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.

Vibram Five Fingers are sooooo 2011...

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Griff, Dec 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. And have you read the study that was published in Nature? I suggest you do and put your critical cap on- see what weaknesses in the methodology you can find. Hint- there are a number. Personally, I don't care if a paper is published by Stephen Hawking or Bob Hosking, if it's put out to publication, it's put out to be critiqued.
     
  2. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Agreed. Who you are/where you work/what your job title is does not make your work exempt from critique.

    I'm not sure I even recall anyone being personal about Dan Lieberman anyway? All criticisms have generally always been about his work (using his 2011 paper in Nature as an example: it's flawed methodology and the way its findings were misinterpreted - the latter no fault of Dr Lieberman himself).
     
  3. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Please note I said "this debate", not "this thread".

    From this thread:

    "...And that exemplifies my case in point. We do not hang our hats on sample sizes of 1, 2 or two hundred, we look at the evidence base from the anecdotal to the controlled trial and we critique it- hence we look at the Lieberman study and wonder how it ever got published;...."

    And in Craig's "there is no debate..."

    "...Then there is this recent article from the New York Times... Are We Built to Run Barefoot?

    Putting aside the monotonous Lieberman nonsense... the following I found questionable in the real world of running..."

    These are unbelievably arrogant comments from persons with either a minimal publication record, or none at all.

    Rob
     
  4. I suggest you should read the paper. What problems do you spot within it? Does a publication record make one better able to critically review the publications of others?

    Here's the way I look at it: if this paper were submitted for review to one of the journals which I act as a professional reviewer for, would I have accepted it for publication in it's present form. The answer in the case in point is- probably not. How is this being arrogant? Is it liebermans fault ? No, it's the fault of the reviewers.

    I don't buy your arguments which seem to suggest that the Lieberman study is beyond reproach because Lieberman works for Harvard and the study was published in nature and I certainly find your intimation that unless an individual has a substantial publication record they should not be allowed to comment upon their perception of the quality of a paper lest they be seen as arrogant, rather odd.
     
  5. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    This thread has run its course....
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page