More 'snake oil' as orthotics

Kevin

..he simply won't be convinced because he is only interested in selling more silicone insoles...not learning more biomechanics...

You mean I'm not willing to hear your archaic ideas!

 

Dennis, just for you, I will post a reference to that research for the third time within this thread, but really you should actually read the replies that are made to you:

Dennis, if I apply a force to the hallux and it doesn't dorsiflex, then by definition, the 1st metatarsophalangeal joint is "stable"; if the 1st metatarsapohalngeal joint is fused as in hallux rigidus, or via surgical means, it is "stable" to the applied forces, but this isn't necessarilly going to provide a "biomechancally efficient" movement pattern- is it?

Dennis, you wrote:

Since Matthew Thomas, has never seen your insoles, your use of his opinion here is neither here nor there. Trying to drum-up support, Dennis? Do I value Matthew's opinion- no. My choice.

See reference above.

Different to yours.

Maybe you'd like to re-read what has been written in response to your sales posts, since just like the reference, I already told you the three factors. If you bother to search and critically evaluate the literature you shoud realise that your contention, regarding prefabs versus custom devices is erroneous also.

I got to get ready for lectures in South Africa, Dennis. It's been swell talking with you, but nothing I write is going to change anything in your little world. Good luck with your sales. You're not for me, thank you very much for asking. BTW, you really should take the time to learn how to quote text, since your lack of ability to do this makes any discussion with you even more difficult than that by your intentional obsfuscation.

Goodbye Dennis.

 

Or was it this research you wanted me to quote, Dennis: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-489c158b-5d81-35dd-806f-ac7c0524cee6

 

Silicon is hardly new technology. Neither is the cookie cutter design of making what pretends to be foot orthotics.

Pressure plates have been around for at least 2 decades in the O&P industry, using the wrong unit of measure with little or no arch data to prescribe a foot orthotic, which is sometimes referred to as an arch support. In fact, as the data from these devices hardly even comes close to describing the shape of the patient's foot, it is the one technology of lessor moral standing than even the 2D scanners. At least the 2D scanners get the widths and lengths right.

What new technology are you referring to? I'm just not seeing it.

 

Simon

Since Matthew Thomas, has never seen your insoles, your use of his opinion here is neither here nor there. Trying to drum-up support, Dennis? Do I value Matthew's opinion- no. My choice.

Matt's comment was about “congruity” being “optimal”--this has nothing to do with his ever seeing a silicone orthotic and I'm not drumming up support—but you seemed to be worried about it before he's even made a comment?

But you always make an issue about something other than my description of bio-fluid mechanics. Why are you unable to do this? Is it because you just don't understand it? Probably so.

as for for your reference article, that was already referenced in my article. The fact is, the way Dr Quesada did the study is clear to me, he did not only not do it well, he missed the most important fact:

“ This mechanism for plantar pressure reduction, however, is effective only while fluid (i.e. silicone gel) is present beneath the entire contacting plantar surface”

He did not as you, do not understand the full bio/fluid mechanics in that at propulsion, fluid is displaced posteriorily and prolongs the equilibrium state of stability. This is the 2nd area of instability that occurs with traditional orthotics.

You also missed a critical factor of the STJ pronating into “optimal” position (neutral to you). You said you do get it, you understand the Archimedes principle, what you don't understand is the bio-fluid mechanics anymore than Dr Quesada.

 

Joe Jared


What new technology are you referring to? I'm just not seeing it.

Silicone by itself, is not a technology, using silicone under the foot in a template is.

 

Dennis:

As outlined previously in posts #82 & 88, the continual non-use of the "Quote" function really does make your posts/views harder to read due to difficulty in isolating your use of the views of others & subsequent your addressing views. If you don't want to learn the application of the "Quote" function can I suggest you at least highlight the views you wish to quote via some sort of bracket & bold function i.e. //text of views\\ or {text of views}. Thanks.

Anyway, as you requested (via email), here are the instructions to the use of the "Quote" function... as well as how to post those (larger) "Pedobarographic" images:

[Note: to the feeble minded - the posting of the following info does not reflect my stance or support of any particular individual or material (as previously stated in this thread) - it is simply added as per a request & to help with clarity on this already ambiguous dialogue/thread]​

It may be a good idea Dennis to copy the following to your desktop for future easy reference:

* Quote function: as per post #88 (or at least use the above bracket suggestion)...

* Posting images: (because those "Pedobarographic" images are far too small via the following page... http://www.podiatrytoday.com/closer-look-principles-fluid-dynamics-they-relate-orthoses). There are two ways to do this...
1/ posting via URL (this version will show the image regardless if one is logged in).
2/ posting via an attachment (this version will only show the image when one is logged in).

1/ URL method:
- This requires the image to be submitted to the web where a URL can be obtained for it. A site that can do this for you is postimage.org (http://postimage.org/). Just follow the instructions i.e. upload your image from your P.C... once done it will provide you with a URL link to then use to post on this forum... via the "Insert Image" icon (see image below) in the top tool bar menu above the forum's message box (where you type your post)... which is shown here...



- After you have got the "Direct Link" URL from i.e. postimage.org... you then click on the above "Insert Image" icon (circled in above image)... paste the URL in the box & click "OK". You then will achieve the following (of course do the above twice to post two images)...

1.


2.


*** You will know doubt need to clarify at least a few things with the above 2 pedo images (i.e. key, method etc... as in & of themselves are vague).

2/ Attachment method:
- Go to advanced mode when submitting post.
- Under the "message" box (where you type your post), go down to "Additional Options" section.
- Click on "Manage Attachments" box... browse for your image & upload it...



- Then go to the top bar menu above the "message" box (where you're typing your post), click the drop down arrow of the "Attachments" box, click the image attachment link (you have just previously uploaded) to then submit the image/link to a particular position in your post...



- Something like the following should appear (which I believe is the "barefoot pedobarograph" scan)...



- do the same for the other "pedobarograph" (i.e. "SDO Pedobarograph" scan)...

That should cover it.


Simon:

Your subjective assessment is noted. Some of my posts may well be considered long (like this one - to thoroughly clarify an issue)... hence an objective valid view/point. However, your other (subjective) views are incorrect - they were never intended to be that way (& I sincerely mean that)... you have chosen to interpret such posts that way... which has lead me to come to my (subjective) views (cited in the previous post)...

Possibly, possibly... there may be misinterpretation on both our parts [wanting to be as amicable as possible here].

Thank you... now you get, you are correct... I have not seen Dennis's SDO device (putting aside the SDO related images I have discussed)... which is the basis of my dialogue with him i.e. questioning his views/reasoning... whilst attempting to remain impartial & objective as possible... oh, & to not provide vague one word answers such as "optimal" (to a multifactorial scenario... such as the congruity of joints within the body)... which would then require typing more words (for clarity i.e. post #129)... which then runs the risk of being "long rambling"... maybe I'll get the balance right one of these days.

 

Eric

Here's the scans, care to discuss it?

 

Scans are not attached to post.

If you want to know how a rigid orthotic affects forces applied to the foot, you should put the sensor on top of the orthotic.

Eric

 

Scans are not attached to post.

If you want to know how a rigid orthotic affects forces applied to the foot, you should put the sensor on top of the orthotic.


First of all, the pedo scans posted can be discussed as is. The pedobarograph was the first gait system and just as accurate as other systems, if not, more so.

Secondly, I disagree about the placement of sensors. In order to understand the biomechanical function of the foot, you need to understand forces generated by GRF. How the forefoot lines up and at what time in the stance phase, That's pure biomechanical fubction.

Hundreds if not thousands of scans of rigid and soft orthotics on pressure plates can be biomechanically read with accuracy. You just don't have enough experience.

 

We can discuss them as soon as you can provide the pictures. It's a shame that you didn't understand Matthew's great post on how to post pictures and use the quote function.

Dennis, using your logic you would need to look at the bottom of the shoe when the orthotic was in the shoe.

Simple thought experiment. Put a thumb tack, pointy side up, on top of a silicon orthotic and then stand on top of the orthotic with the orthotic on top of the force platfrom. With the sensor in this location you would not know what is happening at the foot "orthotic" interface. To understand what the orthotic is doing to the foot you need to know orthotic reactive force not ground reactive force.

When you place the rigid orthotic on top of the platform and then stand on it you see the force applied by the orthothic to the ground. That force is greater than weight of the orthtoic. There must be some force from the foot that is applied to the orthotic that is increasing the total ground reaction force at the orthotic ground/sensor interface. That force is orthotic reactive force. So you know the orthothic is doing something to the foot, but you can't see it when you place the sensor under the orthotic.

First, you have no idea how much experience I have viewing pressure maps. Your statement is an attempt to flail away at a critic.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how much experience you have, if you don't understand what you are measuring.

One of the most accurate things that I've heard about silicon dynamic orthotics was Jack Morris. "It kind of feels like you are stepping in a cow pie." Now, there is some "natural function" accuracy.

Eric

 

If you want to know how a rigid orthotic affects forces applied to the foot, you should put the sensor on top of the orthotic.

This applies only to a trad orthotic technology.



We can discuss them as soon as you can provide the pictures

what pictures?

To understand what the orthotic is doing to the foot you need to know orthotic reactive force not ground reactive force.

I disagree, the GRF is a measure of what the orthotic is functionally doing to the foot.

"It kind of feels like you are stepping in a cow pie." -- you should hear what pts have to say about traditional orthotics?Remember Dr Schmidt?--he said stepping into an orthotic is like stepping onto a ?shovel?


First, you have no idea how much experience I have viewing pressure maps.

I realize now, that you and your friends are unable to read the biomechanics of the scans, it isn't even a matter of how much experience you actually have, because you've never ever seen sequential biomech loading, Newtonian mechanics is one dimensional, the tri-plane motion at the tarsus requires a three dimensional orthosis.



When you place the rigid orthotic on top of the platform and then stand on it you see the force applied by the orthothic to the ground. That force is greater than weight of the orthtoic. There must be some force from the foot that is applied to the orthotic that is increasing the total ground reaction force at the orthotic ground/sensor interface. That force is orthotic reactive force. So you know the orthothic is doing something to the foot, but you can't see it when you place the sensor under the orthotic.

This is incorrect, with a trad orthotic, the GRF of the forefoot measures how the orthotic is working (this is why I say, you don't understand the biomechanics visible in the scan).
With fluid orthotics, the sensor under the orthotic also measures GRF per Newton's 3rd law of physics.
Force is transmitted through the fluid and polyurethane. It accurately measures GRF throughout the entire stance phase.

 

When a foot is on top of the orthotic and the orthotic is on top of the sensor that is on the ground, Ground reaction force tells you what the ground is doing to the orthotic. Orthotic reactive force tells you what the orthotic is doing to the foot. This is true for all technology.

Oh I give up. If people read this and think you know what you are talking about then they should pay you double for your bag of silicon.

Eric

 

When a foot is on top of the orthotic and the orthotic is on top of the sensor that is on the ground, Ground reaction force tells you what the ground is doing to the orthotic. Orthotic reactive force tells you what the orthotic is doing to the foot. This is true for all technology.

Absolutely incorrect.

 

Eric,

This is about technology. There isn't one among you that would dare to match clinical trials with my "bags of silicone"

And that's just because "clinical trials" are a way of proving or disproving. The fact is, if you understood the technology and the bio-fluid mechanics at all, you wouldn't even need a clinical trial. It isn't a question of "if" it works like your technology, it's just a matter of "when" it works for the pt!

 

Why????

 

]

 

When a foot is on top of the orthotic and the orthotic is on top of the sensor that is on the ground, Ground reaction force tells you what the ground is doing to the orthotic. Orthotic reactive force tells you what the orthotic is doing to the foot. This is true for all technology.

Why????


As I've said before, this does not apply to bio-fluid technology, because Newton's 3rd law is only one component of physics for bio-fluid technology.

Forces and pressure transmit across the upper surface of the foot.

BTW?I'm not interested in how GRF affects the orthotic, I'm interested in how GRF affects the foot.
After all, this is biomecanical function of the lower extremity, not biomechanical function of an orthotic.

 

PS--?The good thing about science is it's true?whether you believe it or not.? Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson--astrophysisist