Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
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 (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Think back over a lot of the discussions here and how much is based on A is wrong, then that proves B is right. Why do they always ignore that there could be a C, D, or E that could also be right?
The whole basis of the arguments for barefoot/minimalist/forefoot running (B) is based on trying to prove that there is a problem with running shoes/heel striking (A). There is no evidence that barefoot/minimalist/forefoot running is any better than running shoes/heel striking, yet when you look at the arguments made by the proponents of barefoot/minimalist/forefoot running, its all based on building case against running shoes/heel striking. How does that show barefoot/minimalist/forefoot running is any good? There may or may not be a case against running shoes/heel striking, but how does that show that barefoot/minimalist/forefoot running is any better?
Similarly, a large part of the argument for MASS theory and Functional Foot Typing (B) by their proponents is to make all sorts of claims and criticisms of Root, Tissue stress, SALRE, sagital plane etc (A). There may or may not be problems with Root, Tissue strees, SALRE, sagital plane etc, but even if there is, how does that support MASS theory and Functional Foot Typing?
Anyone notice the pattern?
Theories/concepts/ideas (B) need to stand on their own two feet (pun intended) and not on a critique of other theories/concepts/ideas (A), as there could always ea C, D, or E waiting in the wings.
As my mentor always said: "beware the false dichotomy". That is, it is either this or that - always consider that there may be others. He was referring to locomotory strategies in fossil hominoids, the principle stands good. Rob
Honorary Research Associate, Institute for Human Evolution, University of Witwatersrand
Adjunct Associate Professor (Human and Comparative Anatomy), University of Western Sydney
Fellow of The Centre For Human Biology, The University of Western Australia
"Please God, deliver me whole from Creationists......."