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.

Bio-Newtonian Theory Quantitative At Best

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by drsha, May 13, 2010.

  1. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    In his Text:

    Applied Partial Differential Equations
    J. David Logan
    Department of Mathematics
    Univ of Nebraska
    Springer 2004
    In Chapter 1-4, PDE’s in Biology

    Dr. Logan States:
    In many ways mathematical models in biology are quite different from those in the physical sciences and engineering.
    In the latter case, models are usually based on scientific principles and laws that can be expressed precisely in terms of nearly exact measurable quantities and the goal is to obtain precise, quantitative results.
    In the life sciences, however, it is really impossible to model all of the intricacies of preditor-prey interactions, tumor growth dynamics, or the spread of an infectious disease.
    Therefore the models are more phenominalogic in nature, predicting only qualitative rather than leading to detailed quantitative results.
    Biological systems are highly complex and often we attempt to describe only the gross features, ignoring much of the fine detail, the stochasticity, and the natural variability.

    Bio-Newtonion Theories I submit fail to produce viable Level I Evidence which you all have successfully proven until now.
    Please show evidence to the contrary.

    CATS, The Laws of Physics Don't Apply to Them
  2. Could you please quit calling it bio Newtonian? There is no other kind of mechanical. Nobody builds a bridge or car based on the type of mechanics where somebody "has a guess."

    and I think we've said before that clinical evidence derived from bench data and first principles (physics) do not constitute level one evidence but they do constitute level D evidence. Models which do not refer to first principles and bench data occupy a lower catagory. Since there is no lower catagory they are not EB.

    Could it possibly be that because by your own admission you do not have the time to learn physical mechanics, you are attempting to show that it is not relevant? Is it the case that you don't use it BECAUSE it's not valid or is it a case of I don't use it, THEREFORE it's not valid.

    And you reference refers to macrosystems like predator prey relationships. To be honest I don't see the link between that and the windlass of the foot.
  3. Also Dennis remember last week when I tired to explain to about the laws of nature that allow us to walk, not float off in to space or fall flat on your face when standing.

    These laws of NEWTON are part of these laws of Nature without we don´t excist. So to be honest the level of evidence is higher than anything it´s 100% fact.

    Now you have passed your DPM so you have some smarts, if you take the time that spend making argurments on here and read some basic physic books,the same as you read at school when you were 16 - 17. Get your head around the basics then read stuff written by C Nester et al and Kevin Kirby on the axis of the MTJ and STJ joints you will see the importance of Physics in foot mechancis.

    The come here and read threads on the subjects, ask question people will help.

    Then after that look at your FFT system maybe there is something in which will fit with your new found knowledge you can rebuild or adjust your aproach.

    It a journey for everyone Dennis no one has all the answers those that think they do are really the one who have further to travel.

    I hope you read this and stop and think...
  4. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Could you please quit calling it bio Newtonian? There is no other kind of mechanical. Nobody builds a bridge or car based on the type of mechanics where somebody "has a guess."

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! I have only just begun until you change your tune.

    Please refer to the things that you all have called me and my theory.

    Have I finally found one that actually defines your theory accurately?
    BIo-Newtonian, Bio-Newtonian, Bio-Newtonian.
  5. This thread has plumbed new depths of childishness! :sinking: Its not offensive Dennis, its just crap terminology.

    Bio-newtonian is accurate, Its also redundant because it means the same as Biomechanical. Its not my theory, or anyones theory, its simply descriptive of what we do with orthotics. Mechanical effect on biological tissues.

    Can't elucidate further, I have to take my car to the newtonian mechanic, then perhaps a game of newtonian tennis before I go home to feed my NON newtonian cat.
  6. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Robert: Why didn't you respond to the good Ph.D's textbook quote and my take. (the thread!)

    In response to your diverting and withdrawing response:

    This thread has plumbed new depths of childishness! Its not offensive Dennis, its just crap terminology.

    So Functional Fag Typing Wasn't?

    Bio-newtonian is accurate, Its also redundant because it means the same as Biomechanical.

    Maybe in your mind (or warp).
    Should we pull up definitions?

    Its not my theory, or anyones theory, its simply descriptive of what we do with orthotics. Mechanical effect on biological tissues.

    No, Using Bio-Newtonian exposes the need to differentiate between physical applications of the Laws of Newton and those that relate to biological applications.
    Once again, if the bird fell from Newton’s Tree, it would have flown away and never hit his head!

    I am pointing out that the readers of your Bio-Newtonian work should not make the mistake of valuing it as strongly as if it was performed on cadavers or wooden blocks and realize that any evidence produced from this theory should be greatly reduced in applicability when relating to a specific clinical encounter with a living, functioning, variable patient.

    The promoters of Bio-Newtonian Theory on The Arena are extremely biased towards their theory and once again, that greatly reduces the ability of its evidence to be applied to EBP.

    Can't elucidate further, I have to take my car to the newtonian mechanic, then perhaps a game of newtonian tennis before I go home to feed my NON newtonian cat.

    Isn’t this where the dogs of The Arena (you know who you are) state that you are running away from participating or avoiding responding to the thread or other questions that are uncomfortable for you to answer......the good Ph.D’s Textbook quote and the validity of my conclusion that Bio-Newtoniam (misspelled for Spooner) Theory is qualitiative at best.

    You can hide under the blankets over your head safely at home and maybe when you wake up I will have gone away (NOT) but all you are actually doing is giving me time to use my EBM skills that you claim don't exist or are inferior to yours to develop an entire body of evidence against the Level, Value and Applicability of The Bio-Newtonian Theory.

  7. So much anger, hopefully this helps bring a smile to all folks

    Attached Files:

  8. Graham

    Graham RIP

    It is interesting though.

    Exact forces applied to tissue stress variablities may not have the same effect.

    Just my take.
  9. drsha

    drsha Banned

    I would use The Con Edison Quote as they destroy NYC streets to accomplish their goals,


    Newtonian Biomechanics is in its infancy and will show great fruit in the future.

    I am all for it. I foster it. I support it.

    I have offered $2000 to support research of functional foot typing on The Arena (check out the childish responses).

    There is a growing body of evidence supporting Bio-Newtonian Theory that I am applying to my EBP. however , I am biased at this time and fishing for the opposing position (take a look at Kevin's list of evidence for his bias) for acceptance

    I would love to stop and join the band (no, the sideshow).

    There is no doubt that Newtonian Laws can prove the need for a cane in the rehab of a patient who has had a knee replacement. diagrams can be made, the momentum, equlibrium, torques, stresses, inertia formula's would prove it. Not knowing those formulaes, etc. hasn't kept me from recommending canes or utilizing the evidence that has been produced by researchers.

    I am arguing that until Newtonian Biomechanics (can we agree on this one and reduce the anger and replace also consider replacing SALRE with this term as Kevin has come so far beyond SALRE) matures it is no more valid than any other theory for use in EBP when a patient may weigh 200 or 400. May have a support system or not, may be challenged physically or mentally, etc, etc and dare I say it, has started out with a foot type-specific set of unique characteristics that shoukd be considered.

    In addition, I get the huge feeling that yours is a closed club unless I become an engineer or that a DPM not discussing tissue stress is on the path to hell and that all podiatry schools except those not under Kevin's guidance should be blown up, etc.

    Kevin and his followers have built a Newtonian "box" but you are way too protective of its borders and current principles. You are acting as if it has no faults and even if it did, you are the only one with positive ideas and answers to fix them in order to carry you forward.

    Dr Sha
  10. I had crafted a long and elegant response to this and my ****ing computer blipped. So I shall be a little more terse. Sorry. The first one was nicer.

    I did. I shall do so again.

    The reference you quoted refers to using mathematical models to predict macro systems like predator prey relationships and cellular activity.

    You are talking about useing newtonian physics to predict a mechanical system comprising joints, lever arms and such.

    They are what we refer to as "completely different". The paper has no relevance to your contention. You can't use mathmatical models to predict the sexual performance of the rhesus monkey either, does'nt prove it can't work when designing a jet plane!

    That is certainly what you are saying. I'm not sure you are arguing it though. That implies a logical basis for your statement. WHY do you not think physics applies to bio mechanical systems. Your reference is irrelevant. What else do you have?

    I bolded that because its so friggin ridiculous it deserves it.

    Verily, I quake. What will this body of evidence consist of Dennis? Bench data? RCTs? Outcome studies? Kinematic / kinetics work? How will you develop a body of evidence against the value of something which by your own admission you do not understand? Where you going to publish?

    Or will it be the OTHER type of evidence. The type where you do somthing which works and declare it to be EBM because it worked on a patient one time (a claim which can be made by every quack, loony, witch doctor and homeopath BTW). Do share. What are your plans?

    Or is it a tip top secret... (shhh keep it dark).

    Qualitative now? Shesh make up your mind! You said it was quantitative a minute ago.


    Is there anyone who understands those laws and that physics who agrees with you that such a need exists?

    The laws of newton apply unless you are sub atomic or on star trek. Whether we use them appropriately and fully to model, or whether the unknown elements make such models 100% accurate... that we can argue. But they apply. Biological IS physical.

    Of course it has faults. But is there another system with LESS faults? Which is more consistent, or predictable or proven? It certainly ain't neoteric biomechanics!
  11. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
    Neoteric adj. literary recent; newfangled; modern.
    Biomechanics n. The study of the mechanical laws relating to the movement or structure of living organisms.

    So, is this "neoteric biomechanics" a newfangled study of the mechanical laws relating to movement, or, is it ignoring mechanical laws? You need to decide, Dennis. If you are discounting Newton's mechanical laws relating to movement, then who's laws are you employing? Since, if it is ignoring the mechanical laws relating to movement then it isn't, by definition, biomechanics. In which case, you better think of a new name for it. I suspect that the term "neoteric" is also a misnomer, since this foot-typing approach is hardly new. I've got several names for it already. One of them is "thirty years too late"; another is "oxymoron biomechanics".
  12. Graham,
    Please explain your thinking here; I don't follow your thought pathway.
  13. Graham

    Graham RIP

    Variations in an individuals " tissue Stress" make up will respond differently from another individual when the same amount of force is applied in the same place. Therefore, how can we apply pure Newtonian principals to a biological structure that has different qualities for each individual? :confused:
  14. Graham, the response of a given tissue to a given loading force obeys the laws of physics. Variation between individual tissues will determine the stress/ strain within the target tissue. This does not negate the application of Newtonian principles to the human body. As a point of fact, when discussing stress and strain it's really the work of Hooke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke and later, Young http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist), that are key, although Newton cannot be ignored. The great thing about Young's modulus is that it depends only upon the material, i.e. bone, tendon, ligament etc. not upon it's geometry. So, it is the human variation in the material properties of the tendon, ligament etc, i.e. fibre population types / orientation etc. which will determine it's load/ deformation characteristics- still physics, still obeying the laws. And force (i.e. Newton), is always there.
  15. Graham

    Graham RIP

    Here's what I don't understand.

    If load A is applied to my bone and Load A is applied to your bone but our bones respond differently. What good does it do to know Load A?:confused:
  16. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Think in terms of diabetic ulcers! Same bones but very different neurological and tissue responses that alter how the system functions and heals. But Newton's laws help us predict and ideally helps us prevent ulcers.
  17. Simon:

    Excellent posting! These fundamental material characteristics should be taught to all podiatry students, residents and podiatrists.:good:
  18. If our bones were identical, they should respond identically, that's the point. In practice and in isolation, knowing the force applied is of little use. Hence, if we look only at foot pressure measurements it tells us little, in isolation. But we do know that if load A exceeds a certain level it will cause damage to all bones. Really though, variation exists in the tissues between individuals, take a healthy young adults bones and compare to an elderly individual with osteopenia. If we applied the same force to both, would you expect to observe the same load/ deformation characteristics? What might explain any differences observed? So, we need to look to the the tissues responses to the load, this is variable between individuals, due to variation in the material properties of the tissues, but still obeying the laws of physics. What we see within populations is continuous variation in terms of the stress/ strain responses of tissues, this is why trying to "pocket" the foot into "types" is ultimately fruitless. It doesn't mean that physics cannot be applied to the foot, it just means we see continuous variation of the phenotype.
  19. Graham

    Graham RIP

    Thanks Simon.

    An area I need to study more to comprehend fully.

    Thank you.
  20. Delete, duplicate post.
  21. Simon:

    I mentioned Robert Hooke last week during my Rome seminar lectures. I was showing a stress-strain curve and talking about the Hookean region of the curve and who Robert Hooke was. I said he should have been considered to be one of the greatest scientists of his era....the problem was that one of the best scientists of all time, Isaac Newton, was living (and competing) in England at the same time as Hooke. Strange how these two butted heads with each other during their lifetimes. Hooke was an amazing scientist....but just wasn't the math genius that Newton was.
  22. Graham:

    For clinicians we only need to know if load A needs to be decreased or increased to allow the injury to heal; we don't necessarily need to know how load A will affect all tissues and all individuals. Therefore, it you can devise a treatment plan that reduces load A (if that reduction in load can be determined to likely reduce the pathological forces acting on the injured structure) then all you need to do is record the before treatment and after treatment loads to effectively predict if that treatment will be successful as allowing that injury to heal.
  23. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member


    This is a bit late and repeats what some others have said but I wrote it once and lost it to the ether (those 'undo' and 'redo' buttons don't do what they say on the tin) and so rewrote it later.

    We don't know force A but is it necessary to know force A in a precise magnitude?
    What do we know are signs and symptoms. We could conclude from that data that the pain is mechanical in nature and that a mechanical intervention can be used to resolve it.
    We do know that a certain stress and strain in a given tissue will cause traumatic pathology. Lets stick with strain, which => cross sectional tension, and not stress, which => change in length, because in a visco elastic tissue it is more difficult to predict pathology in terms of stress especially in muscle tendon units since muscles can change length physiologically.
    We don't know the precise value of that strain but because there is pain then:
    We do know that the non pathological threshold has been exceeded.
    We do know that we need to reduce the strain in the tissue of interest.
    We don't know by how much to reduce the strain.

    Now if we do not understand mechanics (even at a basic level of forces and levers) then we cannot know how the forces applied at the ground can result in tissue strain in a distant limb segment or in tissues that make up, control or cross a joint.

    Once we do know this theory then we can put it into practice. Of course most of us will have an intuitive understanding of mechanical principles without any formal training. This does not make the formalised method any less valid and does not mean that the intuitive method has no connection with the formal method; they are just different ways of understanding a common problem and applying a common theory.

    The formal method gives us a common language to apply to the problem e.g. forces, moments, pressure, stress, strain etc. It is therefore more precise in terms of understanding and Communication. For example when you see a dog, and a cat sees a dog, you both know it’s a dog but you communicate that fact in two very different, perhaps mutually exclusive, ways but the fact still remains the dog existed. You can tell someone through language that you saw a dog, that same person might assume the cat had seen a dog because it had its hackles up and was hissing but it is not such a precise communication.

    So now through formal study we do know how to formally describe the forces and we know, in a more precise way, how they propagate through a mechanical system. Therefore, accordingly we can design our intervention in a more precise manner. A lot of times the intuitive way is good enough but sometimes a more precise understanding will produce better results. So knowing the formal method does not reduce one's capabilities, on the contrary, it does in fact enhance them.

    Often the principle is lost on the newcomer because they see the more sophisticated version first. They are given a mathematical problem and are expected to understand the principle behind it or even worse just get an answer using algebra, trig and calculus without ever exploring the underlying concept. This is not how Newton, and other classical scientists, formed his ideas; he didn’t invent an equation and then find a concept to fit it. He had a revelation and turned it into a concept then used formal mathematics to more precisely describe the principle. Over the years academics have further sophisticated the maths to more precisely and reliably define the principle concept. This does not make the first principle redundant neither does it make the more sophisticated approach less valid for any problem. The trick is to know the limitation of the technique being used in terms of the problem at hand.
    This may be where you original question comes back “What good does it do to know Load A?”

    Knowing the specific magnitude of load ‘A’ may not be very useful if we do not know the material and structural properties of the mechanism being observed, e.g. the human body, however it would be useful to know the approximate load and the direction and time of the load and combine that with our knowledge of mechanics to find the most useful solution to our problem. Having more knowledge and the ability to put into practice cannot diminish our capabilities.

    A mechanical intervention has a mechanical effect, if we have a reasonable idea what that effect might be before we try it then we can design our interventions in a more reliable way and communicate what we are doing more precisely.

    Cheers Dave Smith
  24. drsha

    drsha Banned

    :good: so reasonable, understandable and digestable.

    So now through formal study we do know how to formally describe the forces and we know, in a more precise way, how they propagate through a mechanical system (when dealing with inanimate objects). Therefore, accordingly we can design our intervention in a more precise manner (Once we factor in the variables that are inherent in each case of a human subject). A lot of times the intuitive way is good enough but sometimes a more precise understanding will produce better results. So knowing the formal method does not reduce one's capabilities, on the contrary, it does in fact enhance them (as additional evidence for making clinical decisions in EBP).

    Who understands this language, the dog or the cat?
    Do we convert all dogs into cats?
    Is there a dog to cat dictionary?
    or do we create a common language that dogs and cats can both assimilate so that we can meet and share our knowledge to advance our common goals.


    As dogs, for instance, are we willing to talk to cats until they are talking like dogs?
    and do cats have anything to offer to dogs?

    We need a common language acceptable to all that can be used as a central place where we can share ideas.

    Using all this that you have said ( with or without my additions):
    How do you explain the use of a valgus wedge in a frontal plane rearfoot hyperpronated foot to be a viable treatment in EBP for medial knee pain?

  25. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member


    Force A is a reflection of all those things at the time of interest.

    If by clinical biomechanics you mean physiology and anatomy then I would agree. A good engineer does not automatically make a good clinician. However the clinician with engineering knowledge in terms of biomechanics is better than the one without it.

    Cheers Dave Smith
  26. Now that we have all calmed down and can possibly have some intelligent academic discussion, without name calling and childishness, I would like to make some comments regarding these important points that Dr. Shavelson has asked here on Podiatry Arena.

    First of all, if we look at the writings of the pioneers of podiatric biomechanics, Drs. Mert Root, John Weed and Bill Orien, there is a significant amount of basic physics and mechanics terminology used within their textbooks. Terms such as force, Newton's Laws of Motion, angular acceleration, static equilibrium, axis of motion, ground reaction forces, torque, shear forces, and moment of inertia are used numerous times within the 33 year old Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot (Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH: Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot. Clinical Biomechanics Corp., Los Angeles, CA, 1977). Therefore, over three decades ago, the founders of modern podiatric biomechanics clearly understood the usefulness for all podiatrists to understand these terms since this terminology allowed them to more clearly communicate relatively complex mechanical ideas regarding foot and lower extremity biomechanics to the worldwide podiatric and orthopedic communities.

    I, personally, had the great benefit of being exposed to such learned individuals throughout my podiatry student years and Biomechanics Fellowship from 1979-1985. John Weed taught a few of our biomechanics classes during our 2nd and 3rd years of podiatric school, Mert Root guest lectured for us a few times and I had a great number of good biomechanics minds to learn from during these years including Drs. Ron Valmassy, Chris Smith, John Marczalec, Bill Sanner, Lester Jones, Jack Morris, and Rich Blake. All of these individuals, during my early student and fellowship years, often used basic physics terminology to describe the function of the foot and lower extremity to us students, with some preferring to use more complex terms than others.

    During my 3rd and 4th years of podiatry school, I had also taken the time to read Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot and the Compendium (Sgarlato TE (ed): A Compendium of Podiatric Biomechanics. California College of Podiatric Medicine, San Francisco, 1971) from cover to cover in order to try to learn as much as possible about biomechanics. In addition during my 3rd and 4th years of podiatry school, and especially during my biomechanics fellowship, I began to do a lot of reading outside the standard biomechanics textbooks and podiatric journals.

    What came to be quite evident during my reading outside of the podiatric literature from the time of my 3rd year of podiatry school (1981-82) to my Biomechanics Fellowship (1984-85) was that there were a few very special biomechanists in the world who were moving in a direction that was far more advanced, and with much better research, than what I had ever read within the podiatric journals or in the textbooks by Root et al and Sgarlato. Individuals such as Peter Cavanagh, PhD, Benno Nigg, PhD, Ned Frederick, PhD, and Joe Hamill, PhD, had, by that time, written some early books and articles on running shoe and running biomechanics that were virtually unknown by any of the podiatrists I was being trained by. I devoured these fascinating books and research articles since I saw, in reading these seminal works, how foot and lower extremity biomechanics research should be performed. I also started to learn the terminology that these individuals were using to describe the function of the foot and lower extremity and started to appreciate the thought processes that these learned individuals went through to describe the biomechanics of the foot and lower extremity, including shoe biomechanics.

    As a result of these very significant influences on my academic growth during my Biomechanics Fellowship, and my experimentation with subtalar joint axis location during these years, I began to try and incorporate the ideas of Benno Nigg and the others into my lectures to students, and into my Precision Intricast Newsletters which I began writing in 1986, and into the papers, book chapters and books I eventually published. To me, it seemed only natural that podiatrists should be using the same terminology as the international biomechanics community of the time, since I knew that if I could understand and use these terms with a little bit of study, then certainly other motivated and intelligent podiatrists could easily also understand and use this terminology with a similar amount of study.

    One of the main reasons for using these terms, such as moment, moment arm, rotational equilibrium, stress, strain, pressure, and force vector, which are now standardly used within the international biomechanics community was not to try to confuse other podiatrists. Rather, my main goal in using these terms, which seemed "difficult" and "pointless" to many older podiatrists, was to try and elevate podiatric biomechanics to the point to where we could all understand the pioneering research of the leaders of the international foot and lower extremity biomechanics community and hopefully allow us all to communicate with researchers in a common biomechanics language that is more precise, less ambiguous and more clear. I believe that I learned this mostly from hearing Dr. Mert Root speak many times where he continually stressed, in his lectures, the importance of using more precise and clear terminology when communicating to other podiatrists about foot and lower extremity biomechanics.

    There is no question in my mind that this is the way forward for podiatric biomechanics. We must all strive toward learning the basic terminology of the international foot and lower extremity biomechanics research community so that we can learn from their research. We must all continue to strive toward performing better podiatric research that allows us to better understand the pathologies we most commonly see and the best treatments for these pathologies. And, finally, we must all work together to promote an educational process for our students and practitioners within our respective countries that will allow podiatrists to continue to remain as the most knowledgeable and respected treaters of foot and lower extremity biomechanics pathology throughout the world.

    This has been my passion for the past 25 years and will continue to be so, hopefully, for many years to come.:drinks
  27. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Dave: If by clinical biomechanics you mean physiology and anatomy then I would agree. A good engineer does not automatically make a good clinician. However the clinician with engineering knowledge in terms of biomechanics is better than the one without it".

    Robert, take over.

    If I had a terrible clinician with engineering knowledge and one with great clinical experience and success practicing next door to each other, whihc would I tale my children to.

    There is somethoing circular (or another tautolostic or heuristic reason that flaws your argument.).

    I want to practice next to that practitioner/engineer and would make my living explaining to patients and our medical community that he is brilliant but not clinically focused or interested in them understanding his beliefsa but instead is waiting for you to learn his language.

  28. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Wow, you're wonderful.
    NO I thinks, no I suggests, no if you are thinking the way I have been trained to think you may join, no definition of WE, nothing but musts, have to's and inferred you betta's.

    If I did'nt know the content was your's, I would think it was me!!, you flim-flam man selling your true agenda, selling again.

    I have avoided sayin foot typing in recent posts but watch, the next time I temper your agenda with mine, what happens.

    On The Arena, who ever wins the war, to quote Bob Dylan, had god on his side and you are going to win this war that you want to wage between us.

    We'll see who has god on his side when it comes to the uninteeligent (Spooner spell check please) podiatrists and lab owners.

    I have had a different set of wonderful significant influences on my career that obviously was different than yours. You DEMAND that I throw them all away and I take time off from my appointed goals to defend them against you and your Arena army til the end because there is some value in them..

    You (and I think I) are a player in the future of biomechanics, you (nor I) are not the Messiah that you have declared yourself.

    I hope we both have impact now that YOU have declared the field of battle calm, Darth
  29. Love and hat, misspelled but coming your way.
  30. Sorry. Nothing Doing.

    You have become ever more shrill and spiteful, peaking on the postmodern deconstruction thread. Since that point I have no more respect for you, nor desire or inclination to pander to you delusions of adequacy. As I tell my children when they misbehave, an apology is noble and appropriate but does not lessen my dissappointment with them, nor you.

    You have nothing new to say, no new or valid points to make. You simply continue to try to prove through irrational argument, and the occasional tantrum, that we should all work within YOUR limitations. Like many inadequate people, you strive to believe and convince others that your shortcomings are in fact virtues, that the things you have never learned are not worth knowing.

    Nobody is buying.

    It was an amusing sideshow, now its just dull, repetative and mildly embarrassing. There is nothing new or interesting and you are amazingly, even alarmingly impervious to logic. I shall therefor leave you to those of my colleagues with more patience than me to try in vain to educate you or talk sense to you. I wish them luck, without optimism.
  31. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member


    I don't think there is any thing circular in that arguments but: In my statement above I should have been more clear, I meant for the same clinician that has the extra knowledge. However if the 2 clinicians are using mechanical interventions and one has no knowledge of mechanics then how does he expect his intervention to work. If he does understand mechanics intuitively but cannot communicate because of language barriers then how can he improve his knowledge? One way would be to rely on his own experimentation, without reference to any external work, and make conclusions based on his experimental results. This would might be fine if he had plenty of time and large sample populations and rigorous experimental methods, however two problems occur:

    1) The investigation of each variable from a huge range of possible variables would render little time for clinical work, which is kind of self defeating.

    2) Considering experimental evidence, without reference to outside work and scrutiny by peers, will very likely result in bias errors and more importantly there may be fundamental errors in the underlying concept or axiom underpinning the research that has gone unnoticed either by pure accident or because to acknowledge this deficit would invalidate all the experimental work.
    It is within human nature to conveniently ignore or miss this limitation and carry on regardless, since the system appears to work and to acknowledge the fundamental error would mean starting all over again. In some cases all that time and personal effort would equal just a wasted lifetime.

    From my fairly recent experience, change can be hard to accept and once accepted hard to deal with as one concept fights another for supremacy but once changed the real learning can begin.

    Regards Dave
  32. drsha

    drsha Banned

    I am assuming that in your family, for your children, there is a sense of family values and and an environment that contains flexibility, an acceptance of opposing views and communication that suports its members as we all have faults.
    The Arena is mean and dysfunctional to those with opposing views and I doubt that you would allow others to treat your children or that you treat your children as you do me.

    I'm sorry that you have not responded to the evidence I presented as requested, I was looking forward to your thoights.

    "Go up close to your friend, but do not go over to him! We should also respect the enemy in our friend".
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  33. Graham

    Graham RIP

    With Respect Dennis, I have relatively alternative views, maybe not apposing, but never the less different than say Robert, Simon, Kevin et al. However, despite the odd slip up in terminology and understanding, usually on my behalf, when you demonstrate at least a comprehension of the research and principals being discussed the Arena is far from "mean and dysfunctional".

    This is an academic forum from which I have contributed some and learnt much. Robert and others HAVE responded to the evidence you have presented. It is without foundation and support. Accept this or not, I am sure you will evangelically continue to market your "product" regardless.

    Way to go Dennis, now go away!

  34. drsha

    drsha Banned


    These are listed on your site as SMILES!

    No, you're not mean

  35. drsha

    drsha Banned

    These are listed on your site as SMILES!

    No, you're not mean


  36. drsha

    drsha Banned

  37. drsha

    drsha Banned

    These are also listed as SMILES on your site.

    No, you're not mean!

    No, you're not mean!


    Well there are five others including :santa: which I am not sure of that seem to be positive.

    There have been great advances that have come from logic, science, circular reasoning, mistakes, dreams and dare I say it, evangelicals.

    Darwin led to Hitler!
    God led to the Crusades!

    i can live and learn from you.
    Why can't you live and learn from me?

    End of Round Eight (you know what I mean)

    We go to the score cards.

    Still Standing!
    Maybe I am The Enemy!

  38. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Enough said.

    Dennis, I have tried to learn from you. I tried to get you to define your terms in relation to anatomy and you wouldn't (couldn't?).

    Still standing = still able to post on the forum. However, a better measure might be what other people think of you and your postings. Would you be happy to direct your clients/ patients to the forum to read your postings and those of others on the forum?


  39. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member

    An Oriental proverb states: He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument

    drsha please stop throwing verbal punches... we all get the idea.

    Thank you
  40. Greg Quinn

    Greg Quinn Active Member

    Within the somewhat esoteric (often semantic) arguments made by DrSha, there lurks a fundamental misunderstanding of how it is that Newtonian mechanics relate to the body, its movement and the causality of symptoms:

    The understanding of mechanical laws (specifically qualified by Kirby above) is essential to understand how it is that the internal and external environment of the foot interact during function or delivery of its biological purpose. This is not simply to clarify a shared language with other specialties who share our interest (although very important) but also to introduce legitimate physical laws that can be employed to qualify and quantify such forces. That such forces cannot always be readily measured directly does not diminish their relevance or significance in planning orthotic (or indeed surgical) interventions. It is the lack of functional equilibrium between these environments that tends towards what we recognise as symptoms or physical manifestations of stress. That is to say, it is forces or their relative imbalance that produces a sequence of internal events that lead to pain, along with frequently observed patterns of dysfunction.

    The suggestion that any biomedical system is not exposed to such laws, especially when movement of mass is the prime purpose, is clearly an intellectual folly. However, DrSha seems to suggest that rather than this, it is the individual, idiosyncratic variability of a multi-system interaction that obfuscates such physical laws which thereby renders them irrelevant. This is a medical misconstruction that reflects a discontinuous thought process.

    The morphological, neuromuscular and biochemical processes that characterise individual phenotypes demonstrate increasingly understood interactions that collectively can be configured to describe functional traits. Furthermore, dissimilarities within each studied population are likely to demonstrate continous variation of such traits as they are likely to be strongly influenced by polyepigenetic processes. To regard this biomedical complexity as a justification to ignore laws that WILL apply to any moving object (inaminate or otherwise) is to 'stick one's head in the sand'. We should instead engage with the fundamental aspects of science that are understood and seek improved understanding of how qualified laws interact with other biological systems to produce the individual entropic responses with which we are confronted.

Share This Page