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. 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.

Podiatry Arena Research Papers Raspberry Awards

Discussion in 'Podiatry Trivia' started by mike weber, Nov 18, 2010.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    They have the Razzies for Films - Ie the worst film, actors etc of the year. We can add stuff as the years tick by.

    So I thought a thread for some of the Research we read maybe deserves a Podiatry Arena Razzie . If from inappropriate use of Statistics, Bias research (ie the product being research has been paid for by the company who is selling the product), just really poor research or why is that being researched when it´s very obvious .
     
  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
  3. AJM

    AJM Member

    [Check4SPAM] RE: URL Attempt

    You did not limit it strictly to podiatry-related research, so I lead with one of my favourites:



    Baldwin, A. L., C. Wagers, et al. (2008). "Reiki improves heart rate homeostasis in laboratory rats." J Altern Complement Med 14(4): 417-422.

    OBJECTIVES: To determine whether application of Reiki to noise-stressed rats can reduce their heart rates (HRs) and blood pressures. RATIONALE: In a previous study, we showed that exposure of rats to 90 dB white noise for 15 minutes caused their HRs and blood pressures to significantly increase. Reiki has been shown to significantly decrease HR and blood pressure in a small group of healthy human subjects. However, use of humans in such studies has the disadvantage that experimental interpretations are encumbered by the variable of belief or skepticism regarding Reiki. For that reason, noise-stressed rats were used as an animal model to test the efficacy of Reiki in reducing elevated HR and blood pressure. DESIGN: Three unrestrained, male Sprague-Dawley rats implanted with radiotelemetric transducers were exposed daily for 8 days to a 15-minute white noise regimen (90 dB). For the last 5 days, the rats received 15 minutes of Reiki immediately before the noise and during the noise period. The experiment was repeated on the same animals but using sham Reiki. SETTING/LOCATION: The animals were housed in a quiet room in University of Arizona Animal Facility. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean HRs and blood pressure were determined before Reiki/sham Reiki, during Reiki/sham Reiki, and during the noise in each case. RESULTS: Reiki, but not sham Reiki, significantly reduced HR compared to initial values. With Reiki, there was a high correlation between change in HR and initial HR, suggesting a homeostatic effect. Reiki, but not sham Reiki, significantly reduced the rise in HR produced by exposure of the rats to loud noise. Neither Reiki nor sham Reiki significantly affected blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Reiki is effective in modulating HR in stressed and unstressed rats, supporting its use as a stress-reducer in humans.



    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18435597




    If that is rejected by the judges, then a favourite from 2010 (light fuse, stand back):

    The Evolution Of Speed In Athletics: Why The Fastest Runners Are Black And Swimmers White
    ADRIAN BEJAN, EDWARD C. JONES & JORDAN D. CHARLES

    International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Volume 5, Issue 3.

    The navel is the center of gravity of the body, and given two runners or swimmers of the same height, one black and one white, "what matters is not total height but the position of the belly button, or center of gravity," Duke University professor Andre Bejan, the lead author of the study, told AFP.

    "It so happens that in the architecture of the human body of West African-origin runners, the center of gravity is significantly higher than in runners of European origin," which puts them at an advantage in sprints on the track, he said.

    Individuals of West African-origin have longer legs than European-origin athletes, which means their belly buttons are three centimeters (1.18 inches) higher than whites', said Bejan.

    That means the black athletes have a "hidden height" that is three percent greater than whites', which gives them a significant speed advantage on the track.

    "Locomotion is essentially a continual process of falling forward, and mass that falls from a higher altitude, falls faster," Bejan explained.”


    ...

    “Among athletes of the same height Asians are even more favored than whites in swimming but they are not setting records because they are not as tall.”
     
  4. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Re: [Check4SPAM] RE: URL Attempt

    Isn't the center of gravity in the pelvis? What happens if you have an "out-ee" does that mean you dont have a center of gravity?
     
  5. I definitley want to nominate that khan study which showed rubbing marigold on the bunion lowered the I m angle!

    I'll find the reference later.
     
  6. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Effects of nine holes of simulated golf and orthotic intervention on balance and proprioception in experienced golfers.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9436144

    Don't bother reading it its a turd of great magnitude and hard to look at, so I'll post the conclusion:

    "Although individual differences were anticipated, data trends suggest that nine holes of simulated golf promotes changes in standing balance and proprioception and that 6 wk of wearing these custom-made, flexible orthotics has a positive influence in promoting balance and proprioceptive symmetry."
     
  7. krome

    krome Active Member

    Hi Everyone

    It is of great disconcern that people can make 'comical' comments relating to other peoples research regardless if it is of poor quality or not.

    Perhaps we should make a list of poor practitioners and publically name on the arena. Of course, we will not because we are professional.

    I believe this is continuation of what individual people believe are poor publications should be removed as it gives our profession a really bad reputation.

    Regards

    A very disappointed Pod
     
Loading...

Share This Page