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.

More 'snake oil' as orthotics

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Simon Spooner, Jun 14, 2006.

  1. Blarney

    Blarney Active Member

    As I've had no response to the thread I started regarding lack of MSK research coming from our academic institutions I though I'd get discussion going in another way.

    Orthotics are just an expensive heel raise - discuss :D

    Justin

    podiatry.ie
     
  2. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Dennis.

    At the end of my last post I gave you a (sincere) helpful tip in using the "Quote" option of this site when referencing someone's point/views. I think it would make your job easier & the readers job easier when reading your posts... otherwise there is the potential for confusion on who is saying what & responding to what. See... look how clear it makes it...

    No, I hadn't at the time. My intentions was to grasp your background (which wasn't forthcoming from yourself), where I found your website & subsequently posted two images which was showing & explaining your device (orthotic). You know, another helpful tip is providing a link to the material you have in mind (i.e. "bio-fluid mechanics")... so I can better assess where you are coming from.

    Anyway, since then I have had some time to look into it i.e. fluid mechanics/"bio-fluid mechanics" in association with fluid displacement via hydrodynamic pressure within an insole (orthotic). I'll discuss this further on.

    Remember, our dialogue started as a result of your condescending attitude/tone towards those who use Podiatry based orthotics... a tone I see based around anecdotal poor results, biasness & wilful ignorance... & not justified due to the degree of success I (& others) have had with related orthotics/principles.

    Also note that I have not criticised your product/device... or premise ("fluid mechanics") for that matter.

    With that behind us, I want to (sincerely) assess your views & product...

    The "scientific technology" you are referring to I take it is "Fluid Mechanics". OK, fluid mechanics/"bio-fluid mechanics" in & of itself is fine & a legitimate field. However, is the application of those principles being effectively applied in a functional way within the device/orthotic you are promoting. It's one thing to base your reasoning/premise on a "scientific technology" & another thing to have it effectively/functionally work in clinical practice... over an array of conditions/forces to then effectively treat the array of clinical/biomechanical ailments at the rate you claim... whilst debasing Podiatry based orthotics' ability to address the same conditions/forces.

    So I can understand your reasoning & subsequent orthotic better, my intentions are to sincerely question these areas... so please don't interpret it as an attack (Podiatry Arena isn't always a conducive environment for such critique/inquiry at the best of times... as you may already know). [(?) = a query]

    Those images I added in my last post (which are found on your website) intrigue me i.e. they just don't seem to be functionally compatible i.e....

    fig. 1:
    [​IMG]

    fig. 2:
    [​IMG]

    Fig. 1: shows the actual device itself, which looks to be a non-contoured (i.e. flattish) insole (based on patient's shoe size). Based on the name of the device: Silicone Dynamic Orthotics, I presume they are filled with a silicone based fluid. Now I presume based on the principles of Fluid Mechanics (i.e. fluid displaced to an "area of least resistance and greatest need") via hydrodynamic pressure (from weight bearing sequenced loading points of the foot) there isn't any compartments built into the device (?). Basically it is a silicone based fluid filled insole template... with volume (mg) of fluid based on the individual's needs/attributes (i.e. condition/injury, weight, shoe size)... which can be potentially be obtained via email or phone (?).

    Fig. 2: is of a drawing of the above principles at work... with the foot at midstance, the fluid has displaced via hydrodynamic pressure into the medial longitudinal column/arch region... theoretically controlling/stabilising the MTJ (?).

    Do I have the assessment of the above two figures correct?

    Would you have an actual sagittal plane photo (preferably video) of an individual's foot on the Silicone Dynamic Orthotic... subsequently showing the filling of the medial longitudinal column/arch region... to correspond to the individual's arch contour?

    I take it you would require input of varying mg of fluid to address the varying heights of arches within the population... can the product materials (i.e. encasing covering) accommodate/withstand the varying arch heights & subsequent expansion/pressure i.e. of a Pes Cavus foot?

    How much pressure is the device able to withstand... particularly those exhibiting a high supination resistance force? Then in relation to the higher demands of running... where there potentially can be a total impact force of around 700-800 tonnes of force (3-4 times body weight) - based on a 66kg individual's (average) 3000 landings per foot over just a 10km run... hence a lot of accumulative (repetitive) force the materials need to withstand over a desirable lifespan for an orthotic.

    What happens if the individual’s foot mechanics do not function appropriately i.e. adequate loading (adequate plantarflexion) of the 1st met. (adequately inducing the Windlass mech.) – would this not affect the fluid (directional) placement (or fluid displacement via hydrodynamic pressure) to where you optimally require it to gain optimal biomechanical control i.e. fluid filling under the midtarsal joint/arch?

    Do the Silicone Dynamic Orthotics require that there is appropriate anatomical sequence loading of the foot to optimally cause appropriate fluid displacement (via hydrodynamic pressure) to the appropriate areas for optimal stability i.e. sustaining arch/MTJ stability in the sagittal plane?

    So, the above are just a few questions I have in need to understand your position/views better.

    In fact, about 20 or so years ago Reebok had a running shoe that from memory worked off hydrodynamic fluid displacement principles (I think) within the sole (it had interconnecting chambers)... I use to train in the shoe... it felt great until the system broke i.e. something split... & water got inside the system.


    Well Dennis, I didn't say that I have made the above claims nor allude to such. I'm just trying to do my job properly & informing you of my experience with Podiatry based orthotic therapy... which is a lot more successful than your claims on this thread (hence my initial dialogue with you).

    Probably against my better judgement on this forum (& in this thread)... I'll in brief describe my (custom) orthotic therapy: involves a thin (flexible) polypropylene shell (based on the individual i.e. weight, supination resistance force) i.e. 2mm... then having the ILA (longitudinal arch) filled in (under the shell) with a varying density/hardness compound (based on the individual i.e. weight, supination resistance force) to obtain an adequate stabilising device, yet allow adequate orthotic give/flexion... as the foot was designed to flex/pronate... whilst reducing those adverse (pathological) forces. If I need to adjust the orthotic i.e. due to correction tolerance issues... I grind the ILA compound on the underside of the orthotic to gain more give/flex. That's it in a nutshell - now, I don't have time to debate (if it was to occur) the above reasoning. I added the above to be open about my position/reasoning... being that I am questioning yours. I also use Formthotics for my pre-fab alternative... which (interestingly) I see you also do - Formthotic link to your site here.


    Putting aside the issue of using "Quote" blocks (to limit confusion)... I think you missed the point of my analogy... as well as cut my analogy in half when referencing it :mad: . Here it is again (in full) in the context I intended...

    Like I said in the above quote... I can see validity in your orthotic direction i.e. at the time I was thinking potentially effective for i.e. Rheumatoid arthritic feet.

    Anyway, this post is long enough.

    Regards,
    Matt
     
  3. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Matt,

    tks for the tip on quotes, but unless you give me the sequence of using it, I'm not computer savvy.

    I didn't start out condescending, but was forced to when a bunch of “professionals” instead of “investigating”, just reject a scientific technology. Stupid questions and pretense of not recognizing scientific principles. Referencing my web site for information instead of my article. I tried to be patient and take them seriously, after all, not everyone sees everything clearly right away . Even docs on PA who've had the chance to wear the SDO, but didn't understand the principles involved.

    Any foot specialist should be able to envision a footstep. Knowledge of pronation and a scientific background, it's not that difficult to put an orthotic underfoot and see in their minds eye what happens.

    My article link was at the bottom of the page with the pics you took:


    http://www.podiatrytoday.com/closer-look-principles-fluid-dynamics-they-relate-orthoses

    When you get the chance, read it, if you have any questions, I'll be here. Then we can discuss the rest of your post as well.
     
  4. With a couple of hundred hits on e-bay for "liquid insoles", I'm guessing the world already knows. Priced from only about $8 with shipping too.
     
  5. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Simon,

    You don't disappoint:hammer:!
     
  6. Unfortunately that is all you ever achieve, Dennis. For the record, how much do you charge for your liquid filled insoles that anyone else can buy from e-bay for $7?

    Run us through the process: I'm an internet customer: you require exactly what from me in order for you to prescribe your orthoses (which are obviously going to be superior to the fluid filled insoles I can buy from e-bay for 7 bucks...) Do I send you a cast or what?

    Let's assume I have to send you a cast... You've got a negative... run us through a step by step protocol for what you do to arrive at your prescription... You've repeatedly accused us of "not understanding", talk us through the process so that we might understand... I send you a cast....
     
  7. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Simon,

    For what reason do I need to comply for you? You're a waste of time.
     
  8. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    The "Quote" button should be at the bottom right corner of every post... you should also see other buttons with it (when logged in) such as "MQ -", "OR" & "Thanks". Just click the "Quote" button of the post you want to quote from & it will show you that post within quote tags i.e. [QUOT.] xxx...selected text...xxx [/QUOT.]. You can simply quote the whole post or quote sentences from it (after deleting the parts you don't want to reference). Then underneath the quoted piece... you can write your response... then when you submit your post to the thread it will show the referenced piece (selected text) within a quote bubble followed by your response to it (below it).


    I understand where you are coming from. Like I've said in my previous post... Podiatry Arena isn't always the most conducive environment for sharing views (i.e. new ideas) which challenge or question the status quo. I've experienced it myself... to the point where the censorship &/or ridicule have been in blatant contradiction to the empirical science, tenets of logic & the posting guidelines of this forum. Be that as it may... & as frustrating it may feel to you... I personally think the resorting to generalised criticism of Podiatry based orthotics & those who use the principles within isn't a conducive way to deal with it.


    Thanks for the link... now read the article... the material is theoretically interesting.

    Now to the questions pertaining to its practical application (following quote from my last post has been modified for reference clarity i.e. numbering of questions)...

     
  9. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Matt,

    quotes in boxes next time----------------

    Excuse the caps--It helps me see the screen better.

    First I want to complement your method of orthotic therapy. A flexible orthotic is for this technology the very least you should do in choosing your orthotic materials. Where there are two areas of “instability” which occurs with a traditional rigid orthotic (rear foot and forefoot), with a flexible orthotic, there is better chance for one area of instability at the forefoot ( heel off and propulsion simultaneously), It is these moments I've basically referred to as “instability moments” --from the literature, I recall, that if instability occurs at any moment, it destabilizes everything in the lower extremity, and I do see it that way--to me, that's the repetitive instability (under tissue stress) that produces biomechanical orthopedic problems, over decades.


    Now at the RF, if you've captured the correct position of the talo-navic jt, such that it is stable, then and only then is the STJ stable. As you know from the literature, the TNJ has the greatest rom of pronation (this was referenced in my article). Therefore, if it's not stable it will allow the STJ to further pronate and thus you have an “instability moment”.


    This is why a medical device that serves the purpose of any orthotic, should be able to “comfortably” fit anyone, with the correct functional Rx, which “supports” the “dynamic” planes of motion (at the tarsus) in their most efficient biomechanical axis through the stance phase cycle. This then becomes a health benefit to wear for everyone. I've seen athletes benefit from it as well. Not only recovering from a biomechanical injury but then be able to train harder without re-occurrence and go on to get stronger—case after case.



    Education of the public to start to bring children around 10 yrs old. To begin their biomechanical health—just like when they start going to the dentist----prevention
    There's a reason, I cut it off at 10—but that's another issue.

    To me, it's like brushing your teeth. If you can “comfortably” fit most anyone for the purpose of walking and running only. (Other functions may or may not apply to the fluid tech.) you will reduce and minimize any and all effects of biomechanical function.--prevention

    As I've stated, my complaint is that while you may have a higher success ratio, the overall results are still not enough in my opinion. Then there is the follow up, when a pt's biomechanical Rx has changed. Recapturing that cast with perhaps, no more than a fraction of a degree in its new Rx. is highly unlikely. I have found that biomechanical Rxs can change 2-5 times over a 10 year period.

    You commonly use wedges and other modifications affecting 2-7 degrees. I work in fractions of a degree adding or subtracting mgs. I look at the accuracy of a biomechanical Rx akin to my eyes.--The closer you want to get to a scientific measurement generally means that's as good as it gets. To me—it means better.




    Fig. 1: shows the actual device itself, which looks to be a non-contoured (i.e. flattish) insole (based on patient's shoe size).--

    -it may be HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE ARE CONTOURS IN THE ORTHOTIC IN FIG 1.

    there isn't any compartments built into the device (?). (NO COMPARTMENTS)

    . which can be potentially be obtained via email or phone (?
    ).-
    -A MEASURING/FITTING KIT CAN BE ORDERED


    Fig. 2: is of a drawing of the above principles at work... with the foot at midstance, the fluid has displaced via hydrodynamic pressure into the medial longitudinal column/arch region... theoretically controlling/stabilising the MTJ (?).-

    -WHY DO YOU SAY “THEORETICAL”?--FLUID IS DISPLACED UNDER PRESSURE TO AN AREA OF LEAST RESISTANCE. The word “control” is not what I use with this technology.
    I prefer guide or assist. THIS INVOLVES THE ENTIRE ARCH CHAMBER

    As for stabilization—that's the “buzz” word to me. Because the arch chamber at midstance as well as the rear foot and forefoot have reached an equilibrium state OF STABILITY.

    I've had a hard time dealing with buffoons on this site who either don't understand or are rejecting it for selfish personal motives, but for those who've read the article and still argue the science behind it all, there isn't anything left to say.



    1/ Would you have an actual sagittal plane photo ...


    -I don't have a pic, however it fits pretty much the way of the graphic pic

    2/ I take it you would require input of varying mg of fluid to address the varying heights of arches within the population..

    The height of an arch along the medial column is secondary in fact you're still thinking in your technology –with the silicone you don't need to concern yourself with that information ( maybe except with an anomaly), if you were able to see the contours of Fig 1, you would see as I described, the full support of the MTJ and forefoot.. The material can handle the expansion pressure.

    3/ How much pressure is the device able to withstan
    d... EXACTLY--I DON'T KNOW. I”VE HAD PTS UP TO 400LBS


    particularly those exhibiting a high supination resistance force?

    THE ONE AREA OF WEAKNESS HAS BEEN THE SEAL AT THE MOST POSTERIOR ASPECT. --THIS IS CORRECTABLE BY ADDING A U-SHAPED FOAM HEEL CUP TO COVER THE SEAL AND REDUCE THE TORQUE AT HC.--I'VE HAD MANY ORTHOTICS LAST MANY YEARS WHEN I WASN'T EVEN USING THE ADDED HEEL CUPS.--ULTIMATELY THERE IS A SHELF LIFE TO THE PRODUCT, CONSIDERING THE TYPE OF ABUSE IT GETS AND THE WAY IT PERFORMS ITS FUNCTION.

    4/ What happens if the individual’s foot mechanics do not function appropriately


    UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING ANOMALOUS ABOUT THAT FOOT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. THE LOADING OF THE SILICONE IS FULLY AUTOMATIC AND MOVES WITH THE SPEED OF THE CYCLE.--WHAT EVER FORMS THAT INDIV FOOT HAS A VOLUMETRIC AMOUNT AT MIDSTANCE. The biomechanics of the planes of motion and wt bearing forces, displaces the fluid to its “optimal position”--beyond that, any anomoly would have to be individually assessed.

    5/ Do the Silicone Dynamic Orthotics require that there is appropriate anatomical sequence loading of the foot to optimally cause appropriate fluid displacement

    -No, unless there is an anomaly of the foot, the loading sequence is the same. It works the same each and every time, because it is a bio/fluid mechanical Rx orthosis. In fact I specified the four areas of loading (actually there are 5).

    Were you able to envision the fluid displacement for the stance phase description?

    When you feel comfortable knowing what to expect from an orthotic you've made, because you understand and can envision this pt's biomechanics. You know if the Rx is right or not and generally how to fix it within 1-2 adjustments to the proper milligram.
    I do this, and I don't even see the pt—ever, Spooner!

    As a foot specialist and scientist, if you can envision the bio/fluid mechanics, you don't have to see it functionally work, before you recognize that it has to work.

    Regards

    Dennis
     
  10. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Well that doesn't appear to make for a consistent case Dennis :cool:... as some parts were capped & some parts weren't - it seemed to be the parts you were wanting to stress the most which were capped ;). But hey, that's fine with me... caps don't bother me (they seem to bother some though) :rolleyes: .

    Anyway, thank you Dennis for your response... & your compliment.

    There are just a couple of things I want to address & require more clarity on...

    I used the word "theoretical" for obvious reasons... because I am querying you on the concept's (Fluid Mechanics) practical application with the Silicone Dynamic Orthotics. Like I said in a previous post...

    Ok, but I personally feel an actual sagittal plane photo (or video) in association with a person's foot would be quite beneficial for both yourself & those assessing the function/concept of the Silicone Dynamic Orthotic. This issue is also related to the following...

    Now the next issue is a point I'm finding inconsistent with what you have already said above & what I have found/interpreted in the paper/article you referenced (i.e. http://www.podiatrytoday.com/closer-look-principles-fluid-dynamics-they-relate-orthoses). That being the Silicone Dynamic Orthotic's relationship with arch height... & its ability (i.e. materials) to accommodate...

    No, I wasn't thinking in my "technology" in relation to the arch height... I'm trying to assess your orthotic with an open mind (objectively)... based on the pictures on your website & your description.

    You have already stated (in caps) the following...
    The following passages are all quotes from the above cited article which leads me to think that the filling of the "arch chamber" would be dependent on the varying input of mg of fluid to subsequently accommodate varying "arch chamber" volumes (which to my reckoning also involves height specs) found within the population (& subsequently can the material handle that varying degree of expansion)...

    Thus the descriptions above (which sound theoretically interesting & plausible) seem to indicate that the orthotic's encasing material would need to accommodate varying "arch chamber" sizes/volumes & subsequent varying arch heights to gain adequate stabilization of the "Tarsus"/"Midtarsal"/"Talonavicular" regions (as cited above).

    I would think the best thing would be for me to try the SDO (I'm keen to); yet, I live in Australia. Can this be done?
     
  11. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Matt,

    Unless you want to pay for it, I have to ask Tim, the owner of the factory. For me, just cover my expenses.

    I don't mind fitting you as long as we get straight certain criteria first

    1-you have to respond to the fitting by only 3 criteria

    a. it must comfortable to wear
    b. it should feel snug or full.
    c. you should feel stable.

    We can discuss the bio/fluidmechanics as it happens.
    What I don't want is for you to tell me that you want to lift or do something specific to a part of your foot with the fluid.--It's hydro-dynamic there is nothing you can do with that Rx. However, if you have an anomoly say like a rigid plantarflexed ray, you could use a small material that might require an old fashioned chiropody technique of additional buttressing and padding. Even just adding a wedge under the MTJ (as long as the fluid absorbs it, will displace more fluid causing a more full feel under the arch, (that's not the way I want to do it) Having creativity with the fluid is a benefit.

    Then the only adjustment, is to pronate or supinate the planes of motion. The closer we get to meeting the 3 criteria of the fit, the closer we come to joint congruity through out the gait cycle. Quantifying a Rx has that advantage.

    I hope I don't have to answer to you why joint congruity is better? Do I?

    To me, this is the difference in bio-mechanical tissue stress. If it's inefficient, TS is higher, if its efficient, the reverse.

    After all, there has to be TS regardless of efficiency.

    2. You agree to abide by the daily report instructions (I'm sure you could ultimately figure it out on your own, but if I assist you, you'll get it quicker.)--it requires a “daily report” of your proprioceptive sensations.--that's simply how I figure out the next step within1-2 weeks.

    Here is where my education and experience comes in handy to assess with you based on the the 7 daily questions you need to answer to obtain the proper fit.

    3. We agree you're fit, when we're finished.


    I did ask something (and no one seems to answer) and that is, were you able to envision the bio/fluid loading as described in my article?--otherwise, what do you make of it?

    btw—do you have a biomech issue?
    I also need your wt and shoe size
     
  12. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Dennis - sorry for the delay getting back to you.

    Understood.


    No, understood... joint congruity is optimal.


    OK... will do.


    Yes, envisioned the fluid displacement/mechanics (via loading of foot) as described.


    No real biomech. issue. In the past I have trained for marathons... running up to 185km a week in the Nike 4.0 & 3.0. Thus would say I'm quite efficient. Not at that level of training at the moment... reassessing future goals (i.e. going back to track racing???)... but maintaining fitness/strength base of around 80km (running) a week (with swimming & plyometric work).

    I'll send you a P.M (personal message) via the forum later (next day or so)... to discuss finer details.

    Regards,
    Matt.
     
  13. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

     
  14. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Dennis, you need to make sure that the close quote tag i.e. [/QUOTE] is in place at the end of the selected text for the quote block/bubble to work... this [/QUOTE] was missing from your post, hence why it didn't work.

    To be fair (for all concerned), I think it best that the practical element of the therapy (SDO) is now assessed from here on.

    Ok... I'll be in touch via PM (i.e. message in your Pod. Arena inbox) later.

    Regards,
    Matt.
     
  15. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Matt

    Please use my personal e-mail. I don't like having more than one mailbox

    tks
     
  16. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Dennis, you need to make sure that the close quote tag i.e. [/QUOTE] is in place at the end of the selected text for the quote block/bubble to work... this [/QUOTE] was missing from your post, hence why it didn't work.
     
  17. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    I think I got it!
     
  18. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Matthew get ready for the California surfing experience in your shoes brah!
     
  19. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    I would love some California surfing at the moment David; South eastern Australia is going through a cold snap... the water is cold... not to mention the sharks are seemingly hungry, with some testing human on the menu (no doubt related to the fact that humans are raping & @#$%#! up their environment)!

    Anyway, surfing metaphor aside... I'm curious... & endeavour to find the answers to things.
     
  20. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    David

    thx for your post:

    RE: kiper

    From:
    "David G. Wedemeyer, D.C." <drdavwed@sonic.net> (Add as Preferred Sender)
    Date: Fri, Jun 15, 2007 6:12 pm
    To: footdoc@drkiper.com

    I'm actually a road cyclist doc, I am getting back in the mix for the summer.
    You are always welcome to visit me here any time if you like to teach i
    like to listen and learn.

    I am familiar with Dr. Deitch and Craig Lowe, I use their 3DO pad for gait
    analysis and ScanAny or plaster for the product. I bought the system from
    a distributor but talked to Dr. Deitch about billing once.

    Im open to learning about the SDO as well I am sure you're a wealth of
    information in traditional functional orthoses and gait.

    The door is open any time, let me know when you're in Orange County.

    DW
     
  21. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Dennis.

    Posting (would looks to be) a personal email (between you & David) may not be an appropriate move on a public forum. Just letting you know there is the potential for concern (controversy) if the other person doesn't agree to such content being made public.

    Kind regards,
    Matt.
     
  22. efuller

    efuller MVP

    One should always question assumptions. If you can't answer why joint congruity is better, you should really question that assumption.

    Eric
     
  23. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Eric,

    I think it was a terrible question to ask for a scientist/podiatrist.

    It was a waste of time, and btw--I did answer the question anyway.

    Dennis
     
  24. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Why do you think it is a terrible question? Are you bluffing again? What was your answer?

    Eric
     
  25. Charlatan.
     
  26. Agreed!!
     
  27. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Eric

    Are you bluffing again? What was your answer?


    Bluffing? Again?-- WTF are you talking about?

    I don't bluff. I don't need to. I've got science on my side.

    I don't want to waste my time going back and forth with you about your petty little “answer”--you want to see it—you look it up. I don't track posts.

    What's important is that Matt seemed to have knowledge, that you're not aware of

    “No, understood... joint congruity is optimal. “

    I gave the the same answer, only I said it a different way.

    Your whole beef is a rejection of a new technology—some scientist you are—didn't even stop to investigate if it had as much “science” as traditional orthotic technology.
    many of your questions were also also just a waste of time. If you have a serious question from now on I'll respond.

    Look at the scans on my front page, look at the pedobarograph readings I presented in my article. You're a podiatrist figure it out.
     
  28. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Simon & Kevin

    Go stand in the corner and put the dunce cap on.
     
  29. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Still a class act Dennis. Matthew thank you, you are correct that I don't approve of Dennis posting a private email but Dennis has huge boundary issues. This was an 8 years prior email where I was merely being polite to Dennis. Since he has opened the door, I will now comment on what occrrued following tht email and subsequently meeting Dennis at PFOLA 2007 and my experience with his SDO product.

    It didn't take long to realize that I erred in granting this particular podiatrist a modicum of flexibility in assuming that he posessed greater knowledge in biomechanics and foot orthoses as expressed in my email. Dennis and I have gone a few rounds in two public forums after having met him and worn his silicone insoles, I can honestly say the entire notion is garbage. His science isn't science, it is a misinterpretation and misapplication of fluid dynamics (Pasqual's Law), he cannot grasp simple biomechanical truths and instead relies on obfuscation and anecdote and he cannot explain how stepping on a liquid does not displace that liquid in the pah of least resistance but instead claims his magical bladders act opposite to known physical laws and then further and erroneoulsy applies this to a fluid filled bag he sells on the internet.

    All with no real time patient evaluation just emails and superfluous words of encouragement for the purachaser. Simon hit the nail on the head. Then the gall to come in here and spar with some of the most brilliant minds in biomechanics and foot orthosis therapy, PhD's, lecturers, instructors and tell them they're collectively behind his curve only proves his arrogance, ineptitude and lack of an ethcial and moral compass. You're a piece of work Dennis and one of the biggest narcissists I have ever encountered with a professional license.

    David
     
  30. Dennis, go see if you can work out the right way around to sit on a toilet seat and then set up a stall at the local street market to sell your insoles there. You are nothing more than a charlatan, whenever anyone asks you a question with any scientific depth, your response is that the person posing the question is "stupid", an "idiot" or "you don't understand", answer the questions, charlatan. Alternatively, hand out a freebie to someone that licks your ass a bit here. Nice work, fella. You are a joke.
     
  31. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    You can't handle the truth!
     
  32. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member


    Nice Simon, real nice!
     
  33. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Re: kiper

    From:
    "David G. Wedemeyer, D.C." <drdavwed@sonic.net> (Add as Preferred Sender)
    Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2007 9:56 am
    To: footdoc@drkiper.com

    Dennis they felt surprisingly good, very different than a functional. The
    one thing that I noticed though is after wearing them for several hours
    just after my feet felt fine. The following day my Right 2st MTP was
    mildly sore and my Left old Haglund's deformity, which hasn't bothered me
    since the current orthotic, began to bite back.

    I haven't changed my shoes oir routine so I am just wondering if this is
    due to increased walking that would ahve happened anyway or the change in
    orhtosis. I may not be the best person for a trial though, I have tried
    literally a dozen materials and postings to arrive at this rigid
    Carboplast that works for me.



    David G. Wedemeyer, D.C.
    WEDEMEYER CHIROPRACTIC & ORTHOTICS
    1758 ORANGE AVENUE
    COSTA MESA, CA 92627
    Office 949.646.7070


    As you know, we never adjusted the Rx. We had a falling out. The rest of your BS
    is just that BS.
     
  34. efuller

    efuller MVP

    So you were bluffing, again. In the time it took you write the above post you could have just re-written your answer. You don't have one.

    You obviously are not here on the arena to educate. Your sales pitch is pretty much you are stupid if you ask me questions. Do you really think that approach is going to be successful? That approach just might be more successful than trying to explain what you know about hydrodynamics. (What is your source of knowledge on hydrodynamics?) You haven't shown us that your knowledge of hydro dynamics is more than the ability to spell the word.

    Or can you explain how Archimedes principle has anything to do with applying forces to the foot?
    I saw pressure readings that you put on your website. Can you explain where, and why, you put the sensors where you did when measuring the forces for your devices and the rigid plastic devices?

    Eric
     
  35. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Oh @#$%... I really don't have time to waste on this @#$%!

    What's the problem here? Oh Matt (talking to self), you know what the bloody problem is - amongst other things, it's egos clashing on a profession based forum... contributing to poor conduct from either side. Like I've said before on this forum (& on this thread)... "Podiatry Arena isn't always a conducive environment for such critique/inquiry at the best of times... as you may already know".

    That said, a forum such as this should objectively (& professionally) critique unsound reasoning/views (& products/devices)... particularly those which contradict the laws of science/nature (violate biological & mechanical laws). But it shouldn't resort to bitching & carrying on... i.e. the use of foul innuendos. Now I realise that this writing medium can be ambiguous at the best of times but if such innuendos was meant to be flung my way then at least have the balls (courage) to be specific about it - to address me personally! (a point which supports accountability & limits ambiguity - Ok? ;) ) [point related to a potential issue I noticed within a quote]

    Like I've also said before on this thread... am aware of some element of controversy with Dennis (& his SDO device) & with some of you. But I really don't have the time to delve into the history of it - OK? I've stated I would be fair & objective when assessing Dennis's views & product (SDO)... in particular the practical function of the SDO - hence my request to try them firsthand... where I'll get the bulk of my answers from (not second-hand from others, as valid that sometimes is).

    My dialogue with Dennis initially stemmed from his attitude towards Podiatry based orthotics (for want of a better phrase) & subsequent attitude towards those who use & prescribe the principles within (of which I have had success with). Dennis then directed the dialogue to the principles of the "scientific technology" he uses to substantiate the use of the SDO (over Podiatry based orthotics). I have questioned his reasoning & logic on this (look for it), as well as state that I will sincerely & objectively assess the practical function of the SDO. I have a history assessing other questionable products (orthotics) so thus when I do critique such devices in future, I not only do so from theory/empirical facts... I also do so from firsthand experience with the product itself - OK?

    Now, I'm puzzled by the following (of all things)... which seemed to be a catalyst for firing up the bitching storm again :mad:...

    The issue of "joint congruity" :confused: Ummm... is there an issue here? Has "assumptions" been made?

    Eric, I'm not sure where you're coming from... in the context of the above quote.

    Dennis asked a question pertaining to joint congruity (in post 91)... I'll admit I was puzzled to the actual context of it - it came from nowhere (i.e. without any real specific background to the question). On a superficial level I thought it was rather straight forward query... I hence gave a superficial straight forward answer i.e. "joint congruity is optimal" in post 92 (which was characteristic of short answers to Dennis's questions due to time constraints at the time).

    Is there a problem with that answer? Isn't joint congruity optimal... with full pain-free range of motion? Shouldn't joint congruity be maintained... such as i.e. Talonavicular joint congruity, structural congruity of the Calcaneocuboid joint? Doesn't adverse disruption of joint congruity potentially lead to joint pathology & potential soft tissue trauma? Shouldn't the profile of joint congruity or incongruity be part of an assessment criterion? There are plenty of Podiatry related papers/articles out there which discusses the role of aiming to maintain optimal joint congruity & subsequently avoiding the position of joint incongruity.

    Now, I've spent enough damn time on this topic. I have endeavoured to be fair & reasonable (i.e. within my dialogue with Dennis) with intentions to objectively assess the SDO - in wearing them - then revaluate his reasoning behind them. But in doing so, I'm not going to tolerate BS from others!
     
  36. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    You have to ask yourself who keeps emails for nearly 8 years, unless the level of your insecurities is legendary and the motive is vindictive usage down the road? Dennis continues to post private emails, the amusing outcome being that IF this is my actual email verbatim (and i question the legitimacy of some of the verbiage as my own but that email account has not been valid for several years and I am not in the habit of saving emails) he missed how it works against him. Derp moment!

    The irony is that within one days wear I was already having a completely new issue in my 1st (not 2st as the email in question states). I believe I began to have some mild plantar fascial complaint after a few days and discontinued wearing these insoles. Dennis became furious when I described how such an unstable and non specific device is not a fit with a flexible ff valgus and it deteriorated from there.

    Dennis cannot even grasp simple biomechanical etiologies such as described above and how that may influence the outcome I had and instead insisted "the fluid needs to be adjusted". I just don;t have the time to respond to such vague and unscientific notions so I declined and Dennis lauds this as some victory of a non compliance issue. No, it is a victory that I have elevated my biomechanical knowledge enough to spot bull**** when I encounter it and don't suffer fools gladly.

    David
     
  37. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Matt, further back I had asked Dennis to explain why joint congruity is optimal. He didn't explain. Then Dennis' comment about "do I need to justify..." was actually a dig aimed at me. I was appreciating you dealing with Dennis in a civil manner. You were asking the good questions.

    Now to the assumption. Joint congruity being a good thing was taught to me in podiatry school. Now, some of the things I was taught in podiatry school were true and some were not. I like to evaluate the things that I was taught for validity. A joint is congruous when there is maximum contact between the joint surfaces. Why would there be pathology if the joint surfaces are 75% in contact? What tissues are strained with this?

    An interesting joint to look at, in terms of joint congruity is the posterior facet of the STJ. Maximum contact occurs when the STJ is maximally pronated. When you look at some x-rays of STJ that are in a supinated position, you can see that surface on the joint on the talus is overhanging, and not in contact with calcaneal surface of the joint. Those who would believe that joint congruity is best should then believe that maximal pronation of the STJ would be the best position. I don't think that joint congruity is that important for assessing stress on anatomical structures. You should model the structure you are concerned about to figure out what external loads, and / or joint positions will increase the load on a particular anatomical structure.

    An assumption has been made that joint congruity is better. I'm just asking if that assumption is true. If no one can give reasons, that we can test, that it might be true, then we should question as to whether that assumption is true.

    Eric
     
  38. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    Eric

    Your sales pitch is pretty much you are stupid if you ask me questions.


    No, you're asking stupid and irrelevant questions. As for “selling”, I'm not selling anything, I'm talking about a TECHNOLOGY

    (What is your source of knowledge on hydrodynamics?) You haven't shown us that your knowledge of hydro dynamics is more than the ability to spell the word.




    Irrelevant! My source of hydrodynamics goes back to high school (how do u spellit?). What is your source of engineering to “think like an engineer?”

    I'm talking about a science backed technology predicated on principles of physics, and its biomechanical affect on the foot.

    What principle of physics is your technology based on? My communication with a fellow scientist and colleague, should be easy to understand and more than that, actually envision the bio mechanical loading of the foot during stance phase.




    Or can you explain how Archimedes principle has anything to do with applying forces to the foot?



    Fluid displacement creating hydrodynamic pressure= applying forces to the foot

    Need more? Go talk to a physicist.


    You and I are near the same age. Its too late for you and oldies here at PA—but think of when you were younger. Wouldn't you like to have had a biomechanical orthotic that was quantifiable? A Rx as it were, instead of guessing how to resist pronation with wedges and Leggos.

    Wouldn't it have been more fun to be able to discuss your pt's biomechanics with them and help them understand that reversing a lifetime of biomechanical loading and inflammation, that it could take decades to reverse inflammation and function the way they felt between 10-30 yrs ago?

    Wouldn't it be nice to be better respected for our biomechanics by our allied medical professionals, who would easily understand the relationship of bio and fluid mechanics. How about, when a Rx changes, to be able to fabricate an exact Rx to accommodate the biomechanical changes and position of optimal performance?

    How about increasing the awareness of the health benefits to wearing a proper fitting biomechanical orthotic? It could be a huge increase in business with a younger clientele starting around 10 yrs old.

    How about a huge increase with all those pts who are walking around with orthotics that don't work well enough?
     
  39. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis, the other questions you have chosen to avoid, fine.

    The one above, you did not even quote. Where the sensor was placed does really matter for our discussion. Did you place the sensor under, or on top of the plastic orthotic?
     
  40. Dennis Kiper

    Dennis Kiper Well-Known Member

    The irony is that within one days wear I was already having a completely new issue in my 1st (not 2st as the email in question states). I believe I began to have some mild plantar fascial complaint after a few days and discontinued wearing these insoles

    Here's a chiropractic, biomechanical assessment.
     
Loading...

Share This Page