Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Consider changing the word IDEAL to UNASSISTED or AUTONOMOUS in your paper

Posted by dshavelson on 06 Sep 2021 at 16:25 GMT

This is a major addition to the biomechanical literature but there is one word that I believe dampens its power, applicability and clinical usefulness.
Stating "These results suggest that a healthy runner maintains its IDEAL movement pattern throughout a 20 minute prolonged run, regardless the type of foot orthosis" as there are clinically few if any n=1's standing, walking or running IDEALLY.
If they did, why would we even consider therapies that improved stance, walking or running?
Most of us are born with natal biomechanical pathology in our feet that are then punished, degenerated and deformed by gravity and grf throughout life.
You have proven that the current devices that you have tested do not have the therapeutic effect to control running kinetics and kinematics. Bravo.
The remaining question is whether or not there is a disruptive methodology or technology that will provide better outcomes when tested?
I would consider changing the word IDEAL to "Unassisted" or "Autonomous" as that would add be more accurate as to your findings.

Competing interests declared: I am a long standing contrarian as to the efficacy of the marketed and researched claims that are made regarding foot orthotics and pedal biomechanics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347198828_The_Case_for_Researching_Biomechanics_and_Human_Movement_Using_a_Stochastic_Model_in_a_Peer_Reviewed_Journal_to_Generate_Qualitative_Evidence
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Biomechanical-Paradigm-Shift%3A-Part-I%3ATransforming-Shavelson/5b294ee5de8b0ffdac6128cb3b37eaaff79c43dd
report a concern respond to this posting