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.
I have another question on ground reaction force data. Are vertical GRF's usually calculated as ground force on shoe, as compared to insole/orthotic reaction force on foot. It seems logical that the forces between the ground and shoe, especially during impact, would be different than that of the insole on the foot.
I once dropped an egg off my elementary school roof in a box full of cotton balls and it didn't break - Have to think the reaction force was different for the box and for the egg.
Finally, would the inertia of the shoe contribute to impact force magnitude or timing, assuming we are looking at ground to shoe reaction force?
Ground reaction force is usually measured (not calculated) with a force plate. There are in shoe sensoras that can also measure foot shoe reaction forces. Some shoe sensors ask for body weight so that they can estimate what the total force should be. There are calibration issues with both inshoe and force platform sensors.
Mechanical analysis of the landing phase in heel-toe running.
Bobbert MF, Yeadon MR, Nigg BM.
J Biomech. 1992 Mar;25(3):223-34
In looking up the above paper, which influenced me greatly, I saw other papers by the same authors on the use of accelerometry and inverse dynamics that could be used to look at groundreaction force.
One question is why do you want to look at vertical ground reaction force.
The difference between your example of the egg, cotton, and carton versus the shoe and the foot is that there is a lot more internal motion with the egg. Specifically the egg does not stop the instant the carton hits the ground. Whearas the distance the foot travels relative to the outer sole of the shoe is relatively less than the egg in the carton. The concept you are examining here is impulse. Impulse is force x time and is what happens when the ground changes the momentum of a falling object. You can create the same impulse with a low force times a long time as compared to a high force for a short time. The cotton and the compression of the material of the shoe give some more distance and time over which the force can be applied to slow the downward momentum.
The interesting thing about the study I cited above was that it showed the the ground reaction force impact peak was related to the impact of the shank and foot and that knee flexion was very important in reducing the magnitude of ground reaction force. So, just as there is some internal movement in the egg carton there is "internal" movement of the whole body to reduce impacts. However, material under the heel of the foot can reduce the peak loads from the shank impact.
You are not impressing me, all you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof. I can list my curriculum vitae too, if you think that would help? Now, you made the contentions, the burden of proof is with you, not I. So, that evidence if you would please, Blaise...
Don't worry, my goal is not to impress you. So you don't agree, but you cannot say why and you cannot say also what your position (evidence based or not) on the questions I ask you?
Don't worry, my goal is not to impress you. So you don't agree, but you cannot say why and you cannot say also what your position (evidence based or not) on the questions I ask you?
I can say why, I just don't need to Blaise because you cannot provide evidence to support the contention you made in the first place. Viz. the burden of proof is with you, not me. Rather, the benefit of assumption is with me. What don't you understand about that? Put forward the evidence and then we can debate it. At the moment, you are merely attempting to deflect the argument, it might work with those unfamiliar with academic debate... I thought you'd been involved in academic debate before? But in reality you cannot even say why you believe what you said, never mind why you might disbelieve any evidence I might provide to support my position.
"Here's what I think"
"I think you're wrong, show me the evidence"
"I'm right"
"No, show me the evidence to support your position"
"I'm right, why do think I'm wrong?"
"Because you can't evidence what you've said"
"What do you think?"
"I think you haven't evidenced what you've said yet"
"But you can't tell me why you think I'm wrong?"
"I think you are wrong because I'm familiar with the evidence base, I have a sound understanding of lower limb biomechanics and research methods and I know there is no evidence which supports your contentions... go ahead show me some evidence..."
Bored now Blaise, either evidence your contentions or wind your neck in.
I can say why, I just don't need to Blaise because you cannot provide evidence to support the contention you made in the first place. Put forward the evidence and then we can debate it. At the moment, you are merely attempting to deflect the argument, it might work with those unfamiliar with academic debate... I thought you'd been involved in academic debate before? But in reality you cannot even say why you believe what you said.
No, clearly you haven't got any answers. That was evident yesterday, Blaise. The problem is that you are not man enough to admit it. You've given me a synopsis of your career, you've provided a link to your courses, you've attempted to shift the burden of proof, but you still haven't provided any evidence for your contentions whatsoever. Good luck with your future.
Do you have some evidence to tell me the opposite?
From my 15 years of experience treating almost exclusively runners; dealing since more than 10 years with minimalist and maximalist stunning shoes; being a runner since 32 years; working wing the national team; being in contact with hundreds of health professionals and tens of researchers groups around the word; understanding where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rear foot (and the influence of the shoes on that); observing in forums/social media runners having trouble with injuries... ...
I think I'm right! ... but who knows... maybe the other Simon?
What do you think of my questions? (you can just answered yes or no... even with no evidence)
Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?
Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?
Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?
Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
Blaise, is it really so hard to say that you don't have evidence for your strongly held beliefs.
What's a maximalist shoe?
A shoe can be made/modified to reduce stress on a particular anatomical structure. This modification will probably increase stress on some other structure.
What's EKAM?
Folks are more likely to answer your questions if the question can be clearly defined.
Eric
The Following User Says Thank You to efuller For This Useful Post:
Wouldn't the load on one side of a material interface be the same as the load on the other side of the interface?
Yes, the load would be reduce on both sides. The difference between the two would be the forces acting on the material between them (gravity and accelerations.)
Yes, the load would be reduce on both sides. The difference between the two would be the forces acting on the material between them (gravity and accelerations.)
So, if we took a force plate and covered it in say a 4mm sheet of eva foam, the forces recorded by the force plate should be the same as the forces at the foot to eva interface- right? Except the co-efficient of friction between the eva and the force plate will not be the same as the co-efficient of friction between the eva and the foot. What influence might this have on the reaction forces, Eric?
So, if we took a force plate and covered it in say a 4mm sheet of eva foam, the forces recorded by the force plate should be the same as the forces at the foot to eva interface- right?
Except for the weigth of the foam. Now, if your talking about induced behavioral changes, like change in knee angle, then they will be different.
Except for the weigth of the foam. Now, if your talking about induced behavioral changes, like change in knee angle, then they will be different.
Eric
Sorry Eric, I edited while you were writing. I asked about differences in coefficient of friction at each interface too.
But if the reaction forces on the foot side of an interface material are the same as the reaction forces + the weight of the material at the force plate side of the interface, then to answer Leo's question- a force plate should give a reasonable approximation of the in-shoe forces-right? Or, does the surface angulation at the foot-shoe interface and the variation in frictional co-efficients influence the situation too much? Thanks for your thoughts.
Sorry Eric, I edited while you were writing. I asked about differences in coefficient of friction at each interface too.
But if the reaction forces on the foot side of an interface material are the same as the reaction forces + the weight of the material at the force plate side of the interface, then to answer Leo's question- a force plate should give a reasonable approximation of the in-shoe forces-right? Or, does the surface angulation at the foot-shoe interface and the variation in frictional co-efficients influence the situation too much? Thanks for your thoughts.
His original question was about vertical forces and yes a force platform should give a very good aproximation of dropping a cadaver limb in a shoe from a height and measuring the vertical forces. The frictional charachteristics of the material could very easily induce behavioral changes that could change the value produced from a force platform in walking. There would be a huge number of variables to control for, as well as some technical problems to be able actually test the assertion that it is a close aproximation of the forces in walking.
I'll have to think about horizontal forces a bit. Behavioral changes will probably be greater relative to the magnitudes of the forces.
Eric
The Following User Says Thank You to efuller For This Useful Post:
Blaise, is it really so hard to say that you don't have evidence for your strongly held beliefs.
What's a maximalist shoe?
A shoe can be made/modified to reduce stress on a particular anatomical structure. This modification will probably increase stress on some other structure.
What's EKAM?
Folks are more likely to answer your questions if the question can be clearly defined.
Eric
Hi Eric,
Like I said previously there is no direct evidence on running shoes versus injuries that tell us presently what to prescribe to our patients, except :
* the 3 of Knapik -type of shoes vs type of foot-;
* the 3 of Ryan (The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial/Examining the degree of pain reduction using a multi element exercise model with a conventional training shoe versus an ultraflexible training shoe for treating plantar fasciitis) -the third one will be publish soon on minimalist vs traditional- ;
* and some other on the way (not publish yet, like here at Quebec)
But there is indirect evidence showing that depending on the type of shoes you wear (or not) you will have different type or 'biomechanics' (the tendency is clear)... and that this type of biomechanics will increase or decrease the stress on some tissues. (ex : barefoot-minimalistic running increase the forefoot loading, decrease the work of the tib anterior and decrease the tissue stress of the anterior compartment syndrome... it's just ONE example of the integration of that... I will therefore recommend to a patient with a anterior compartment syndrome to avoid a heel lift and promote for them a very minimalist shoes. It's presently the only way we have to recommend / prescribe shoes based on science... even it's correlation and flimsy evidence.
EKAM : External Knee Abduction Moment
I think my question are VERY clear and simple... (see my answers). One of the thing I observe on this blog it that people critic everything, say always 'there is no evidence' and never take position... I feel that most of people stop to be clinician and stat to be just critics ... maybe I'm wrong
Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture? (NO, it's risky if it's done too quickly)
Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-? (NO, it decrease the stress/load)
Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM? (NO it's increase EKAM for most of shoes and runners)
Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?(No I think it increase)
And if you decrease the external knee abduction moment, you increase the external knee... something... can you guess? External knee "something" moment... what is that "something"? Anyone? Anyone? External knee something moment? Anyone? External knee something a,d,d, moment? Anyone? Anyone? External knee adduction moment... "
"Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCF...eature=related
And if you increase the external knee abduction moment, you decrease the external knee... something... moment? Can you guess?
Fill in the blanks, Blaise. Then you might realise why you cannot make statements like the ones you made previously.
"But you didn't answer my questions" ... because I knew you didn't understand the claims you were making. So, to answer some of your questions: to say that one type of shoe increases or decreases the risk of injury at the knee joint (or foot) as a whole, is just nonsense; the potential risk of injury at the knee joint is merely shifted twixt tissues at that joint. It's a classic example which Eric described beautifully in a chapter that might get published one day- draw it out as a free body analysis, Blaise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
I teach with passion this concept since more than 10 years (probably long time before you were debating on that topics here). My approach is a mix of clinical experience (not just maximalist or minimalist... both together!) and an evidence based approach. I love teaching advance concept in post graduate course even if I teach or taught at Laval University different courses in physio, medicine, kinesiology and physical education... and all this passion has nothing to do with money...
Passion is no replacement for knowledge and understanding, and if you don't understand what the evidence tells you, you cannot possibly employ an evidence based approach within your teaching nor clinical practice. And if your "passion" has nothing to do with money, then put your courses on for free.
May I ask another question?
As far as I know, research shows that when you put a cushioned shoe on, impact forces go up. Of course researchers always state that it is a counter intuitive finding. I do understand that strike pattern and "shock moderating behaviors" change, but I also recall a concept purposed that the foot is "searching for an input signal" and thus purposefully hits harder in this "search". I've never been able to get it out of my head that perhaps perception is reality and the CNS is not searching but rather responding to the fact that landing on a cushioned material with no rocks, glass, or whatever, has less potential to create immediate harm to the foot. Thus the pattern employed by the CNS is perfect for the nature of the external environment in which it is landing, ie- cushioned.
So, I guess the question is - Is the foot "searching" for input or is perception reality.
May I ask another question?
As far as I know, research shows that when you put a cushioned shoe on, impact forces go up. Of course researchers always state that it is a counter intuitive finding. I do understand that strike pattern and "shock moderating behaviors" change, but I also recall a concept purposed that the foot is "searching for an input signal" and thus purposefully hits harder in this "search". I've never been able to get it out of my head that perhaps perception is reality and the CNS is not searching but rather responding to the fact that landing on a cushioned material with no rocks, glass, or whatever, has less potential to create immediate harm to the foot. Thus the pattern employed by the CNS is perfect for the nature of the external environment in which it is landing, ie- cushioned.
So, I guess the question is - Is the foot "searching" for input or is perception reality.
That's the Robbins-Gouw hypothesis. Show me the evidence that supports this, other than that reported by Robbins and Gouw? In my view, it responds to the input as noted by Farley and all. The only challenge to that might be observed from studies of sensory neuropathy.
That's the Robbins-Gouw hypothesis. Show me the evidence that supports this, other than that reported by Robbins and Gouw? In my view, it responds to the input as noted by Farley and all. The only challenge to that might be observed from studies of sensory neuropathy.
We have had a number of threads on the Robbins-Gouw hypothesis, but essentially they did some good experiments and I agree that they are probably right that with something soft under the foot, there probably is some changes impact moderately behavior.
However, what Robbin and Gouw and those that blindly tout their work have had an epic fail on is that no one has actually demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the change in impact moderating behavior that the shoes induce! Just because you editorialize some research and state that the change in impact moderating behavior induced by shoes is bad, does not mean it actually is. No one has done any research to show that there is actually anything wrong with it!
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
I will therefore recommend to a patient with a anterior compartment syndrome to avoid a heel lift and promote for them a very minimalist shoes. It's presently the only way we have to recommend / prescribe shoes based on science... even it's correlation and flimsy evidence.
The heel lift will be important if the touchdown angle remains the same between the shoe with the lift and without the heel lift. (Touchdown angle, in this case, is the angle, in the sagittal plane of the plantar surface of the sole of the shoe and the ground at heel contact). The theory is that if the anterior compartment muscles, (most likely anterior tibial muscle) has to work longer with a heel lift shoe then there will be more stress on the anterior compartment. However, if in the shoe with the lift the sole of the shoe has the same touch down angle as the shoe without the lift then there will be no difference caused by the lift. Another way to reduce stress on the anterior compartment is to shift the contact point more anteriorly with the shoe design. A flare that goes from dorsal posterior to anterior inferior could acomplish this. A SACH heel probably will do this. A shoe with a posterior flare would make the anterior compartment worse. The point is you can design the shoe for the pathology. Always saying that you should get into minimalist shoes will hurt some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
I think my question are VERY clear and simple... (see my answers). One of the thing I observe on this blog it that people critic everything, say always 'there is no evidence' and never take position... I feel that most of people stop to be clinician and stat to be just critics ... maybe I'm wrong
The reason that you think that your questions are clear an simple is that you think you know what a minimalist and a maximalist shoe are. I don't know what you mean by that.
Blaise, I have some strongly held beliefs that I have no evidence for. I can clearly explain the logic for those beliefs. I can describe the experiment that could be designed to test those beliefs and I'm perfectly happy saying that yes this is what I believe even though there is no evidence. I'm not quite following your logic between the studies you discuss and your conclusions. Are you saying that a maximalist shoe, whatever that is, is bad for everyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM? (NO it's increase EKAM for most of shoes and runners)
Yes, anything that shifts the center of pressure laterally will tend to increase external knee abduction moment (EKAM). A lateral flare on the shoe will make this worse. A dual density midsole (firm medially) will decrease EKAM.
Increasing EKAM will be good for genu varum and bad for genu valgum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?(No I think it increase)
The wrong shoe can increase risk, the right shoe will decrease risk. It will depend on the anatomy of the wearer. No one shoe will be right for everyone.
Just to explain just a little more
My thought about injury risk : - higher if you change not enough gradually (both side)
No strong data on that but ask to Kevin, Craig, and clinicians that treat runners doing this transition to quickly : Giuliani 2011, Leong-2010, Salzler 2011... but safe if integrate gradually : Allison 2012(P)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
Generally, running shoes cushioning decreases the stress / peak pressure on the foot (Rethnam 2011, Tessutti 2010, Wiegering 2009, Wegener 2008, House 2002, Windle 1999, Nyska 1995)
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
Running shoes cushioning increases the mechanical stress on the skeleton (except the foot)... (Rethnam 2011, Hamill 2011, Lieberman 2010, Bergmann 2010, Braunstein 2010, Kerrigan 2009, Shakoor 2006, Divert 2004, Shorten 2002, 1996 Hennig, Bergmann 1995) … or doesn’t decrase it (Hardin 2002, Cole 1995, McNaire 1994, Nigg 1987)
- lower on long term with minimalist... ... ... ...
to complexe to explain... follow my course
1. There is nothing wrong with running barefoot
2. There is nothing wrong with running shoes
3. Evangelists from the Church lie about the research
4. Different running forms load different tissues differently; there is no one right way to run for everyone
5. Podiatrists and those that work in running injury clinics are making more money since this trend started.
Aloha,
How about 5 really small reasons?
Bacterial infections are typically caused by normal flora bacteria, such as species of Staphylococcus (staph) and Streptococcus (strep). They may also be caused by colonizing bacteria and antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Brackish water wound infections may be due to waterborne Vibrio or Aeromonas species. Hot tub-associated infections may be caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. When wounds are deeper, the possible pathogens include anaerobes such as Bacteroides and Clostridium species.
It's a classic example which Eric described beautifully in a chapter that might get published one day- draw it out as a free body analysis, Blaise.
Is that chapter or parts of it about online? here?
thank you
regards
ANdy
__________________
"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it." A.A.Milne
[quote=Blaise Dubois;270164]90% of the market shoes (also called big bulky shoes, maximalist shoes, 'traditional' shoes ... to the opposite of flat shoes, minimalist, racers, ...)
We have a mathematical formula to quantify the shoes with a rate from 0 (barefoot) to 100 (Hoka).
For the moment, grossly
I call a shoes minimalist if :
stack < 15mm
drop < 5mm
weight < 7oz
I call a shoes maximalist if :
stack > 20mm
drop > 7mm
weight > 9oz
Aloha Blaise,
I like the concept of stack and drop for measuring the difference between rearfoot and forefoot heights. Simon has chastized you for using the wrong terms, i would ask Simon again as you have "what are the proper terms to use?"
I double checked with a freind of mine who was the chief of research and design at Adidas. He said there is not a set of industry terms for this concept and that they would often use the terms "Heel to Toe drop, or heel height" to describe this concept.
It could be expanded on as well to include the continued drop to the toes from the "toe spring".
A standard running shoe will follow the 22-12-2 rule with 22mm of EVA in the rearfoot falling to 12mm EVA at the ball of the foot falling to 2mm of EVA at the distal toe.
This falling concept is the same as a declining plane or simple machine wedge creating an increase in forward velocity over a shorter distance at expense of potential energy and foot height.
So the big debate over "barefoot running" should be better defined as "barefoot" meaning no foot protection or biomechanical influence from a shoe or sock and "flatfoot running" meaning that the heel and forefoot contact the ground with equal impulse regardless of the footwear. We could also add "toe running" such as sprinters who do not contact the heel to the ground.
Why does a Cowgirl wear a high heel boot?
Why does a men's oxford shoe have a elevated heel?
Why do logging boots have a 2 1/2 inch heel?
Why do men ballroom dancers often use an elevated "Latin Heel" ?
Would you consider a Chuck Talor Converse All Star a barefoot running shoe?
RESULTS:
A more anterior initial foot contact present in barefoot or other alternative running styles may decrease or eliminate the initial vertical ground reaction peak or "impact transient," possibly reducing knee joint loads and injuries. A more anterior foot strike, however, may increase mechanical work at the ankle and tensile stress within the plantarflexors. Wearing minimal footwear may also increase contact pressure imposed on the metatarsals.
CONCLUSION:
More research is needed to determine which individuals with certain morphological or mechanical gait characteristics may benefit from alternative running styles that incorporate a more anterior initial foot contact with or without shoes.
The conclusion of the paper makes sense. Different tissues will be stressed more under different running conditions. And conversely, with the opposite condition those tissues will be stressed less. So, sometimes going barefoot will increase stress and other times it will decrease stress. That last statement is boarderline too general, because different tissues are affected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
Just to explain just a little more
My thought about injury risk : - higher if you change not enough gradually (both side)
No strong data on that but ask to Kevin, Craig, and clinicians that treat runners doing this transition to quickly : Giuliani 2011, Leong-2010, Salzler 2011... but safe if integrate gradually : Allison 2012(P)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
Generally, running shoes cushioning decreases the stress / peak pressure on the foot (Rethnam 2011, Tessutti 2010, Wiegering 2009, Wegener 2008, House 2002, Windle 1999, Nyska 1995)
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
Running shoes cushioning increases the mechanical stress on the skeleton (except the foot)... (Rethnam 2011, Hamill 2011, Lieberman 2010, Bergmann 2010, Braunstein 2010, Kerrigan 2009, Shakoor 2006, Divert 2004, Shorten 2002, 1996 Hennig, Bergmann 1995) … or doesn’t decrase it (Hardin 2002, Cole 1995, McNaire 1994, Nigg 1987)
- lower on long term with minimalist... ... ... ...
to complexe to explain... follow my course
From the Gross study, if in mimimalist shoes you land on your forefoot, you will have increased load on the metatarsals and Achilles tendon. That will be true in the long term and the short term. So, I don't see how you can claim that in the long term all injury risk is lower if you use minimalist shoes.
I've found in discussing explanations that someone says that it too complex to explain that one of two things is going on. 1) the explanation really doesn't make any sense. 2) the person making the statement is too lazy to write out the explanation. Blaise, Which one are you?
The conclusion of the paper makes sense. Different tissues will be stressed more under different running conditions. And conversely, with the opposite condition those tissues will be stressed less. So, sometimes going barefoot will increase stress and other times it will decrease stress. That last statement is boarderline too general, because different tissues are affected.
From the Gross study, if in mimimalist shoes you land on your forefoot, you will have increased load on the metatarsals and Achilles tendon. That will be true in the long term and the short term. So, I don't see how you can claim that in the long term all injury risk is lower if you use minimalist shoes.
Is it just my #4 statement that you don't agree? ... so you understand and agree with # 1, #2, #3?
[quote=efuller;271930]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
I've found in discussing explanations that someone says that it too complex to explain that one of two things is going on. 1) the explanation really doesn't make any sense. 2) the person making the statement is too lazy to write out the explanation. Blaise, Which one are you?
I think I become too lazy. Debating in Podiatry Arena become boring. It seems that people here prefer don't agree and don't understand just to be In... without real argument or ideas to make thing progress. A good example is my statement #1. I pass a lot of time to debate with you guys on another post and nobody was agree that moving to fast to a minimalist shoes is potentially harmful... I throw the towel...
Is it just my #4 statement that you don't agree? ... so you understand and agree with # 1, #2, #3?
Your statements 1 2 and 3 from post # 50 I hadn't thought about much. However, one problem is that I'm not sure that the classification of maximalist is well defined. For example Statement 2 talks about knee stress in a maximalist shoe. If the patient had a genu valgum then a shoe with a dual density midsole, firm medially, could put less stress (frontal plane external knee abduction moment) on the knee than going barefoot and certainly less than a shoe with an equal density rearfoot midsole. So, the definition of maximalist could include both dual density and non dual density midsoles. When we talk about stress reduction we should be talking about specific shoe modifications and specific anatomical structures. No one condition shod/unshod will reduce stress for all structures.
Your statements 1 2 and 3 from post # 50 I hadn't thought about much. However, one problem is that I'm not sure that the classification of maximalist is well defined. For example Statement 2 talks about knee stress in a maximalist shoe. If the patient had a genu valgum then a shoe with a dual density midsole, firm medially, could put less stress (frontal plane external knee abduction moment) on the knee than going barefoot and certainly less than a shoe with an equal density rearfoot midsole. So, the definition of maximalist could include both dual density and non dual density midsoles. When we talk about stress reduction we should be talking about specific shoe modifications and specific anatomical structures. No one condition shod/unshod will reduce stress for all structures.
Eric
I agree,
When I speak about maximalist shoe it's not specifically about a dual density (my opinion, this type of thechnologies are made just to sale shoes. It absolutely doesn't change the biomechanics except decrease the extra rearfoot pronation bring by the softness of the shoes)
I speak about the promotion of more rearfoot striking (caused by the ramp and the stack / 'protection' of the hell by more cushioning)
Who gets to decide what min and max shoes really are and what shoes belong to which group?
If we are making that decision on the basis of puncture protection where do dual density foam shoe systems belong? Where do hardened advanced composite shoes belong?
If we are making that decision on the basis biomechanical influence where does deforming EVA and PU foam shoes belong? Where do mechanical spring lever orthotics and advanced composite ankle foot orthoses belong?
If we are making that decision on the basis of energy efficiency where do collapsing foams belong? Where do high tensile strength advanced composite orthotic and shoe systems belong?
Mahalo,
Steve
[I]To be one, to be united is a great thing. But to respect the right to be different is maybe even greater.
[/i]Bono
Does anyone one know of any studies on the relation of thin soled shoes to metatarsal stress fractures. I recall finding a study/report of 11 or 12 subjects with injuries related to minimal shoes. Might have been the VFF's (Vibram Five Finger's). I think the report showed eight 2nd met stress fractures, 1 calcaneus stress fracture? Is this familiar to anyone? I don't remember where I saw this.
And finally, I went out and got myself a VFF and a Merrel trail glove. I couldn't help but note the extreme differences between the "minimal" products. Even between one VFF and the next VFF. One thing to note with these shoes is the "nobbie" pattern that makes up the out soles was transferred as significant mini hills and valleys within the shoe. Midsole cushion likely averages those little hills and valleys a bit. I know I make a habit in practice to stick my hand shoes and feel the area under where a person is complaining of pain. Especially if it is a met head. I would have to assume hills and valley's are not considered good features for met heads.
Re: Five major points - barefoot vs shod
Re: Five major points - barefoot vs shod
Linear Mode
