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.

Summary of Biomechanics Summer School 2015 part 1

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by toomoon, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    For anyone interested, here is a podcast discussing some of the key issues discussed at Biomechanics Summer School 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  2. Nice summary of the first day of the conference, Simon. Well done.:drinks
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Simon - thanks for doing this!

    BUT, however, I know Ted starts of the video and you have titled the video 'Tedtalk' ..... that is actually a registered trademark belonging to the TED Conferences, LLC and they apparently have a legal team to go after those who use their registered trademarks ... you might want to edit the title of the video
  4. Iain Johnston

    Iain Johnston Active Member

    I notice Simon, there was no mention of the Foot Posture index. Can anyone comment on their use of it. Here in the UK there is an attemp to brand the Foot Posture Index as a standardised tool for assessing the foot in a way that the whole therapy industry can relate to.
  5. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Thanks Craig.. that was actually a little working title while I was editing it.. and of course it accidentally got saved as this.. doh!!
  6. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    The minute the word "Index" is used in any statistically framed argument my alarms bells go off. There is essentially two reasons why indices are problematical in biology. First they may not represent the data you set out to explain (as in bivariate allometry, by way of example). Second, and much more important to those addicted to stats in the absence of biology, they frequently destroy those factors that basic stats depends upon such as normal distributions etc. My problem is with the removal of biological thinking. Stats do not give us answers; they show us the way to answers
  7. Personally, I woud not use the distance from the wall as a measure of dorsiflexion capacity when employing the lunge test since this does not take into account variation in limb segment length; I prefer to measure the angle of the tibia.
  8. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I use the FPI on first presentation because it is a useful descriptive tool - nothing more. It cannot identify or predict pathology of individual complaints nor provide subsequent treatment plans. For example; I have a manked left foot according to the FPI, but it`s my right foot that gives me jip.
  9. Simon B you said there was no normal in regards to a Root exam, and them spend the next time discussing normal in functional testing ie the lunge test people who canĀ“t touch the wall from x distance ;);)

    Normal can only be n = 1
  10. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Well ...ya got me there Mike.. I hope the intent of the discussion was clear.. keeping in mind it was live and not prerecorded.. and that is that there may be a better way.. and that looking at dynamic tests, whilst difficult to quantify, probably offer far more information about the how, why and when of sports injury than RCSP, NCSP or of weightbearing joint ROM testing. I will try harder next time..
  11. I understood the point you were making and agree that much can be gained from Dynamic testing

    Normal when discussing Biomechanics is like fingers nails on a chalk board to me :D
  12. And another problem with the lunge test is that it doesn't test gastrocnemius muscle-tendon tightness since the lunge test is performed with the knee flexed. Therefore the lunge test is probably more predictive of running injuries than walking injuries.
  13. I agree, Rob. The Foot Posture Index (FPI), as I see it, by combining many variables into one index may be masking the etiology of the patient's injury, whereas another set of measurements, taken independently of each other and not combined into one index may provide the thoughtful clinician with more usable information by which to make the patient better. I do like, however, the FPI for screening subjects for foot biomechanics research and think that is where the FPI is most valuable.
  14. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    A thoughtful reply, Kevin. I need to clarify my position, in case I am misunderstood, or misinterpreted. Indices - for simplicity let us have two dimensions are an attempt to reduce biological information to a straight line graph of Y=MX. If one does this there is (almost) inevitably be a portion left of either Y or X at the origin of the graph - thus we are looking at Y=MX+C. And there is lies the first problem - we have a mantra in the biological world - "There are not straight lines in Biology". That is, at best Y=MX may only approximate to the truth; the real truth being described by Y=BX to the K (sorry cannot edit this correctly). This of course is Julian Huxley's bivariate allometry equation. The point being, that straight lines graphs simply do not describe biological data completely. The next issue is this:

    Atchley WR, Gaskins CT and Anderson D (1976) Statistical properties of ratios 1. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology 25: 137-148

    I know it is as old as the hills, but indexing linear data has been repeatedly shown to bugger up normal distributions - which are key assumptions underpinning Students' and all those further multivariate stuff such as anova PCA CVA etc etc. NOTWITHSTANDING, often indices seem to describe biological data best - I know this seems hypocritical, but the factor missing is putting the biology first - that is, thinking. Just like yourself, I referee for several journals and one sees time after time results based upon a statistical value with little or no reference to the real biology

    So my point is two fold: 1) recognising the problems of indices, and then possibly going on to use them with an open mind. and 2) using stats to replace the thinking process.


Share This Page