Debunking clinical biomechanics theories

There are many theories that underpin the clinical use of foot orthotics. Each new theory that comes along is conisdered the greatest by the originator of the theory and the make extraordinary claims for it. On Podiatry Arena a number of clinical biomechanics theories get discussed and disected. In a thread on the Best Quotes of 2009, were these gems that sum it up:

Does anyone else get the idea that more than a few of these things, are just rehashes of old concepts which have since been superseded? Its almost like somebody who has heard of cars, but never seen one, gets a good look at a model T Ford, gets excited at how much less poo it creates, and how much faster it is than his horse, then rushes out to tell all his mates (who are already driving in ford Mondeo’s) how great this exciting new thing is!

It seems that you have found, as have a few other American podiatrists who have a financial interest in a product or method of treatment that many of the members of Podiatry Arena don’t take too kindly to clinicians who have never performed research, never had research published, and have no academic appointments, coming onto the premier international podiatric medical academic internet forum and proclaiming the virtues of their product or idea that they have anecdotally found works for them.

A new poster arrives with radically different ideas. The community refutes these ideas. The poster becomes frustrated and claims the refutation is simply because their ideas are new! They even become angry and accuse the arena community of being a closed clique. Its not! Its just that to change somebodies mind you must offer them more than “because I beleive it to be so!”

And now we see a gem from regular poster, Robert Isaacs, that makes a parody of clinical biomechanical theories and the one-page-sales letter:  Ways to Succeed in Biomechanics

No related posts.