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.

Gel OTC insole claims

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by David Wedemeyer, Jun 4, 2011.

Tags:
  1. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I was recently contacted by a company that makes gel insoles after responding to a post here on PA asking if I would like to offer their product in my office. Admin deleted the thread from what I can tell but I offered the owner and his staff to come and convince us that what he claims is true. It makes for interesting reading. The developer is a "Biomechanical Engineer":

    http://www.kendallgelthotics.com/The_Functional_Science_of_the_GelThotic_.pdf

    The general points of discussion:
    • Orthoses radically alter shoe fit.
    • Orthoses have “side effects”, or create their own problems.
    • Hard surfaces, such as in a conventional orthosis, irritate the damaged foot and often encourage inflammation.
    • Orthoses and conventional insoles either use materials that compact and shift geometries or have contours that are not therapeutic.
    • Orthoses don’t adapt to the shoe that is being worn.
    • The “planar” surfaces of most insoles are repeated in both the orthotic itself and the shoe taking unnecessarily large amounts of space.
    • Conventional orthosis don’t sufficiently absorb shock.
    • Most insoles, and few orthoses account for various foot types.
    • Conventional insoles and Orthoses are ineffective in controlling multiple planes of movement such as in various sports including tennis, basketball, etc.
    • Most Orthoses are generally unstable; being too narrow and high actually decreasing lateral stability.
    • Many materials used in Orthoses are irritating, too thin, and compressible.
    • Orthoses pick up microbes and odors after a time.
    • Conventional Orthoses don’t account for the full “gait-cycle”.
    • Conventional Orthoses don’t address all three of the major foot conditions: 1) Plantar Fasciitis, 2) Neuromas and problems of the forefoot, and 3) General Heel Pain.
    • Orthoses don’t work with a removable insole.
    • Conventional Orthoses don’t control motion as over-pronation throughout the gait cycle.
    • Conventional Orthoses don’t distribute pressure over the whole heel and effectively “cup” it.
    • Conventional Orthoses don’t work well with the high arched (cavus) foot.
    • Conventional Orthoses don’t fit in dress shoes and high heels.
    • The longitudinal arch of conventional Orthoses, even custom Orthoses do not reach high enough to fully distribute pressure and fully support the arch.
    • The “arch” of conventional orthosis, even custom, lacks a “fasciial groove” to both support the arch and adapt to its contours.
    • Conventional Orthoses and insoles do not follow the general geometrical and longitudinal axis of a given shoe.
    • Custom Orthoses often employ a technique called “fill” to actually reduce the topography of the support for better tolerance but at that point it is questionable if it is custom, much less therapeutic.
    • Conventional Orthoses are so invasive toward the longitudinal mid-line of the shoe that the foot is never in a neutral plane anywhere in the shoe.

    The floor is yours Mr. Kendall :hammer:
     
  2. dragon_v723

    dragon_v723 Active Member

    the above 'problems' fascia groove bulkiness can be improved by various prescription options...
    and I fail to see how the gel is able to withstand the weight of the wears and not deformed. The video on the website does not actually show an real person loading their foot on this kind of device rather just CG, may be I missed the bit there is another video on the website?
     
  3. Sing along if you know the words, "If you're in marketing...."

    There is so much wrong with this its hard to know where to start. But I'm going to start at the beginning. The very beginning. The title in fact.

    What is "functional science". It must be unrelated to conventional science, of which I spotted exactly none in the document.

    Is this a "paper" as such, or just a marketing schpeil. I suggest the latter. "paper", and the way its formatted suggests some sort of published science where in fact its a list of unsupported claims and straw man arguments on the lines we've seen countless times before. .

    Too much here and none of it good. But the closing paragraph sums the whole thing up nicely. Many of the statements are not only unsupported or true, they're downright irrational or meaningless!

    Eh? F'kin WHAT?!

    I move that on the basis of gross inaccuracy, unsupported and unsupportable claims, pseudoscience (long words which sound impressive but which mean sod all) and straw man arguments this thread earn the "snake oil" tag. Regardless of how good or otherwise the product, the marketing is a steaming pile of taurine.

    Can I get a second?
     
  4. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Amen brother.

    I've not read such guff for a long long time. I have only one question for Michael Kendall if he's reading... 'Do you know what way round to sit on a toilet seat?'
     
  5. Have you read my paper?

    Robert Isaacs
    The functional science of toilet seats.

    Conventional sitting on toilet seats has the following problems.

    Haemorrhoids.
    Red marks on the tops of the knees
    Nowhere to rest your magazine.
    Toilet seats too hard
    Toilet seat does not support the buttocks evenly
    Toilet seat does not work through the entire bowel movement.

    Whereas the reverse proctopositional science technique

    Allows you to walk into the bathroom and sit down without turning around.
    Gives you the chance to rest your arms / magazine on the cistern
    Supports your buttocks in the natural position
    Gives optimal positional vecto-neutral-kinetic-waveform-axial-planal-scalar-mover-shaker-support throughout the bowel movement.
    Makes me rich.

    Therefore, buck your ideas up young man!
     
  6. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Surely, that should be `which`?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N1sjdLQIj8


    Have a good tirty-tree and a turd birthday, Ian ;)


    -
     
  7. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Thank you Robert and Ian. When I read this 'paper' I about soiled myself laughing. I agree that there are just far too many inaccurate statements to even spend time on this but some of my favorites are:

    Where have we heard this before?

    I beg your pardon?

    Um yeah....those scant millimeters also cause your tensegrity to be off you see...

    You should be publicly flogged for uttering this Michael. Nonsense, especially when you consider that most CFO's have a topcover and most people wear socks in their shoes. Where is your evidence for this statement?

    Again where is your proof?

    This one says it all. So conventional orthoses (and btw your gel insole is NOT an orthosis amigo) “posting” which raises the heel in typical custom orthotics also raises the center of gravity....but you advocate sticking your insole in a high heeled shoe. Convenient but ironic if you think about it.

    Michael you cannot substantiate nearly every statement that you make and Robert hit the nail on the head; marketing.
     
Loading...

Share This Page