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!

"Tackling the 10 Myths of Barefoot Running"

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Jan 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon:

    In case you didn't know, Nick Campitelli, DPM, (nickcampi) is the podiatrist who writes blogs for Podiatry Today that are geared for the minimalist shoe crowd...plus he is a member of the Vibram FiveFinger Biomedical Advisory Board. Nick says he gets absolutely no monetary or any other compensation whatsoever for allowing his photo to be included on the Vibram FiveFinger website.

    I am wondering, Simon, since you would know better than I, how common is it for a medical professional to allow their photo to be included on a shoe company website, be included on their "Biomedical Advisory Board", but then receive absolutely no compensation, no trips to seminars, no free shoes, etc for that promotional consideration for the shoe company?

    You may want to read Nick's other blog so you can better appreciate his unique line of reasoning.

    http://www.podiatrytoday.com/blogged/do-running-shoes-still-need-heels
     
  2. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    "I am wondering, Simon, since you would know better than I, how common is it for a medical professional to allow their photo to be included on a shoe company website, be included on their "Biomedical Advisory Board", but then receive absolutely no compensation, no trips to seminars, no free shoes, etc for that promotional consideration for the shoe company?"

    I would have thought this was absolutely unprecedented! I sure would not do it!

    He must be a very generous fellow. Wish he would get his facts straight though :boxing:
     
  3. nickcampi

    nickcampi Member

    Right from Asics website.
    http://www.asicsamerica.com/shoe-fit-guide/
    Structured cushion ....help control a small degree of pronation.
    Maximum Support .....these runners need help to control the degree of pronation.

    Does that not imply motion control? Get rid of the trail shoes and 66% of their shoes are disigned to control motion. I'm not speculating, it's listed on Asics site.
     
  4. Looks like both Daniel Lieberman, PhD, who has Vibram sponsoring his Harvard website and has Vibram sponsoring all his research papers on running biomechanics, has teamed up with Nick Campitelli, the podiatrist who says he receives absolutely no monetary benefit from Vibram, to help write an instructional manual on how to run in Vibram FiveFinger shoes.....step by step.

    Funny, I don't know of any other running shoe that requires a 13 page instruction manual just so you can run in their shoes. :rolleyes:

    Nick, you got to be one of the most kind and generous podiatrists that I know of. You are helping to support this multi-million dollar shoe company with helping to write their shoe instruction manuals and allowing them to put your face and name up on their website all out of the goodness of your heart with absolutely no compensation whatsoever from this companythat is laughing every day all the way to the bank! What a guy!!:cool:
     
  5. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Nick.. of course you are speculating! where does it say 'motionc ontrol'? You claim ASICS say "Motion Control, not motion enhancement". You are wrong. It is the other way around and has been for 14 years!
    Your implications are irrelevant.
    Mate I am happy for you to be involved with Vibram.. do what you have to do and more importantly do what you believe in. I really hope you do beleive that a kayaking shoe makes a good running shoe???!! If you do not, you are in trouble! I am 100% positive if I trawled through the VFF website I would find things there that would be unsupported by science and would make you squirm. But it is not my style to ever criticise another brand. You may have noticed that I have never, ever done that. I am not really a "brand" kinda guy.

    From my perspective, I like to talk about the science, irrespective of ASICS. I love the fact that after 24 years as a specialist clinical sports podiatrist I am now heading up complex research programs in the fields of medicine, biomechanics and physiology, often completely unrelated to, but funded by, ASICS! It really is wonderful. Can you please fill me in on the research projects you are personally conducting right now? I would love to hear how Vibram conducts both its internal and external research, and, as the podiatric advisor to the brand, I am sure you must personally be conducting some very interesting studies. Please let the Arena in on this.
    I like to apply the science in relation to my job with ASICS, which has nothing to do with marketing, PR or a "mine is bigger and better than yours" aapproach. I do not have the time or inclination to find fault with other brands..argue on Podiatry Arena about what might or might not be said on a website, and then try to put my own spin, speculation and implictions on what at the end of the day is written by a marketing team. Just not at all interested or relevant to me and my job Nick. How about you? Vibram and you can say and do whatever you like coz end of day, it is the consumer who controls all the decisions! It is just not important, but it is a little unprofessional.
    I love what I do, and I believe ASICS has a pretty solid range. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and, if as a part of your job with Vibram you choose to snipe at ASICS, or Brooks, or Nike or adidas, that is absolutely your perogative.
    I choose to never do that because I believe nothing turns people off quicker.. it seems petty and steeped in inferiority and jealousy.
    At these times I reflect on the fact that the data is telling us that VFF market share after the salad days is shrinking rapidly, one major USA chain reported 3 successive quarters of 50% negative growth. Yikes!.. straight from retail Nick. Wonder why that might be.. I could speculate that once you fracture your 2nd mt.....
    ASICS meantime continues to sell 55,000 pairs of shoes..... every day, 7 days a week, and this has been going on for at least 16 years. Every day.. every year. Rock solid.. relaible, dependable.
    Oh.. and despite the virtual phenomenom of "minimalist" which is actually not real... ASICS will enjoy double digit growth this year. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
    So end of the day.. have your opinion about what you think, or suspect or wish to beleive we are all about.. It really does not matter. In the eyes of the athlete, ASICS still seem to have some pretty useful product that a lot of other companies appreciate, just as we appreciate their efforts.
    End of the day.. this Arena is about scientific discussions, not a p*ssing match of 2 footwear brands. I am just not interested Nick. It is not appropriate for this forum. If you have some science to present, let's hear it. If not.. leave it be.

    best

    SImon
     
  6. nickcampi

    nickcampi Member

    I tried discussing scientific literature and was accused of cherry picking.*

    I was pointed at as being "paid" by Vibram, yet I do not and have not once made any claims about their shoes.*

    When I do bring up scientific literature instead of creating a scientific discussion, others claim I am representing Vibram in these discussions.*

    I do not represent Vibram in these discussions.*

    I have not claimed people wearing FiveFingers have any reduced injury rates.*

    I made my comment because I was embarrassed by Dr Kirby laughing at Blaise's poster and saying that if he had more time he would have made more humorous poster. *That is unprofessional to any rational person and I have a lot of respect for Dr. Kirby and his hard work he has dedicated to the profession.

    I just want to debate about form and running not shoe companies. Others brought it into this discussion, not me.*
     
  7. I think it was this negative advertising for Vibram FiveFingers on the David Letterman Show that was the first hole that spouted before the dam began to burst for Vibrams....too funny....obviously Olbermann didn't read Vibram's 13 page instruction manual on how to run in Vibram FiveFingers before he fractured his foot in these "injury prevention shoes"....:rolleyes:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  8. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Nick.. ya'all ever heard the term" you do the crime .. you do the time"?

    You did the crime man..

    no you do not.. you specifically said
    "What I find humorous is what some "shoe companies" have done. They either believe that there is a place for forefoot/midfoot striking, or they have only added a category of shoes strictly to fill a market niche. This is obvious to both the medical and non-medical professionals. It is clearly seen with the Asics 33. It was created to "work with the foot, and not against it" yet they believe in motion control and not motion enhancement. Why did it take 30 some years for this product to be created if they are research based? Was it created to compete in a market where other similar shoes are being created or was it created to help the runner?
    nick

    Now.. when you call out specific product, from a specific company, then you speculate and assume you know the MO for that product...you better know what the hell what you are talking about and get your facts straight. This you did not do, in fact you got you facts the complete wrong way around.

    Let me be clear.. I work as the International Research Consultant to the Global body of the ASICS Corporation. I get very well paid to do this, and it is my job to have a pretty fair idea of what I am talking about. Some may disagree that this is the case, and that is fine by me!

    I Plan and oversee all their medical reseach programs, which are based in Universities all over the world, including Staffordshire University in the UK, MIT in Boston USA, Melbourne University, University of South Australia, University of Woolongong, University of Sydney and Australian Institue of Sport, all in Australia.
    We research medical, biomechanical and physiological aspects of gait and its implications Nick.

    We publish our research in the public domain in high-impact, peer reviewed journals for all to see.
    We try very hard, and spend inordinate amounts of money to try to understand what makes footwear safer for the athlete.

    We listen to what is happening around us, we pay attention to trends, and we are aware of what other companies are doing. What we DO NOT Do is react to trends unless there is rock solid scientific evidence that points us in that direction. We are a science based company, and that will not change as long as I work here.
    We do not pretend to have the answers, but we sure as hell are asking the questions and putting our money where our mouth is.

    I work long hours, get exhausted travelling, miss my family horribly, and work with a bunch of dedicated, selfless individuals who have similar values and aspirations as me, and have a genuine desire to help athletes perform better in the safest environment we can provide, based on the best available science of the day.

    It is therefore personally insulting to have the likes of you deciding on a scientific forum that it is OK to promote your product and (inaccurately) decide it is ok to rubbish a competitor.

    That is very unprofessional, and I most certainly did not engage you or goad you in any way to behave in this manner.

    An apology is traditional, but that is up to you.

    I would encourage you to step out from behind the certain that has been provided for you, and engage in academic discussions on the technical aspects of athletic footwear. Be open and honest about the problems and challenges that you face in your position with Vibram, as I most certainly am prepared to be in my role with ASICS. If we keep the companies out of it, which have absolutely no place on podiatry area, we may be able to offer something of value to our peers, and they may like to contribute their vast knowlege bank, something I personally rely on.

    I for one never tire of these discussion, and I have many friends from many of the athletic footwear companies.
    Of course we do not always agree, but, unlike you, we respect each others opinions, and I believe I have learned an enormous amount through their generosity and unbeleivable knowlege.

    Once you settle down, and lose you campany hat, you might like to join us.
    I don't know you, but I am more than happy to sit down with you any time you like and discuss the issues swirling around us and what we can do to make the world safer for people who wish to play sport.

    I like red wine (no.. I LOVE it), I like to run quite slowly and with terrible form, I like to play rock and roll loud and badly on one of my many guitars, have two Boston Terriers named Ono and Peanut and am a Scorpio. What about you?
    I am in the USA for 10 weeks and happy to meet with you should you wish

    best
    Simon
     
  9. Nick:

    I didn't actually "laugh at Blaise's poster", I simply thought it wasn't as good as the one presented by Runner's World. Actually, I like some of Blaise's stuff but I have never met the man.

    The "poster" that I was considering would not have been serious but rather been something more like other "tongue-in-cheek" items I have produced over the years, such as the "Welcome to the Barefoot Running Club" item I have listed at the end of this posting.

    If you had ever met me or Simon Bartold or Simon Spooner, you would realize that we are all very serious podiatrist-scientists, but we also, probably more importantly, like to have fun. Next time you are at a meeting where I am lecturing, Nick, please come and introduce yourself and I would love to shoot the breeze with you since you are obviously passionate about your beliefs.

    Until then, I'll try to behave and be nice for a change so we can start to have a more civil discussion.

     
  10. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

     
  11. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Lets get back to basics then. Nick, what evidence do you have that one running form is better than another?
     
  12. RunDNC

    RunDNC Member

    I have just got back home after attending the recent Preventing Running injuries course held in Melbourne and I wanted to share some of the more interesting , mesmerising new facts ( and some of this will be going over old ground so bare(foot) with me...)

    Peroneal Longus and Tibialis Posterior are intrinsic muscles of the foot
    Tibialis Posterior pain in runners is uncommon
    Stress fractures warm up
    You can run on a full blown Medial tibial stress fracture in 2 weeks
    Runners are immortal with a 63% reduction in the risk of death
    There are 15 differential diagnoses for lateral knee pain
    There are 2 differential diagnoses for heel pain
    Lower back pain is diagnosed as lower back pain
    Forefoot pain is diagnosed as metatarsalgia
    Biomechanical assessments are not required
    Biomechanical factors are not involved in tendon injuries
    When performing a running assessment on the treadmill the following are not important and considered "sand" in the big rock, little rock, sand theory of biomechanics
    Head position
    Thoracic spine rotation
    Arm swing
    Lumbar spine flexion /extension/rotation/motion
    Pelvic position
    hip motion
    knee position be it valgus or varus /motion
    foot or ankle position/motion
    All of the above biomechanical variables can be "improved" by barefoot running with less noise at a cadence of 180 in 90% of the cases
    Static ROM assessments are not valid
    UNLESS it is the static Thomas test ROM assessment for ITB flexibility
    Stretching is not required
    UNLESS it is to stretch your ITB
    The most efficient running cadence is self selected
    UNLESS the self selected running cadence is NOT 180
    180 cadence is the most efficient running cadence
    You cannot improve your running peformance in traditional running shoes
    To improve running performance and to prevent injuries every runner regardless of running history, running speed, BMI, biomechanics, strength, ROM etc...should aim to run "barefoot with less noise at a cadence of 180"
    The body can adapt to an increased volume of vertical GRF loading at the forefoot
    The body cannot adapt to an increased vertical GRF impulse at the heel
    A downward shift in a force vs time graph is not the result of an upward shift of the vertical component of the COM trajectory
    It is the result of a "float" phase where the COM is not moving
    Health professionals that do not run are untrustworthy
    Cochrane reviews are the gold standard
    UNLESS they do not agree with your hypothesis
    Systematic reviews are trustworthy
    UNLESS they do not agree with your hypothesis
    Cushioning in military shoes reduces injury risk
    BUT Cushioning in running shoes increases injury risk
    Orthotics are bad because they interfere with the natural structure of the foot and do not reduce pain in the lower limb ( unless the orthotic prescription is for the short term treatment of plantar fasciopathy but then they are too expensive for a short term treatment)
    BUT Met domes are good because they reduce pain for metatarsalgia
    barefoot runners with forefoot pain should consider met domes
    Orthotics are bad because they are splints
    Toe splints for HAV are good for the barefoot runner
    You only get foot callous in shoes
    Animals don't wear shoes
    THEREFORE humans should not wear shoes
    Animals do not stretch
    THEREFORE humans should not stretch
    The most common injury in marathon running is the over consumption of water

    I could go on but my brain is completely overloaded by the shear volume of new information I need to go have a little lie down.....

    By the way I have to admit that I am a shoe wearing podiatrist who works on the big island called Australia but lives on a tropical island and therefore I spend a lot of my time barefoot . However I must also admit that I am currently wearing shoes - the NB Minimus
     
  13. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    So, in other words its fine to use the evidence to beat up on something and then produce no evidence to support what you are promoting to replace it. Where have we seen that pattern before?
     
  14. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Wow. That was a good start... is this what he calls 'educating' people?
    Soooo.... if you get injured running barefoot we will feed you to wild animals... and you will be unlikely to live past 40 years of age.

    Pretty hard to take seriously if that is the type of drivel that is spewing forth.

    Money well spent???
     
  15. RunDNC

    RunDNC Member

    Money well spent?? Well.... ummm... lets just say it was an interesting experience
     
  16. these are great as well

     
  17.  
  18. Griff

    Griff Administrator

    RunDNC - I'd ask for your money back immediately. And I wouldn't spend too long lying down trying to take in and learn all this new 'information' either...
     
  19. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    I’m just anxious that some one in my 3 day course didn’t understand more that those quotes. Maybe it's my english? ... Or maybe this person didn’t listen during the course, practice the practical session and experiment with us… Maybe the goal was to spend 650$ to critics more than to learn? I’m open to offer to this person, for free, another 2h Skype session to learn more and to explain more in details all the incomprehensive topics… and for sure because the course is 100% guaranty: give her money back (I'm serious).

    See bellow my thought (sometime quite different!!!)

    Peroneal Longus and Tibialis Posterior are extrinsic muscles of the foot
    Tibialis Posterior pain in runners is uncommon compare to Achillis tendinopathy, fasicapathy, fat pad synd, stress fractures, MTSS, …
    Most of the tibial stress fractures at the earlier stage warm up
    Blaise have the experience of cases that was starting running after 2 weeks of relative rest with a full blown Medial tibial stress fracture Regular running reduce your risk of death by 63% (to have fun with stats you can read the meta-analyses of kodama-2009)
    There are more than 15 differential diagnoses for lateral knee pain
    There are more than 15 differential diagnoses for heel pain
    One of the differential Dx of the forefoot pain is metatarsalgia
    Biomechanical assessments are not required (please precise… some are effectively useless)
    Biomechanical factors are not involved in tendon injuries (please precise… the Achilles tendon is effectively first of all a load pathology… and the biomechanical links that podiatrists and physiotherapists do are ridicules)
    When performing a running assessment on the treadmill the following are not important and considered "sand" in the big rock, little rock, sand theory of biomechanics (please provide evidence based showing what the normal and the not normal of those section)
    -Head position
    -Thoracic spine rotation
    -Arm swing
    -Lumbar spine flexion /extension/rotation/motion
    -Pelvic position
    -hip motion
    -knee position be it valgus or varus /motion
    -foot or ankle position/motion
    Some of the above biomechanical variables can be "improved" by barefoot running with less noise at a cadence of 180 in 90% of the cases… especially dynamic alignment of the lower quadrant and the impact moderating behaviour
    Static ROM assessments are a good thing to look grossly
    Static observation (anthropometry) assessments are TOTALLY useless
    Thomas test ROM assessment is interesting if not interpreted with to much “intellectual stiffness”
    Stretching (any muscles) is not always required especially the prescription is based on “normal” that are existing only in the head of the therapist
    According to some study publish in 1980, the most efficient running cadence is self selected for approximately 75% of people.
    This self selected running cadence is, in 2011, average 150-155 and are not the most efficient cadence for most of the runners (not evidence statement of Blaise Dubois)
    170 to 190 cadence is the most efficient range of running cadence for a majority of runners
    You can improve your running performance in traditional running shoes by improving your VO2max, endurance and also your running economy. You will improve your running economy / biomechanical economy a lot more efficiently by running in minimalist shoes or by learning a barefoot technic
    To improve running performance and to prevent injuries a majority of runner regardless of running speed, BMI, biomechanics, strength and ROM should aim to run in a minimalist shoes (with a barefoot technic : less noise at a cadence of 170 to 190)
    The body can adapt to an increased volume… a increase vertical GRF loading… and to a forefoot technic
    The body can also adapt to an increased vertical GRF impulse at the heel
    A downward shift in a force vs time graph is not the result of an upward shift of the vertical component of the COM trajectory
    It is the result of a “decrease pressure” phase on the plate force… and not a movement of something
    Health professionals that do not run are sometime less comprehensive of the runner’s problem… those that work for shoe companies are untrustworthy;)
    Cochrane reviews are the gold standard of the systematic review… some other systematic review are methodologically bad
    Cushioning in military shoes probably reduces injury risk in military population
    BUT according to Blaise Dubois, Cushioning in running shoes increases injury risk even if it’s by a little percentage… far in back of the training error
    Orthotics are over used. They interfere with the natural structure of the foot and the evidence that they are a first option treatment, efficient, cost effective, with low risk reward ratio for the prevention and the treatment of the lower quadrant … are not done (unless the orthotic prescription is for the short term treatment of a foot problem)
    Met domes are good because they reduce pain for metatarsalgia
    barefoot runners with forefoot pain should consider met domes in a short term protective treatment.
    Toe splints for HAV are good for the barefoot runner
    You only get foot callous in shoes… the barefoot population have a thick derma but no callous… cause by friction
    Animals don't wear shoes most of the time ;)
    THEREFORE Why humans should absolutely wear shoes?
    Animals do not stretch
    THEREFORE Why humans should absolutely stretch?
    In north America, the most common complication in marathon running was the over consumption of water (hyponatremia hypervolumic)
    The most common injury in marathon running is the PFPS

    Now you can laugh, criticize, speculate and for sure show me the evidence that I'm wrong on the quotes I write (to avoid confusion)... have fun :drinks
     
  20. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Dear Simon

    Hope you trip in USA to tell the truth about barefoot running goes well and hope that you find new flimsy evidence to explain your personal and bias opinion to unscientific audiences. I want just to tell you that Australia was great and I was impress about the knowledge and competence of health professional I was teaching. People loved the course… except 1 or 2 podiatrist (don’t know why). Because it was a huge success and both course are full (we have presently a big waiting list) we will come again next year! Try to be there next year… you miss us in the debate;)

    I had a very good time with Craig Payne with who, after discussion on evidence, I realised we have been on the same page for most of the subject. Craig impresses me with his scientific rigour and knowledge… We need more of this type of scientific in this “too marketing” world.

    Also, I answered to all your questions in the course… one by one… so maybe you will find someone to explain this to you… and if you need someone good to treat running injuries, you can find a specialist here: http://www.therunningclinic.ca/en/specialists-in-my-area/
     
  21. RunDNC

    RunDNC Member

    I’m just anxious that some one in my 3 day course didn’t understand more that those quotes. Maybe it's my english? ... Or maybe this person didn’t listen during the course, practice the practical session and experiment with us… Maybe the goal was to spend 650$ to critics more than to learn? I’m open to offer to this person, for free, another 2h Skype session to learn more and to explain more in details all the incomprehensive topics… and for sure because the course is 100% guaranty: give her money back (I'm serious).


    Blaise,

    A couple of things.

    Firstly

    I certainly didn't spend 6 hours on a plane and $650 just to come and criticise you. I was one of the few podiatrists in Australia who decided to hear for themselves what you had to say and to learn from you. I did listen during you course - it was exhausting but I listened. In fact I have already incorporated some of your ideas into my clinical practice. I think you are a very knowledgable man who has amazing recall when it comes to author year of publication and sample sizes of the literature. I just think your logic gets lost in the hyperbole and gross simplification of your concepts. And at other times just utter nonsense you speak. I would love to talk to you about how I think you could make your presentation better.

    Also if you heard some of the discussions the physios were having about your course you might reconsider the assumption that I was the only person would did not love the course.

    The changes you have made to some of the above comments I think you should change in your presentation to reflect those ideas. Other of the above comments I still struggle with but I don't want to get into an arguement with you.

    I have no connection with a shoe company. You have no connnection with a shoe company. I just find it interesting that the only shoe retailer in Melbourne to take up the offer of coming to listen to your presentation just happened to be the Australian wholesaler of the barefoot shoe you wear on your foot? And that she was given the floor to discuss her product and then the audience were given the opportunity to peruse her product range which she just happened to bring with her. I find this very interesting.

    Please do not take it personally that I didn't participate in the practical component of your seminar.

    I have been a runner for 25 years and have done the running drills your were teaching for many years. However even though I already know these drills I would have still completed them with you but unfortunately my body did not adapt so well to my running volume. I have annular tears in two VB discs with neural compression and neuropathy of my right leg. Not great running barefoot on the road with a numb leg and foot. Unfortunately for me it's not a great idea to run full stop but that is a whole other story.

    Daina
     
  22. RunDNC

    RunDNC Member

    Simon,

    Now that I have completed the running course I have become a "specialist". So if you need someone good to treat your running injuries I am your woman.
     
  23. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    So I understand that you decline my offer to reimburse you?

    That's your interpretation... of the concept that I bring forward and that you are probably not able to integrate by lack of knowledge on some topic or by the fact that some concept I teach don't fit with your own puzzle of knowledge (probably some bases that you consider the truth but that need to be reconsidered.)

    Always open to learn!


    I understand you didn't like the course... but didn't want a reimbursement?
    Most of people reply to our Monday message and gave us some feedback. Alway very very positive. But for the first time I forget to give the sheet "commentary-analyses of the course" at the end. I thing the best it's to Ask them. I will send a email and ask to comment the course.

    Certainly not because 2 people in a course of 40 didn't catch the message (or maybe my english? ... hope no)...
    I'm very comfortable with grey zone, and the interpretation you made of some of my statement are not just false but condescending of what I teach. I'm very consistent of what I teach. And some time I change (and evolve) by learning something new. My list here is what I teach since many years... So to conclude My course is EXACTLY that. Sorry for your misinterpretation.

    That's probably the 'bases of your own puzzle' ... always open to Skype... And it's certainly not Simon and is friend that will help you on that... (it seems that most of those people in this Arena have the same bases, foundation of knowledge... It's time to go a little further and to think more.

    I understand, I was feeling a little weird with that. I tell to every body to invite any retailer or rep... And the only one that came was her. I didn't know her before (but she was nice!). I buy all my shoes and I buy my Vivo in Quebec... don't try to find a link, there is not. The reason why there is a lot less podiatrists and retailer of BBS in my course is that they are not comfortable to be confronted to their knowledge incongruity... and most of the time don't want to learn new stuff because they feel find with what they know.
    Know also that I invite M. Bartold to come... he decline!

    No problem, I understand. Now you know that the best for your lower back is to not run with big bulky shoes.

    Wait your Skype
    See you
    Blaise
     
  24. Sam Rosengarten

    Sam Rosengarten Welcome New Poster

    Daina

    I knew a number of the other participants in the course. Some were experienced, some were not.

    The point is, that for many in the course there were real clinically relevant principles that they could use to treat or advise their patients. For the very experienced clinician there were still gems but as in much of the professional development I have done you can pick the relevant parts out that fit with your philosophies. Just as in the research, there is lots of information some that you critically judge to be relevant and there is information that you might critically choose not to adopt.

    You were clearly well versed in the research and an experienced clinician with plenty of running experience. In many respects over qualified for this course. Given this, I feel the criticism might be too harsh.

    If nothing else it was a great opportunity to connect with and exchange ideas with other clinicians in the field. I certainly enjoy being in such an environment.

    Sam
     
  25. My first post, despite reading misinformation with a dose of bias too often over the past few years, I have refrained form entrering the combat zone before! I know the site is well meaning and a great source for some new chums etc, but at times it degenerates into less than professional behaviour, in my view, and some of the posts don't reflect well, professionally.
    Having just attended Blaise Dubois' 3 day course in Melbourne, I would wholeheartedly recommend it to all clinicians and coaches etc and have just tweeted to that effect. I think the course could be mind snapping for members of the "church" of modern podiatric biomechanics, to use a term thrown around for the other "club". I think most colleagues bias towards this treatment approach is well known. I converted to "the dark side" over 5 years ago, when it became apparent there were even better treatment options and outcomes for over 90% of the patients I see who had been "orthoticised'. Trouble is I attract heaps who have "failed" elsewhere.
    So, I went to the course with my own bias and didn't have any trouble with Blaise's content as it accords with my aproach, but applied to runners, who I don't see heaps of. I personally didn't interpret Blaise's comments the way my colleague did. Please see his website for previous course testimonials, DPM, Pedorthotist included.
     
  26. RunDNC

    RunDNC Member

    Thanks Sam,

    I think you are right. Perhaps I am have been too harsh a judge and I apologise to Blaise for this. And I agree it was a great opportunity to connect with and exchange ideas with other clinicians in the field.

    Also I was wrong about the EMG study of cycle pedalling and iliopsoas. The EMG study I was thinking of did not refer to IP but does show that you don't "pull" on the upstroke. There is an unreferenced article in my collection that discusses overactivity of IP due to trying to generate force on the upstroke of pedalling and nerve irritation. I am trying to track down the original research.

    Daina
     
  27. Daina,
    Rotten luck about the back/leg problems, we clinicians have worse pathology than half our patients, it seems. Have you tried MBT's or Fitflops yet? They don't just cushion, they change mechanics around a no of areas including the spine and can be a godsend for your sort of problem. Good thing is, you should find out within 3 minutes of trying them on, especially if you increase cadence-walking- not expecting you to run! But if you don't have pain on the day, they may bring it on, due to changed muscle activity etc, but usually passes at the rate at which it comes on. And after all they are readily available in Townsville.
    Am also happy to send you the insole system to wear in RM's, NB Minimus, pumps, whatever, works like a slice of the MBT microwobbleboard heel sensor. Cases like yours generally notice an improvement, immediately, in symptoms. And adopting a "natural" gait technique can't harm - less stress. I use these footgear devices all the time for chronic and complex back pain, amongst other things. In the rare cases where the patient doesn't feel an improvement, they simply don't take them, as simple as that.I refer to them as "dynamic" type orthotic devices. The reason they are so poorly understood by most clinicians, in my view is simply that they are built into the sole of commercially produced shoes, Why would most therapists even think that they could have a more profound effect than their own custom orthoses? And for a myriad of complex problems. If you have already tried F/Fs and MBTs to no avail, you really are in trouble, but should still feel more comfortable in the in shoe system .Helps stimulate sensory input so that your foot placement will be more "gentle", aka the barefoot principles. See my seperate post tonight on the MBT thread.
     
  28. What the...

    Ah. right:rolleyes:.

    Less stress. Might need a bit of expansion...
     
  29. Bronwyn:

    I extracted this from your website:

    First of all, how you "de-orthoticise" a foot.

    Second, what type of testing do you do to a customer to know that their foot is "weak".

    Third, how do you know the shoes you sell activate muscles any more than do other types of shoes or by being barefoot?

    Four, are there any "good shoe stores" that do not promote your "Barefoot Science Foot Strengthening System", or these types of shoe stores "bad"?

    This all smells very much like an advertisement to me, Bronwyn. Do you have any science to back up your marketing claims or are you just another podiatrist jumping on the "barefoot bandwagon".....but instead of selling barefoot.....which would give you no profit...you are selling "barefoot shoes" that you can profit off of?
     
  30. I think that's the same as taking someone's insoles away, only more expensive.

    I'm here to help.
     
  31. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Maybe an orthotectomy.
     
  32. That sounds virtually surgical. Bet you could charge a mint for that!!

    See I was planning on including that in my PISS, but I thought, nah, nobody would pay money to be told to pretend they lived 5000 years ago before any kind of decent footwear was invented!

    Guess I missed a trick!:bang:

    Poes law. Its a b****. no matter how stupid something is, someone will have taken it seriously!
     
  33. Blaise:

    It would greatly improve your credibility with me, and with many other podiatrists, all who have been treating runners and other athletes for many years very successfully with foot orthoses and traditional running shoes if you would stop using the term "big bulky shoes" to describe traditional running shoes. Using the term "big bulky shoes" to describe a running shoe with a midsole thickness that is only slightly thicker than some "minimalist shoes" clearly demonstrates an unscientific nature to your comments and tends to suggest you have a bias that makes your judgement and opinions suspect.

    In my opinion, if you eliminate such vocabulary as "big bulky shoes" and "proprioceptive heel striking", you will go a long way toward having the message that you are preaching on "minimalist shoes" become more accepted by many podiatrists who, otherwise, may find your message unpalatable.
    much more palatable.
     
  34. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Hi Keven,
    To my eyes, you are one of the most credible person in this Arena. But I don't agree with most of your positions... and it's fine like that.

    I absolutely don't need to be "recognize" like credible to your groupe of podiatrist. Even if this Arena is sometime rewarding, most of the time it's just bad energy, lost of time and often condescending remarks.

    Is it means that you will never changed? I was treating runners and other athletes for some years very successfully with foot orthoses and traditional running shoes... I change some part of this practice and I think that my success rate increase a bit (just a bit because treatment of a runners is a lot more than that)

    I told you why I use those three term.
    because the moderne shoes are BIG, BULKY, and also there are shoes.

    I think you are joking about the "slightly"

    What type of evidence based do you need to show you that 90% of the market are BBS. Measuring tape sensitivity-specificity studies? Stiffness devices sensitivity-specificity studies? Do you have evidence that the moderne running shoes are just "slightly thicker than minimalist shoes"? (we don't speak here of the 33 of ASICS and the pure line!)

    After discussion with Craig Payne initially and you latter, I change for "sensitive heel striking"... every body can change!

    Always ready to change... I'm learning every day
    Large clunky shoes? Chubby hefty running footwear? Thick voluminous footgear? ;)

    My goal is not to teach a palatable message but to expose science and oriented clinicians towards best practice by rigorous and unbiased science that could be clinically applicable. I don't want to please your groupe of podiatrist rather than build clinical guidelines to promote knowledge transfer and spread new information among ALL practitioners.

    Like I said before, changing is practice is a laborious and sometimes painful process that requires humility!

    Now, sorry for that, but I won't be able to answer more... busy to prepare my NewCastle course.
    See you all one day
    Blaise:drinks
     
  35. Hi Robert,

     
  36. I don't like that you have divided heel-striking runners into two groups: proprioceptive (old Blaise) or sensitive (new Blaise) and unproprioceptive (old Blaise) or unsensitive (new Blaise) with no scientific evidence to support this division in the neuromuscular coordination of the individuals you are labeling. In addition, you have never described the method by which you determine whether a heel-striking runner is proprioceptive, sensitive or any other adjective you decide to use. To me this is not the objectivity required by good science. Rather, this is simply marketing jargon that you are using to sell a point. Please prove me wrong, Blaise. Give me the scientific evidence that allows you to divide heel-striking runners into two groups: "sensitive heel-strikers" and "unsensitive heel-strikers".

    How would a scientist that had no agenda to sell a product or a philosophy describe traditional running shoes? Would he say big? No, since this could mean anything from wide to deep to long. Would say bulky? No, since this could mean wider or deeper or longer.

    Blaise, a true scientist that was trying to be objective and not sell a product or philosophy would use terms such as "shoes that have increased midsole thickness" or "shoes that have increased heel height differential", not "big and bulky" or "large clunky" or "chubby hefty". By using the term "big, bulky shoes" you are creating an artificial dichotomy in running shoe design without first properly defining which parameters of shoe design are the boundary between one type of shoe and another. This is not the way a true scientist would approach the subject.

    As a result, we can see clearly from your use of such terms that you are so negative against certain types of shoes that you can't be objective and scientific in your analyses of these shoes. You have no scientific data that shows these shoes produce any more injuries than do "minimalist shoes" (what ever those are since no one has properly defined what a minimalist shoe is) or that running in traditional running shoes produces more injuries than does barefoot running. You are just guessing, Blaise. And from my 27 years of experience of treating thousands of runners and my 40+ years of being a long distance runner, your guess is wrong.

    Blaise, if what you say above is true, and using "rigorous and unbiased science" is your goal, then you should eliminate any artificial dichotomy of heel-striking runners that you have decided to create, without any scientific evidence to do so, and eliminate any artificial dichotomy between traditional running shoe morphology and design by using the terms "big and bulky". Precision of terminology and unbiased accuracy is the key to good science.

    You must first decide if you want to be a marketing advertiser or a scientist...you can't be both at the same time.

    Good luck with your seminar in Newcastle.:drinks
     
  37. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Thanks Kevin,
    I feel more like a scientific than a marketing advertiser... and it's the reason why I don't trust "company reseachers" ;)

    We will need a real chat together and I'm close to set a course in California... will let you know. Can be cool to do a debate on biomechanics with you, Chis Power (he do the promotion of heel sticking for some runners), me and some others.

    About the shoes, it's interesting to know that ALL companies move to minimalism. Even if they use a different and more marketing vocabulary, the result is the same: lighter, less ramp, lower stack, more flexible, less technologies to control the pronation, … we are finally changing the word!
    See you in the next years :drinks
     
  38. Hi

    Homeopathy has more.

    Changes in force, well certainly. Anything from a thumbtack to a piece of roadkill in your foot will change force.

    Increase in muscle activity? Sure, that sort of fits on from changes. But to be mildly pedantic, thats surely MORE stress rather than less. Around weight bearing segments (whats one of them again?).

    Excellant! Lets see the research for that again. With particular reference to what "good" trunk alignment is and how the improvement was measured.

    Fair shout. We're most of us clinicians first and scientists second. The point is however, when you start dropping phrases like "reduced stress" and "natural gait, can't harm" It sounds awfully sciency (even though its not) and you need to be prepared for people to ask you to elucidate. :drinks
     
  39. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    "

    ahhhh.. I do not visit that website.. there is absolutely nothing of any value to me on it at all. And having been quite involved at a modest level in the world of sports medicine over a year or two, I have a pretty fair idea of who knows their stuff and who does not.
    And one last thing Blaise.. I am not sure if you have a learning disorder or are just being pigheaded (or maybe you are just stupid.. I am not sure), but you are now making yourself look stupid.. I did not run away from a debate with you.. I have a 10 week committment in the USA.. which you freely acknowlege.. and am physically unable to be 2 places at once, especially when those places are separated by 8000 km of ocean.
    Is there anything else I can do or say to help you understand this Blaise?

    Enjoy Newcastle.. great surf and home of silverchair.. any idea what that is?
     
  40. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Rockers, damned good ones too!;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page