Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 153

Thread: Latest TGO

  1. #41
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    > Just playing devils advocate.

    So was I. That's why I brought your orthotist's comments up, and mentioned my natural response; I'm not saying my natural reponse is correct; it often isn't.

    BTW, on the dentist thing; we've really only needed them since we discovered refined sugar. Dental caries almost never exist on pre-sugar skeletal remains.

    You do get evidence of some horrible abcesses, though...

    Oh, and the back thing; we didn't evolvefor an environment with poorly designed chairs, sitting staring at a computer screen all day...

  2. #42
    Ultra King Fossil Bluff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,335


    Fair points CP

    Regarding this orthotists comments though - from what I remember the problems are caused through 'foot spread' - But I honestly cannot recall any more.

    Food for thought I guess.

  3. #43
    Ultra King Mikel el Bastardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    30,833


    Devils advocate again....

    If we had problem feet, problem back etc, in the past,we probably didn't live very long (thinks about hunting). Are these 'problems' only noticeable now because physical condition has no relevance to food quantity/intake/longevity?

  4. #44
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005


    "I must admit that my natural inclination would be to suggest that nature has had a few hundred million years to evolve feet that work without needing unnatural supports..."

    whilst not too eager to disbelieve that, nature evolves things that work, not necessarily the best solution, but a solution nonetheless.

    surely many "feet" problems are the obvious indications that something is wrong but not necessarily with the feet. e.g. one leg shorter,feet different sizes, gait. when my right foot starts to turn outwards, it's time to go to the chiropractor to have my back cracked back into a better shape to get "rid" of the slightly twisted spine after which my back and knees feel much better as my body no longer compensates for them being out of kilter.

    i think that gait correction should be sought if you have knee, hip, feet problems and any problems which may be associted with the feet analysed before just attending to your feet which just sorts the symptoms whilst not addressing the cause. (did that make sense?)

  5. #45
    Ultra King Mikel el Bastardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    30,833
    No.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    > surely many "feet" problems are the obvious indications that something is wrong but not necessarily with the feet

    Yes. It's the contention that 'most people over 40 over-pronate so it is a big problem' that I have doubts about. I've no doubt that many people have problems that can be addressed with biomechanical solutions.

    As I said, my point about evolution was my natural, or intuitiveresponse, which isn't always correct. And was only stated to balance the orthotist's comment.

  7. #47
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005


    thought so capt.

    my walking mate overpronates badly on his right ankle. and now he's starting to get hip problems on that side. i shall continue to nag him.....

  8. #48
    ‹bermensch Chris Townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,415


    ALS wrote "What surveys? Cite one! It is preposterous to suggest that "most people over 40 over-pronate" and by implication will benefit from Superfeet.

    Not presposterous but perfectly reasonable. Phil Oren has a database of thousands of feet he has has measure over many years. I have the details as a paper file. They may be on his website.

    http://www.fitsystembyphiloren.com/

    I've also taken part in a number of Phil Oren fitting sessions and seen the data on people who take part - most do over-pronate. Phil's data shows that the age at which the problem starts to appear is going down - which makes sense in the context of a decline in exercise, school sports etc.

    ALS again: "Since people pronate to varying degrees,"most people" will pronate within acceptable limits." Of course everyone pronates. They couldn't walk if they didn't. That's why I wrote over-pronate.

    Phil Oren would agree with much of what is written here. It was through his work that I first learned, many years ago, that foot problems mostly came from wearing modern footwear on hard flat surfaces and that societies where people went barefoot and didn't have much concrete and tarmac didn't have foot problems. And I've seen the people of Nepal carrying heavy loads either barefoot or in thin plimsolls over on rough mountain tracks.

    I'm not hyping Superfeet. I wear Superfeet in all my footwear because they work for me. There are alternatives such as Conform'able, which suit some people better. The main thing is for people not to put up with foot/ leg problems but to do something about them.Often with minor problems the answer is changing footwear and making sure that footwear fits properly. This may require supportive footbeds but a proper fitting is needed to ascertain that. I wouldn't recommend anyone to go out and buy Superfeet or Conform'able or anything similar without ascertaining that there will be some benefit in doing so first.

  9. #49
    Ultra King Fossil Bluff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,335


    Again to quote my orthotist (because I know little myself about this subject and go with is guidance). He would agree that most people develop overpronation later in life,and I seem to remember him say that it was more prevalent in men.


  10. #50
    ‹bermensch
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,794


    Chris,what scientific journal has Phil Oren published these results in? Once again I ask you, what is his or your definition of 'over-pronation'?Of course 'most people' pronate. When you contour round a hill, one foot pronates, the other supinates.Even if 'most people' who attend one ofOren's fitting sessions over-pronate, whatever that means, what evidence is there that they are representative of the population at large? 'Most people' who go to hospital with a broken leg get a plaster cast. Doesn't mean 'most people' in the general population will benefit from one. I challenge you, Phil Oren or Superfeet to cite a single published piece of research that demonstrates any benefit to an uninjured person from wearing Superfeet, or that most people over 40 over-pronate. TGO ran adverts for Superfeet which breached the ASA guidelines and were withdrawn without challenge.

    There is not a shred of data about over-pronation on the www.fitsystembyphiloren.com site you quote.There isone singleunsubstantiated assertion that "It is a known fact that 80% of the people over pronate which makes the foot elongate when the foot becomes weighted ".

    Of course a foot elongates when you weight it! It is made in part from elastic tendons and muscles while stretch under load.But that is not pronating, which is an inward rotation. Oren's commercial operation depends on selling insoles, oftenSuperfeet, and thus hepersuadespeoplethat a perfectly normal property of their feet - elongation - is somehowa pathological 'over-pronation'and therefore needs correction.

  11. #51
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005


    valid points als.

    i think superfeet are too agressive in arch support, not allowing the arch to flex but just stopping it. comform'able (which i use) are much softer in their arch support allowing the arch to compress (as it's designed to do) and then provide softer support. they make my feet less "tired" after a walk. however, i am aware that by preventing the foot to flex that this must in turn weaken the foot as the tendons and muscles have less work to do.

    i noticed footballers wearing superfeet in their boots which seemed to coincide with an increase in broken feet (or metatarsal bones if you prefer). probably just a coincidence but from my experience of superfeet i can see why as the insert stops the arch collapsing which is just what you don't what it to do when someone stands/stamps on your foot.

  12. #52
    ‹bermensch Chris Townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,415


    Over-pronation (often called flat feet or fallen arches) is when the foot is weighted and elongates so much that if flattens out and it is impossible to push forward on the toes for the next step. This can be easily checked. With someone who doesn't over-pronate you can left their big toe off the ground with a finger when the foot is weighted. If someone over-pronates you can't do this. Just looking at shoes provides evidence too - if you over-pronate the inside edge of the sole tends to wear down.

    As with pronation the key with elongation is how much. With correct pronation there isn't much elongation. The more severe the over-pronation the more elongation there is. My feet were elongating by over two sizes and I had started wearing larger size footwear to accommodate this. Of course when my feet weren't weighted my footwear was too big and my feet slopped around inside rubbing holes in the heels and my socks. Once I started using Superfeet and had footwear fitted properly I went back to wearing smaller sizes and stopped getting holes in the heel linings and my socks. Superfeet benefit me - I don't need any other evidence.

    Phil Oren doesn not persuade people that a perfectly normal property of their feet is pathological and you are insulting him by suggesting this. His Fitsystem, now used by many outdoor shops, has benefited many walks and made footwear fitting far more effective.

  13. #53
    ‹bermensch Chris Townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,415
    Parky, oddly my complaint with Comform'able is that my arches can't compress and feel raised up a little too high. My feet feel more tired when I use Comform'able than Superfeet. However I know many people who like you find the opposite. I think this is probably to do with foot shape. The shape of Superfeet fits my feet (I didn't even have to break them in, they were instantly comfortable) while the shape of Conform'able doesn't.

  14. #54
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005


    weird eh chris. horses for courses and all that.

    i did get the comform'able moulded though for a better custom fit (in austria where the soles are more expensive but the moulding is peanuts and performed by a guy who had done about 2000 fittings). they grey ones, although they are pre-formed, when they are put in the oven they flatten out again. the orange ones are crap and split quickly and should never be accepted in a walking shoe/boot. they are for ski/mountain boots.

  15. #55
    ‹bermensch Chris Townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,415
    I have custom fit Conform'able too. I just tried them again and compared them with my custom fit Superfeet and the highest part of the arch is slightly further forward on the Comform'able. Of course I may just have better moulded Superfeet than Conform'able.

  16. #56
    ‹bermensch
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,794


    Chris, you persistently evade my challenge to produce the evidence supporting your claims that most people over 40 over-pronate, or indeed Orens claimthat "it is a known fact that 80% of people over-pronate". It is not at all insulting to ask for the basis of this claim, or, in the absence of any, to suggest that it is bogus pseudo-science. It also seems to me that you confuse pronating, which is an inward rolling of the foot, with elongation which is a lengthening. Pronation most certainlyis not flat feet. I don't doubt that you feel you obtain an improvement in the fit of some shoes with Superfeet. What I do challenge is that there is a pathology - namely over-pronation - that affects 80% of the population as Oren claims, whichneeds 'curing'using Superfeet. Challenging Superfeets claims through the ASA led to them having to droptwo of theiradverts in your magazine.

    Perhaps I shouldinvent a hocus-pocuspathology, let's call it 'over-lordosis'. I could point out that a persons height is less when they stand up (when their body compresses a little under its own weight) compared to lying down (when it relaxes and stretches). Then I'll could invent a mickey-mouse piece of plastic backsupport and call it 'SuperSpine' ...

  17. #57
    Ultra King ptc*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,183


    On a slightly different slant as anybody else seem "Sole" footbeds from Canada yet? Very low profile heatmolding, non'corrective affairs with a nice heel cup.

    I never use corrective footbeds (I'm 39 btw), but I've always liked the heel on Superfeet. Anyway, it's gives a Superfeet heel in a footbed that'll fit into a low volumn trail shoe which might well solve problems for people.

  18. #58
    Ultra King Fossil Bluff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,335


    Ithink superfeet have a similar product as well ptc* I was offered the moulding service for my running shoes for about £60

    I passed on that one.

  19. #59
    Ultra King ptc*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,183


    These are in-the-oven at home, I think they're around £30. The whole thing gives me a dilemm. Since I switched to trail shoes my feet have changed shape completely and I use the cardboard insoles that come in the shoes now.

    I feel fine and have no trouble, but Isometimes wonder where my feet will be in ten years. Physiologically, not geographically.

  20. #60
    Ultra King Fossil Bluff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,335


    I wore Mukluks for three years in the snow - I even used to run in them (except for climbing ans skiing where I wore plastics). my feet did spread and relax, combined with age and weight (I am 39 too) I now take between a 9 1/2 and a 10. When I was 17 I remember taking 8 - 8 1/2.

    Running in Mukluks is not recommended - it gave me bloody awful shin splints.

Similar Threads

  1. latest offer
    By feilon in forum Walking and Climbing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24-08-2007, 01:55 PM
  2. Latest edition of TGO
    By Matt B 11 in forum tgo magazine live letters archive
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 07:00 PM
  3. latest tgo
    By java junkie in forum tgo magazine live letters archive
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 20-07-2006, 12:47 AM
  4. THE LATEST TGO
    By pete morley 1 in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 16-01-2003, 10:31 AM
  5. Latest Outside
    By Dan G in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 30-08-2002, 10:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •