow.

    To Craig
    - You should be able to show me 3O. These philosophies, products and teachings are a 100 years old. There have been improvements to diagnostic tools, improvements in materials, improvements in manufacturing but the product and underlying philosophy are largely unchanged. Until some followers of Kapandji started practicing his teachings the 3 decade old views of Root dominated.
    - There is room for change but it is hard, academia by and large rewards memory and regurgitation not free thought and new ideas. That’s why this is a fantastic forum. A nice study would be to repeat the study of Robbins and Hanna, but introduce a variable of “with orthotics”. Then make observations on cause and effect in foot morphology traits as well as kinematic measure.
     
  28. Nope, you are making extrapolations in your mind. You don't know that all the injuries in studies cited in the meta analysis which were caused by exercise were due to over-training. Of interest, I got an injury while exercising due to a single traumatic event. Moreover your original question was:

    So was exercise harmful to me and these other individuals that the studies reported upon? The answer you're looking for is "yes". Admit that you were wrong to make such a sweeping statement and move on...

    I'm still waiting for the reference, so that I might read this "article". Until you can provide the full reference so that I might look up the magazine article: a change in plantar surface contact area is supposed to correlate to foot muscle strength, with a decrease in contact area supposedly indicating an increase in muscle strength- right? I have a three word question for you: intrinsic minus foot?

    As for the rest of your post, I don't really know what you are trying to say. Concerning EMG of intrinsic foot muscles, Mann and Inman (1964) gave it a shot http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/46/3/469 . If memory serves, Grey and Basmajian reported a prolonged EMG signal in association with pes planus of certain intrinsics http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.1091610101/abstract. I should have thought with ultrasound to guide, it would be relatively much easier now than it was in 1964 to place the electrodes. But neither EMG, nor fluoroscopy measure force production. If I wanted to measure the cross sectional area of a muscle, I shouldn't think that fluoroscopy should be that helpful anyway, much better to go with MRI or ultrasound http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/1/1/12

    Deflection velocity of the navicular is interesting, I'm guessing we might see this from one of the bone pin studies, but I'll need to take a look at them when I feel inclined to. However, how does this show that "foot orthosis weaken foot muscles" which I believe is your contention. This paper seems to suggest that fatigue of the plantar intrinsics achieved through an exercise resulted in increased navicular drop. http://www.jelectromyographykinesiology.com/article/S1050-6411(06)00170-2/abstract
     
  29. rburke

    rburke Member

    I don't recall saying "all injuries". Of course there are acute injuries, what wowuld football be without them? However ask any athlete if they are less or more prone to acute inury if they are stronger. When I played, the athlete able to generate was more often the one creating the injury than recieving it.

    yeah you got me :), therefore are you saying that any and all reduction in plantar surface area is the result of intrinsic minus foot - or is this the platypus of the foot surfcae area reduction world? what if it occurs over such a short period as demonstrated in the paper.

    What I am saying is that often once we rule out the improbable options, the correct answer is must liklely the probable one. Until science is conclusive, and we have acces and funding to any and all diagnostic tools, we get to choose to believe or not belive. Again -- try it and you may be the proof.
     
  30. Nope. You said:
    Where does it say anything other than "anyone have a study showing exercise as harmful?" The answer, which you appear not big enough to concede is that there are many many studies which show "exercise as harmful".
    Yes, I suspect I have. However, I still haven't read the paper as you still haven't provided a reference for it.
    Once again, I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say here . Although it does rather sound like you are trying to sell me something. "There's nothing that you have that I need"- Breathe U2. But thanks, all the same.
     
  31. rburke

    rburke Member

    In summary I'm saying we are all free to choose what we believe and what makes sense to us as individuals - agree or disagree.
     
  32. We are. And some people come on to academic forums and are unable to substantiate their claims and when challenged are incapable of forming a reasoned argument- agree or disagree?

    Good bye, Mr (Mrs, Ms, Miss) Burke
     
  33. rburke

    rburke Member

    I would agree.

    What would be of interest would be take the study relating navicular drop to muscle fatigue. Have subjects particpate in a) barefoot running b) use of generic arch supports c) use of custome supports and d) use a priocpetive based insole
    - test them at day 0 and then again at day 60 and observe changes.

    You seem to have very quick acess to literature are you currently in an academic institute where this could be carried out?
     
  34. No, I have spent the best portion of my life studying podiatric biomechanics. I am aware of the literature and I can use google- you should try it some time. In old fashioned parlance "I'm well read".

    That reference, Mr Burke?

    Some people know more about podiatric biomechanics than Mr Burke? Agree or disagree?
     
  35. rburke

    rburke Member

    Thanks - it would have been a nice study.
     
  36. You make the assumption that I am incapable of carrying out the study because.... I am not currently attached to an educational institute........... I give you the law according to Burke: no one is allowed to carryout research outside of a educational institute.:bash: You fund it, I'll do it.

    That reference?

    Here's my advice to you Mr Burke: go read some and come back when you got some. BTW, my injury was caused by two blokes in-excess of 250lbs, probably pushing 300lbs each, hitting my knee simultaneously at full tilt during a rugby match. I don't think anyone on this planet could have developed enough muscular force to prevent an injury at that time. My muscles certainly couldn't protect my cruciate ligaments - but that's exercise for you.:boohoo:

    Like I said, good bye Mr Burke.
     
  37. rburke

    rburke Member

    certainly not - I would in fact encourage any and all to carry their own research through whatever means possible.

    As I have said frequently - try it and you maybe be the proof. I have also said that sometimes academia does not promote free thought. By all means you or anyone is capbale of devising hypotheses and tests that should be logoical and therefore, to some extent, creditable and though provoking.

    It is that determination and thinking out side of box that the world needs more of or will will never progress and evolve.

    Sorry about your CL's - hopefully you still made the beer-up after the match
     
  38. You're welcome to the last word Mr Burke, but your question "does any study show exercise is harmful" Results in a resounding yes. Now back to the original questions:
    1) does any study show that traditional foot orthoses result in muscle weakness- not really. You were wrong there- yes, no?
    2) Are there any studies which demonstrate that what you are advocating results in an increase in muscles strength?
     
  39. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    So, in other words you con not provide one study to back up the claim that you made:
    Do you see why we cynical? Making up claims do not go down well around here. That why the 'snake oil' label gets attached to products that get promoted that way.

    BTW, you do realise that weak instrinsic foot muscles actually cause a high arch foot ...
     
  40. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    I agree that there are components of footwear designs which are not conducive to many individuals (& even to the act of running on the whole). This issue has been discussed before on this forum. However, I do have what some may consider unconventional opinions on this issue but apparently unlike you, I do feel the need to justify these opinions with a reason... i.e. based on cross referencing different research studies, personal experience & the observed structural design of the lower limb. I would have thought being that you...
    ... you would also desire to justify your opinions with some form of credible reasoning i.e. references of research on the opinion forwarded.

    Disagree (to a large extent)... very shaky grounds to base someone’s views/beliefs on matters such as this. What one feels is truth can be vastly different to another’s view of truth on the same topic... usually as a result based around our own personal world views... how we interpret a topic based on the 'glasses' (biases) we choose to view it with. This is why peer reviewing of research topics is a necessity.

    Truth should not violate natural laws & principles in accordance with testifiable facts.

    Totally agree with this comment... which is related to the previous quote/point. That being that some world views do contradict/violate natural laws & principles but are usually upheld & not allowed to be challenged due to some form of fear of the alternative consequences. Academia can even discriminate against someone for having an opposing view or even considering one, which may then challenge an established belief... some topics attract more dogmatism than others. Speaking of which...

    Hmmmm.

    You could start by providing evidence (as asked here) to support the following comment...
    I can't progress too well & 'evolve' to do something about it if you just sit on the information... can I?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page