Injuries in Ultimate
Jimmy K
figured there plenty of other ultimate players who have had this
injury since it's from running a lot.
If anyone has any good advice on healing this injury (no pun
intended), I'd love some advice because I don't wanna have to stop
playing for an extended period of time.
Jimmy K
bro...@ufl.edu
Chad
support. Find some insoles specifically to add arch support and wear
them everyday. It feels weird and that it might be wrong, but it's
actually helping. I think I wore them for about 2 or 3 weeks in my
normal shoes. I never wore them in my cleats or running shoes though.
Jaime Arambula
being thrust into your heel, then you had what i had.
best advice to me was to never walk without shoes/insoles.
it's annoying, but i would put a pair of shoes next to my bed and for
2-3 weeks never let my foot touch the ground.
the reasoning is that the first few steps out aggravate the muscle
right off the bat,and you spend the rest of the day trying to recover
instead of heal.
worked for me. that and some superfeet insoles(the green ones)
good luck.
idaho
Knappy
in Philly into wearing them these days. I would suggest them to anyone
as a preventive measure, Plantar fac or not.
www.superfeet.com (I think)
You can get them at REI, EMS, too. Worked way better than much more
expensive insoles a podiatrist gave me years ago. Took away my PF in a
few weeks & it has never come back. It's been about 7 years now.
Like Idaho suggested...I wear the blue ones in my cleats (thinner),
but it's personal preference. I wear the green ones in my running
shoes.
Knappy
Alex Korb
1. Superfeet are great for plantar fasciitis.
2. Make sure you're not running in old running shoes with worn down
padding
3. Don't wear sandals. Wear only shoes with proper padding and
support. Side note: almost none of the girls on my team will listen
to me on this point; they would rather be in pain and wear cute
shoes.
4. Stretch your calves for 30s before you go to bed (and throughout
the day)
5. Massage the bottom of your feet by placing your weight on a tennis
ball and rolling it around. I don't like the idea of massaging with
ice, because muscles should be warm when massaged.
6. Ice the bottom of your feet and achilles at the end of the day.
The easiest way to do this is with a pan/bucket of ice water ...
keeping your toes out of the the water will make this much more
bearable. You don't need that much ice.
7. Before you jog or run do some calf raises in place to warm up your
calves.
-Alex
On Jun 24, 2:57 pm, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> superfeet insoles. I think I've talked about half the old club players
> in Philly into wearing them these days. I would suggest them to anyone
> as a preventive measure, Plantar fac or not.
>
> www.superfeet.com(I think)
BSlade
Rolling it out with a lacrosse ball seems to help, as well as icing
every night before going to bed. I went on a prednisone anti-
inflammatory cycle and am currently taking naproxen for it. I've been
playing in turf shoes and taping for the last month, but if you can
afford to take the time off, do so.
Do the superfeet insoles slide around in your cleats? Other inserts
I've tried seem to shift whenever I change direction.
Brian
Pat
wake up.
2. Buy a nalgene and roll it under your foot when you wake up. Fill it
up with water and stick it in the freezer before playing and roll the
frozen bottle underneath your foot after playing.
3. Never run in worn-down cleats or shoes. They really matter.
4. I don't know what the prices are like for superfeet insoles, but I
found some affordable orthotics that are effective on this site in the
foothealth section. http://www.footsmart.com/C-Foot-Arch-Supports-46.aspx
5. It may be tough because you're probably in-season, but outside of
practices and tournaments, train on a bike instead of running. It will
relieve the pressure on your heel because your foot won't be enduring
the ground contacts. You have to obviously weight the negative of not
getting sprints in for the positive of trying to lessen the pain.
6. Lose weight. You may not need to, but if you do, the less weight on
your feet, the better.
M.J.
All of the advice given will help manage the symptoms.
The thing that "broke the cycle" for me was sleeping with "the boot"
on.
I'm not a doctor, but the way it was explained to me was; when your
sleeping your foot is relaxed and your plantar facia heals short. When
you step out of bed you the "nail in the heal" you feel is tearing of
the new and scar tissue. Stretching helps break it down further to
feel better, and be able to use it with less pain, but the healing
makes little to no progress.
"The boot" holds your foot in a flexed position(like when stretching
your calves) and allows the healing to occur in a way that is not
limiting range of motion.
It took a few nights to be able to sleep well with it on, but after 3
to 4weeks of that it was gone. This was after doing everything but the
boot(regular stretching, avoiding walking in bare feet, putting
superfeet in shoes and cleets, avoiding old worn out shoes) for
3+months.
I hear there are a lot of options out there now that are easier to
sleep in than the big boot...more sock like with a strap to hold your
toes towards your knee. I'm sure a quick search will find you many
options.
Good luck with your recovery,
M.J.
Sean McComb
the pain becomes pretty constant/severe...sit you ass out for a
while. I ignored mine and popped it (partial tear) warming up for the
regional final, then got to watch from the sidelines in Sarasota. Do
the stuff, by the superfeet (i got the blue), take care of it.
-Sean
Knappy
Superfeet using your original insole from your cleats. If you do this
correctly, they will not slide around.
make sure you buy the proper size Superfeet (duh). Go with larger size
if you're on the cusp. It's very easy. They're about $35-$40 @ REI
last time I checked, although I'm sure someone probably sells them
cheaper online.
Adam
Did you diagnose this yourself? I'm just asking because it is commonly
important to rule out other factors (stress fracture is one). If it's
bad and doesn't respond to rest and the right stretching, you should
see a doctor.
The advice above seemed to hit the big things that I have done before
(had this a bunch). They key ones which worked for me:
- Always always wear shoes. Good ones.
- Stretch: The most recent recommendation from a doc was: 3x each day
of: 3 reps of 10 seconds calf stretch (straight leg), 3 reps of
stretching the plantar itself (take off shoe, place foot against wall
on a slight angle - place the point where all of your toes touch your
foot (bottom of the toes) against the wall and then stretch your foot
with your knee bent - this should stretch the plantar well)
- The boot has helped me in the past
- Custom orthodics. Store bought ones may work, but the custom was
better for me. Getting them fit well made the difference.
Good luck.
-a
CBrowning
the things that makes the Superfeet less likely to slide around are
that the back half of the insole has a hard, plastic lining. The
plastic heal cup fits relatively snuggly with the heal cup in your
shoe, and keeps it from sliding. I have never had problems with them
moving around on me.
pgw
Lots of people giving the same advice here - get inserts, and use them
always.
Although I am in no way a health professional, this strikes me as good
advice while you are actually injured, and potentially bad advice
after you heal. Most people get this injury because their muscles and
plantar fascia are weak. To prevent injury in the future, it would be
nice if you could make them stronger. Babying them with shoe inserts
24/7 is not going to achieve this.
Nature designed your feet for walking and running, and did not know
about shoes. Unless you have something wrong with you
physiologically, you should be able to avoid injury by keeping your
feet strong. The following is an interesting read:
www.damienhowellpt.com/pdf/barefoot5.pdf
Anyway feel free to ignore me - not only am I not a (doctor, physical
therapist, nurse, etc.), but I'm not sure I have ever had plantar
fasciitis. Maybe I am just lucky - but maybe it also has to do with
the fact that I spend lots of time walking, jogging cooldowns, lifting
weights and otherwise using my feet with no shoes on them
whatsoever.
PW
Adam
Be careful with this advice - see a doctor to be sure. It goes
expressly against the advice I've received from many doctors. My
advice may have been situational and specific to me, BUT... plantar is
chronic and can repeat. It doesn't 'heal' so much as 'stop hurting.'
Once you've got it, you've got it.
PW: I don't know if all of the work without your shoes on is or is not
a difference, but there are definitely people who do the lifting, etc
who have developed it, and it can defitely recur more easily in those
situations.
-a
Ellis
The recent book "Born to Run" (ISBN: 0307266303) presents a writer/
journalist's perspective into barefoot (or very close to it) running.
And after a little looking around the Vibram Five Fingers (as vouched
for in the aforementioned book) website, i found a brief/generic user-
testimony from a crossfit perspective!!
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/barefooting/story_crossfit.cfm
pgw
> Be careful with this advice - see a doctor to be sure. It goes
> expressly against the advice I've received from many doctors. My
> advice may have been situational and specific to me, BUT... plantar is
> chronic and can repeat. It doesn't 'heal' so much as 'stop hurting.'
> Once you've got it, you've got it.
>
> PW: I don't know if all of the work without your shoes on is or is not
> a difference, but there are definitely people who do the lifting, etc
> who have developed it, and it can defitely recur more easily in those
> situations.
For sure see a doctor. I didn't mean to give any "advice" - just to
question the advice of others. (Although one of those others is a
doctor - but he's an eye doctor and last I checked the eyes are pretty
far away from the feet.)
Perhaps much plantar fasciitis is chronic, but it is quite often
acute. (In fact since writing before, I recalled a time when I did
have some kind of tear or something in my arch - never got it
diagnosed but it seems likely it was some form of acute plantar fascia
injury. Whatever.) We don't know exactly what the OP's situation is
although his comment that "it's from running a lot" might support the
idea that it's chronic. Either way though, the suggestion that it
cannot heal seems a little defeatist and I'm not sure you're right
that "once you've got it, you've got it." For one thing, "itis" means
inflammation. If you rest it, the inflammation will go away. Whether
or not the underlying problem tends to heal is definitely not
something I know about. (Whether or not you have sufficient basis for
the statements you made is also something I don't know about, although
after looking at your profile and realizing we went to the same
college, my assumptions on that score shifted in your favor...)
And yes - if you have a currently symptomatic plantar fascia injury,
or suspect that you have a chronic condition leading to plantar
fasciitis, I certainly agree that doing stuff barefoot is a bad idea
and can aggravate the situation. I'm just sayin' - if you do heal
successfully, consider the possible benefits of not using an arch
crutch for the rest of your life.
As the PT author of the article I cited earlier says, no one really
knows how to distinguish individuals needing a temporary shoe insert
from those who need a permanent one. My hunch though is that
permanent orthotics are overprescribed, and that many people with mild
to moderate plantar fasciitis could get successfully treated, heal,
and then strengthen their feet to the point that they could more
effectively prevent recurrence by being strong rather than by having
artificial support. (Much the same way that the recent trend
following ACL surgery, ankle sprain, etc. is to try to get to the
point where you don't need a brace ...)
BFG
need to wear special products for the rest of your life is full of
shit. It's a question of natural selection - healthy functioning feet
have been critical for survival until very recently. Our genes haven't
changed that much that quickly, but our behavior has. So sure, baby
your feet for a while the inflammation goes down, but after that, fix
the behavioral problems - cushioned shoes, elevated heels, sitting
down all day with pointed feet, sleeping all night with feet pointed,
eating a shitty diet that promotes inflammation (pro tip: your diet
sucks).
As MJ said, the boot (or anything to lightly stretch the plantar
fascia while you sleep) will probably produce the most dramatic
results - no matter how much you stretch during the day, if your foot
curls up all night (severity of this effect depends on how you sleep:
on stomach worse than on side worse than on back) the fascia is going
to be tight as all hell the next day.
wix
> Not advice, just an FYI...
> The recent book "Born to Run" (ISBN: 0307266303) presents a writer/
> journalist's perspective into barefoot (or very close to it) running.
> And after a little looking around the Vibram Five Fingers (as vouched
> for in the aforementioned book) website, i found a brief/generic user-
> testimony from a crossfit perspective!!http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/barefooting/story_crossfit.cfm
>
Ellis, that's wild. Such a cool idea, but I can't help but imagine
getting blisters all the way around each of my toes from the
"fingers." Good thing the uppers look breathable!
Also: it's nice to have proof (of a sort) that Crossfit prepares you
for running long distances as well as juggling midgets.
Adam
Ah, the wonder of usenet. I'll trust a set of doctors more than a
usenet post that their advice is shit, especially since I did not say
that someone would have to wear special products FOREVER or that it
would hurt forever. Personally, I don't see any reason to stop taking
care of your feet with proper insoles, strengthening and stretching
exercises, but... you don't have to. I merely said that PF is the type
of injury that is there. In mild cases, you can definitely stretch,
care and heal it. You're eliminating the inflamation and pain. It can
also be more similar to ligament tears in acute/severe cases - then
healing involves developing scar tissue that aligns with the original
and then you don't have the pain. You can still heal and strengthen
and remove the pain.
You'll also note that I said to "be careful" with the advice on
barefoot, etc. Make sure that you're 100% healthy before doing a lot
of barefoot training, and listen to your foot. Plantar can take a long
long time to heal. Strengthening and stretching is key when you're
ready and in healing, but pushing it can be risky.
-a
chigger
symptoms.
I would stretch the foot first thing when waking up, simple flexes
while you are still in bed. I found running barefoot cured me pretty
quick. I did this on grass not on a hard surface. I tried this after
reading about how wearing air filled shoes and inserts prevents the
body from bascially running balanced. I'm not explaining it very well.
The doctor studied the tribe of Indians who run Copper Canyon in
Mexico barefoot and they don't have the affliction. If I can find th
elink I will post it.
Byron
> > > point where you don't need a brace ...)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony
insoles into my shoes. It went away in a week. I took them out when
I purchased new shoes. The new shoes felt like slippers they were so
comfortable. In two 5 mile runs the fasciitis was back. I put the
Superfeet into my new shoes, which made them a bit less comfortable.
In three days the problem was gone again. I guess I know what I have
to do. Try it.
Jimmy K
Thanks everyone for the suggestions and treatments - it's all really
helpful
Jimmy
sloco...@hotmail.com
bump
BFG
> Ah, the wonder of usenet. I'll trust a set of doctors more than a
> usenet post that their advice is shit, especially since I did not say
> that someone would have to wear special products FOREVER or that it
> would hurt forever.
Let's see, plenty of people have implied the forever bit on insoles
(nobody has said it would hurt forever):
"best advice to me was to never walk without shoes/insoles."
"I would suggest them to anyone as a preventive measure, Plantar fac
or not."
"Make sure you're not running in old running shoes with worn down
padding ... Wear only shoes with proper padding and support."
"Always always wear shoes. Good ones."
"It doesn't 'heal' so much as 'stop hurting.' Once you've got it,
you've got it."
I never attacked the idea that you need to go easy on your feet while
it's inflamed, just the idea that cushy shoes and special inserts are
a solution to the root problem rather than a treatment for the
inflammation.
As someone with both M.D.s and Ph.D.s in the family - medical doctors
are useful (need diagnostics? go to a doctor. need a broken bone
fixed? go to a doctor. need dietary advice? stay the fuck away from
doctors), and full of information, but they are not trained in
science, and large portions of the curricula they must learn have
little or no scientific backing. The science, however, is very clear -
in the long run, cushioned shoes with elevated heels and restricted
motion are bad for your feet. Again, how come you never see plantar
fasciitis in populations without our fancy shoes and insoles?
While a lot of this should be pretty intuitive (you mean my feet work
best when I use them?), apparently it isn't. So, while I might
protest, that, hey, I'm no average usenetter - my momma says I'm a
genius, ultimately you need to go read some peer reviewed articles:
http://sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm
Notable quotes:
"Athletic footwear are associated with frequent injury that are
thought to result from repetitive impact. No scientific data suggest
they protect well. Expensive athletic shoes are deceptively advertised
to safeguard well through "cushioning impact", yet account for 123%
greater injury frequency than the cheapest ones."
"deceptive advertising of protective devices may represent a public
health hazard and may have to be eliminated presumably through
regulation"
"Barefoot running may induce an adaptation that transfers the impact
to the yielding musculature, thus sparing the fascia and accounting
for the low incidence of plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations "
"Measurements of the vertical component of ground-reaction force
during running provide no support for the notion that running shoes
reduce shock."
"It is claimed that footwear increases the risk of such sprains,
either by decreasing awareness of foot position provided by feedback
from plantar cutaneous mechanoreceptors in direct contact with the
ground (Robbins et al., 1995), or by increasing the leverage arm and
consequently the twisting torque around the sub-talar joint during a
stumble (Stacoff et al., 1996)."
I would add atrophy of the ankle stabilizing musculature and reduced
feedback from articular receptors as well as cutaneous receptors to
their list of reasons, but hey, that's me.
> Make sure that you're 100% healthy before doing a lot
> of barefoot training, and listen to your foot.
Now listening to your feet - that's advice I can agree with. It takes
time to build back up the foot strength and mechanics that shoes have
taken from you. Treat it like weightlifting - progressive overload.
On Jun 25, 7:56 pm, wix <amy.wick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ellis, that's wild. Such a cool idea, but I can't help but imagine
> getting blisters all the way around each of my toes from the
> "fingers." Good thing the uppers look breathable!
I've had a pair for over a year now, never had any blisters in them.
The material between the toes is thin, and your toes tend to spread
out more when you walk in them so they aren't rubbing on each other.
pgw
> Ah, the wonder of usenet. I'll trust a set of doctors more than a
> usenet post that their advice is shit, especially since I did not say
> that someone would have to wear special products FOREVER or that it
> would hurt forever.
Adam - while your first post was certainly far more reasonable than
BFG's, to be fair you did say "plantar is
chronic and can repeat. It doesn't 'heal' so much as 'stop hurting.'
Once you've got it, you've got it." It was not difficult for readers
to infer from that that your recommendation for someone with PF would
be to continue using insoles at least until retiring from athletic
pursuits.
> Personally, I don't see any reason to stop taking care of your feet with proper insoles,
The rub here, though, is that there are some who question whether in
all cases the insoles are "proper" - and hence whether using them
constitutes "taking care of your feet" - at times when you don't have
symptoms. These choices should certainly be personal and should be
made with the advice of professionals, and I certainly allow for the
possibility that there are people for whom, either because of well-
established chronic injury or just because of congenital weakness,
insoles would be recommended indefinitely as a preventative or
maintenance measure. It seems to me though that there is merit to the
idea that many people should be capable of healing from this injury
and then proceeding sans insoles, and I do think many doctors tend to
throw devices and medications at problems because it is easier than
advising patients on lifestyle changes (and has the added benefit that
it looks less like "doing nothing" so no one can later accuse the doc
of failing to treat the problem.)
> You'll also note that I said to "be careful" with the advice on
> barefoot, etc.
Yes, you did - but you also said "[i]t goes expressly against the
advice I've received from many doctors," which sounds an awful lot
like a condemnation. You're rightly calling out BFG for taking his
position to a rigid extreme - recognize that your own original post
could be read as having committed the same sin (although I would
reiterate that you were far less guilty of it than was he.)
I guess I too should acknowledge that in having characterized the
advice about inserts as "bad advice after you heal," I could be
subject to the same criticism. Good thing for me I threw in the vague
qualifier "potentially," permitting myself to backtrack in whatever
direction ended up seeming appropriate. These are the things they
teach us in law school.
pgw
> I never attacked the idea that you need to go easy on your feet while
> it's inflamed, just the idea that cushy shoes and special inserts are
> a solution to the root problem rather than a treatment for the
> inflammation.
Glad to see discussion is having the proper effect - moderating some
unreasonably extreme positions. When you started out by saying
"anyone telling you you need to wear special products for the rest of
your life is full of shit," my first impulse was to respond with
"anyone telling you 'anyone telling you X is full of shit' is full of
shit." Yes, I know it would have been ironic, or whatever.
> As someone with both M.D.s and Ph.D.s in the family - medical doctors
> are useful (need diagnostics? go to a doctor. need a broken bone
> fixed? go to a doctor. need dietary advice? stay the fuck away from
> doctors), and full of information, but they are not trained in
> science, and large portions of the curricula they must learn have
> little or no scientific backing.
I see having moved on to a new issue on which you've not yet been
called out on your blanket statements you're back to your old tricks.
Having never been to medical school I am not intimately familiar with
the curriculum, but "they are not trained in science" surely
overstates the case. They certainly take a shitload of science
classes, labs and all, and there are plenty of doctors who in varying
degrees practice what they call "evidence-based medicine." Medicine
is a complex and very difficult practice which is assuredly not purely
scientific, and is practiced with an incredibly wide spectrum of
competence by people with varying approaches. The extent to which you
want to put your faith in doctors in various situations is up to you,
of course. But again you go too far in implying that no doctors
understand nutrition - sure, some - perhaps many - don't, but do you
really think none do? (My guess is that you have some professional
connection to this issue - am I right?)
> ultimately you need to go read some peer reviewed articles:
Good advice. Of course, I'm sure someone with a PubMed subscription
could find some articles disagreeing with the ones you cite. Also,
note that all of your quotes use language like "may," "it is claimed
that," and "provide no support for" in stating their conclusions.
This is how scientists almost always talk. Here on usenet of course
we have the liberty of just saying stuff.
BFG
>
> Of course, I'm sure someone with a PubMed subscription
> could find some articles disagreeing with the ones you cite. Also,
> note that all of your quotes use language like "may," "it is claimed
> that," and "provide no support for" in stating their conclusions.
> This is how scientists almost always talk. Here on usenet of course
> we have the liberty of just saying stuff.
I'll start with this first - here's the really wild thing: somebody
with a PubMed subscription would not find such articles! The first
article I linked to mentioned this - the pro-cushioning/inserts/motion-
control stances may say scientific-sounding things, but there aren't
any well supported, peer reviewed articles showing these things are
effective at preventing either chronic or acute injuries. Try looking
around yourself, rather than just assuming.
> Glad to see discussion is having the proper effect - moderating some
> unreasonably extreme positions. When you started out by saying
> "anyone telling you you need to wear special products for the rest of
> your life is full of shit," my first impulse was to respond with
> "anyone telling you 'anyone telling you X is full of shit' is full of
> shit." Yes, I know it would have been ironic, or whatever.
Remind me again where I have moderated my position? I said in my first
post you can baby your feet until the inflammation goes down. Now if
you want to get at me with technicalities, then sure my statements
don't really apply to someone born with congenital defects (like club
feet) or who had their foot mangled in a lawnmower. However, I think
pussy-footing around with such technicalities when dealing with people
who have normal feet softens the message and helps people keep on
living the way the do.
> I see having moved on to a new issue on which you've not yet been
> called out on your blanket statements you're back to your old tricks.
> Having never been to medical school I am not intimately familiar with
> the curriculum, but "they are not trained in science" surely
> overstates the case. They certainly take a shitload of science
> classes, labs and all, and there are plenty of doctors who in varying
> degrees practice what they call "evidence-based medicine." Medicine
> is a complex and very difficult practice which is assuredly not purely
> scientific, and is practiced with an incredibly wide spectrum of
> competence by people with varying approaches. The extent to which you
> want to put your faith in doctors in various situations is up to you,
> of course. But again you go too far in implying that no doctors
> understand nutrition - sure, some - perhaps many - don't, but do you
> really think none do? (My guess is that you have some professional
> connection to this issue - am I right?)
By science, I mean being critical, applying logic, and using the
scientific method. Not learning 'sciencey' stuff like biology and
organic chemistry. There's a big difference. Yes I was making blanket
statements - not to imply there are 0 sharp, scientific doctors, but
to imply that you can't trust a doctor just because they're a doctor.
I encourage you to go read up on evidence-based medicine - it flies in
the face of much conventional medicine, yet it is very poorly adopted,
and of the few doctors proactive enough to look into it, many are
scared by the threat of lawsuits.
No professional connection to nutrition (still a student, triple
majored in physics, chemistry, and math in undergrad, currently
working towards a PhD in physics), but I know one doctor who was
invited to be the head of nutrition at a hospital, but declined
because he didn't have the time. This same doctor thought snickers
bars were healthy since they had peanuts. My sister is currently in
med school, so I've got firsthand accounts of the stuff they teach
about nutrition, and it's just weak minded crap. And if anybody could
screw up nutrition, it'd be the government - the food pyramid is a
joke, but you won't hear many doctors going against its advice. Of
course, a life-long good diet would drastically reduce the number of
doctor visits needed for most people, but I'm not a conspiracy
theorist (I prefer the maxim never ascribe to malice that which can be
attributed stupidity). To reiterate, the point of bashing doctors here
is to combat the view of doctors as authorities, whose word is law,
not to claim there are 0 doctors with good knowledge of nutrition (I
was about to cite Dr Jonny Bowden as a counterexample, then I
remembered he's a PhD, not MD).
I'd say there are a couple of times where you confuse being moderate
for being reasonable. Reason makes no reference to accepting the
status quo. I choose my positions and statements carefully.
pgw
> > Of course, I'm sure someone with a PubMed subscription
> > could find some articles disagreeing with the ones you cite. <snip>
>
> I'll start with this first - here's the really wild thing: somebody
> with a PubMed subscription would not find such articles! The first
> article I linked to mentioned this - the pro-cushioning/inserts/motion-
> control stances may say scientific-sounding things, but there aren't
> any well supported, peer reviewed articles showing these things are
> effective at preventing either chronic or acute injuries. Try looking
> around yourself, rather than just assuming.
Hmm. I read the full text of the first article you linked to.
Although it made the claim that there is no evidence to support shoe
manufacturers' claims that their products reduce injury, it said
nothing about whether or not there exist peer reviewed articles
claiming that footwear or arch supports are good. The "pro-cushioning/
inserts/motion-control stances" that your article was interested in
debunking were shoe ads, not journal articles. Still, I'll admit that
when I wrote the above, I didn't know of any articles.
So I took your advice and tried looking around. Not surprisingly, I
was right:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20010201/467.html
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990415ap/2200.html
These articles both suggest that individuals with low arches can
benefit from the ongoing use of shoe inserts (the original topic of
discussion, if you'll recall.) You might think they are shitty
articles based on shitty or nonexistent science, but they are in fact
published in a peer reviewed journal. This took me five minutes to
find using only google; I suspect strongly that a thorough literature
review could turn up many more instances of professional publications
giving this advice. After all, these articles are written by doctors,
who you have helpfully informed us are idiots.
> Remind me again where I have moderated my position? I said in my first
> post you can baby your feet until the inflammation goes down.
Yup - you also led off your first post with "anyone telling you you
need to wear special products for the rest of your life is full of
shit." A blanket statement which implied that there is no person
anywhere who needs assistive devices indefinitely. I suspect with all
those future letters after your name, you knew all too well this
overstated the case significantly. You did not stand by the statement
thereafter, and you backed off of it in the most recent post.
> However, I think
> pussy-footing around with such technicalities when dealing with people
> who have normal feet softens the message and helps people keep on
> living the way the do.
Which is their business, right?
Also, do you insist on the position that there is no such thing as
someone with a chronic injury who would be well served by using
supports indefinitely?
> By science, I mean being critical, applying logic, and using the
> scientific method. Not learning 'sciencey' stuff like biology and
> organic chemistry. There's a big difference.
Huh - and here I thought that if you had good instructors and you were
a good student and the curriculum was well designed, maybe those
sciencey type courses could help you get good at all the stuff you
mention in your first sentence. Not having ever taken any of those
courses, though, I wouldn't know.
> Yes I was making blanket
> statements - not to imply there are 0 sharp, scientific doctors, but
> to imply that you can't trust a doctor just because they're a doctor.
I agree with you there, as my initial post in this thread made quite
clear.
> No professional connection to nutrition (still a student, triple
> majored in physics, chemistry, and math in undergrad, currently
> working towards a PhD in physics)
All apologies; I bow to your superior intellect. Although I have to
ask: how did you get so good at applying the scientific method if you
spent so much time learning all that sciencey bullshit?
> I'd say there are a couple of times where you confuse being moderate
> for being reasonable.
Could be, and wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of taking
moderation to an unhealthy extreme. Often the person doing the
accusing is someone who seems awfully sure of himself for an amateur.
BFG
> Hmm. I read the full text of the first article you linked to.
> Although it made the claim that there is no evidence to support shoe
> manufacturers' claims that their products reduce injury, it said
> nothing about whether or not there exist peer reviewed articles
> claiming that footwear or arch supports are good. The "pro-cushioning/
> inserts/motion-control stances" that your article was interested in
> debunking were shoe ads, not journal articles. Still, I'll admit that
> when I wrote the above, I didn't know of any articles.
>
> So I took your advice and tried looking around. Not surprisingly, I
> was right:
>
>
> These articles both suggest that individuals with low arches can
> benefit from the ongoing use of shoe inserts (the original topic of
> discussion, if you'll recall.) You might think they are shitty
> articles based on shitty or nonexistent science, but they are in fact
> published in a peer reviewed journal. This took me five minutes to
> find using only google; I suspect strongly that a thorough literature
> review could turn up many more instances of professional publications
> giving this advice. After all, these articles are written by doctors,
> who you have helpfully informed us are idiots.
I'm sorry, I thought everyone in this thread so far has agreed that
cushioning can be good treatment while the fascia is still inflamed.
That's what those two articles talked about - treating the symptoms.
Neither of them compares any data on injury rates among barefoot/near
barefoot trainers versus well shod trainers. Please cite articles
relevant to the points of contention, not agreed upon points.
> Yup - you also led off your first post with "anyone telling you you
> need to wear special products for the rest of your life is full of
> shit." A blanket statement which implied that there is no person
> anywhere who needs assistive devices indefinitely. I suspect with all
> those future letters after your name, you knew all too well this
> overstated the case significantly. You did not stand by the statement
> thereafter, and you backed off of it in the most recent post.
What you've got is a context insensitivity problem. In my original
statement, "you" was pretty clearly referring to the people in this
discussion: athletic people with previously healthy feet who were
developing chronic inflammation problems. Now, you can take that out
of context and apply it to anything you want, foot amputees or
whatever, but that's stupid.
> Which is their business, right?
Sure, do what you like. Doesn't mean I can't think it's a shame people
fail to apply knowledge to their lives and die with clogged arteries
and aching joints.
> Also, do you insist on the position that there is no such thing as
> someone with a chronic injury who would be well served by using
> supports indefinitely?
Again, you're taking my response to a particular situation and
attempting to goad me into saying something stupid. There is a ton of
implicit context in this thread which you are trying to remove.
> Huh - and here I thought that if you had good instructors and you were
> a good student and the curriculum was well designed, maybe those
> sciencey type courses could help you get good at all the stuff you
> mention in your first sentence. Not having ever taken any of those
> courses, though, I wouldn't know.
Eh, you can get something out of those courses, for sure, but mostly
they're about memorizing facts. Knowing the names of a ton of organic
molecules doesn't make you a good scientist, although it can sometimes
come in handy.
> I agree with you there, as my initial post in this thread made quite
> clear.
Sorry, I forgot how we went from a similar position to all embittered.
> All apologies; I bow to your superior intellect. Although I have to
> ask: how did you get so good at applying the scientific method if you
> spent so much time learning all that sciencey bullshit?
Don't think I said those sciencey courses are bullshit, just that
there's a big difference between learning sciencey material and
applying critical reasoning. Since you asked, I'd say chemistry
courses stayed mostly "science-like" the whole way through (with a
little bit of useful statistical work in quantitative analysis, and a
little bit of problem solving in the quantum mechanics portion of
physical chemistry), whereas some higher level physics courses
actually involved free experimentation, data analysis, and most
encouraged novel problem solving methods. High level mathematics is
great all the way through for honing logical precision.
> Could be, and wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of taking
> moderation to an unhealthy extreme. Often the person doing the
> accusing is someone who seems awfully sure of himself for an amateur.
Out of curiosity, is this something you actually are accused of
frequently by cocky/confident amateurs?
pgw
> That's what those two articles talked about - treating the symptoms.
> Neither of them compares any data on injury rates among barefoot/near
> barefoot trainers versus well shod trainers.
Neither of those articles cites much data, period. But they do assert
that individuals with low arches are unable to sufficiently absorb the
shock associated with footfall, and that arch supports will help these
people. One of them also states that since shoe cushioning degrades
over time, people should replace their shoes frequently. It seems
pretty clear to me that the authors of these articles think supportive
footwear = good, whether or not you are currently injured/
symptomatic. Frankly, I don't understand why it would surprise you
that medical journals would be full of articles taking that position,
since indefinite use of orthotics is a widespread treatment approach
for people with chronic foot problems. Even if it is a completely
wrongheaded approach, you would think that some of these podiatrists
who are out there prescribing it would also be writing about it.
> What you've got is a context insensitivity problem. In my original
> statement, "you" was pretty clearly referring to the people in this
> discussion: athletic people with previously healthy feet who were
> developing chronic inflammation problems. Now, you can take that out
> of context and apply it to anything you want, foot amputees or
> whatever, but that's stupid.
I am not interested in discussing amputees, the club-footed, etc. -
I'm talking about people such as e.g. Adam, who has wisely bowed out
of this thread, and various other early posters to this thread, all of
whom are athletic people who have (or believe they have) chronic PF.
Many of these people use shoe inserts not only to treat symptoms, but
as a maintenance/preventative measure. They, and quite often their
doctors, believe that this is their best course of action. Whether or
not these particular ultimate players, specifically, are right about
this - what my earlier questions were meant to ask is, do you believe
that there are no people in the world for whom this is true?
BFG
>
> Neither of those articles cites much data, period. But they do assert
> that individuals with low arches are unable to sufficiently absorb the
> shock associated with footfall, and that arch supports will help these
> people. One of them also states that since shoe cushioning degrades
> over time, people should replace their shoes frequently. It seems
> pretty clear to me that the authors of these articles think supportive
> footwear = good, whether or not you are currently injured/
> symptomatic. Frankly, I don't understand why it would surprise you
> that medical journals would be full of articles taking that position,
> since indefinite use of orthotics is a widespread treatment approach
> for people with chronic foot problems. Even if it is a completely
> wrongheaded approach, you would think that some of these podiatrists
> who are out there prescribing it would also be writing about it.
Seeing as the articles I mentioned either contain actual or reference
actual data comparing barefoot to shodden locomotion, and as you
claimed there would be easily found articles disagreeing with the ones
I mentioned, I was waiting to be surprised by the existence articles
with actual data indicating that going barefoot was more detrimental
than wearing fancy shoes.
Those articles didn't disagree with the papers I cited - they're just
tangentially related topics. Again, every single person in this thread
has agreed with the basic tenets of your papers; I'm not surprised
somebody got those ideas into a medical journal. I don't care if they
vaguely suggest continuing such treatment after symptoms retreat - I
do care if they present a scientific analysis contradicting what I
have said.
> I am not interested in discussing amputees, the club-footed, etc. -
> I'm talking about people such as e.g. Adam, who has wisely bowed out
> of this thread, and various other early posters to this thread, all of
> whom are athletic people who have (or believe they have) chronic PF.
> Many of these people use shoe inserts not only to treat symptoms, but
> as a maintenance/preventative measure. They, and quite often their
> doctors, believe that this is their best course of action. Whether or
> not these particular ultimate players, specifically, are right about
> this - what my earlier questions were meant to ask is, do you believe
> that there are no people in the world for whom this is true?
Ok then, yes - if we're talking about previously healthy ultimate
players without congenital defects or acute injuries, I do believe
they would all be better off in the long run with intelligent barefoot
training and some light behavioral modification to ensure they aren't
spending 16 hours a day with their feet scrunched up.
david....@gmail.com
> Hey, I recently found out I have plantar faciitis (a heel injury) and
> figured there plenty of other ultimate players who have had this
> injury since it's from running a lot.
>
> If anyone has any good advice on healing this injury (no pun
> intended), I'd love some advice because I don't wanna have to stop
> playing for an extended period of time.
>
> Jimmy K
I was told I have the same injury, but I have also been told it's an
acute tear in my Achile's. Did you get a lump on the back of your
ankle from retearing the tendon?
ihatespam
pgw
> Seeing as the articles I mentioned either contain actual or reference
> actual data comparing barefoot to shodden locomotion, and as you
> claimed there would be easily found articles disagreeing with the ones
> I mentioned, I was waiting to be surprised by the existence articles
> with actual data indicating that going barefoot was more detrimental
> than wearing fancy shoes.
I never made any claim that there would be articles with data - only
that they would disagree.
> Those articles didn't disagree with the papers I cited - they're just
> tangentially related topics. Again, every single person in this thread
> has agreed with the basic tenets of your papers; I'm not surprised
> somebody got those ideas into a medical journal. I don't care if they
> vaguely suggest continuing such treatment after symptoms retreat - I
> do care if they present a scientific analysis contradicting what I
> have said.
Again you redefine the dispute so that you can claim to be right. You
cited articles whose conclusion was that cushioned shoes and
supportive inserts are bad for healthy feet. You said that I would be
unable to find articles that disagree. I found articles that are
clearly founded on the opposite point of view. (You minimize this by
claiming that they are "tangentially related" and only "vaguely
suggest continuing [] treatment." Seriously, though - it is clear
that the authors of these articles think that foot support is helpful
for a wide spectrum of the population. Anyone who has met more than a
few podiatrists will be totally unsurprised to hear this.) You say I
have failed because my articles do not present a scientific
analysis.
And when you say "every single person in this thread has agreed with
the basic tenets of your papers," you are just wrong - you yourself
vehemently disagree with the basic tenets of those papers, and I
disagree but far less vehemently. Again, it is difficult for me to
understand why you would expect not to see a wealth of medical journal
articles expressing what is after all a commonly held view by
podiatrists - cushioned shoes and orthotics are appropriate for a
large number of athletes, and not only while they have symptoms.
(I myself was prescribed custom orthotics as a high school runner by a
podiatrist who had treated numerous professional athletes. He told me
that I overpronated, and recommended that I use my orthotics forever.
I stopped after several years, well before having any thoughts along
the lines of what we're discussing, because I lost one of them. Of
course, I no longer am dumb enough to run the kind of mileage that I
used to - it is terrible training for ultimate and not at all
enjoyable.)
Other articles that express these views:
Middleton and Kolodin, "Plantar Fasciitis - Heel Pain in Athletes," J
Athl Train. 1992; 27(1): 70, 72-75. (Recommends "proper shoe
selection" for athletes including selecting shoes with adequate
cushioning, and states that a chronic case of PF responds well to a
functional orthotic device.)
McKenzie et al, "Running shoes, orthotics and injuries," Sports Med.
1985 Sep-Oct;2(5):334-47.
Johnston et al., "Preventing running injuries. Practical approach for
family doctors." Can Fam Physician. 2003 Sep;49:1101-9. (This one
actually purports in many instances to cite data, and is very explicit
in recommending that running shoes with shock-absorbing qualities be
used, and replaced before they lose these qualities.)
Nigg et al., "Shoe inserts and orthotics for sport and physical
activities," Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Jul;31(7 Suppl):S421-8.
(Conclusion: "an optimal insert or orthotic would reduce muscle
activity, feel comfortable, and should increase performance." This is
directly contradictory to your viewpoint (and mine) that in most
cases, by reducing muscle activity, the insert is in the long run
harming the athlete.)
I could go on. I invite you to check out these papers, those they
cite, those that cite them, and related articles. You will no doubt
find that they base their conclusions on poor data, a lack of data, or
poorly understood data. That is not the point at all. The point is
this: many, many doctors believe that it is a good idea for many
people - including many athletes, healthy or not - to use supportive
footwear and orthotic devices as a preventative/maintenance measure to
correct alleged "gait abnormalities." This is something that you
already knew; it should not surprise you to find that some of these
people have published on the issue.
> Ok then, yes - if we're talking about previously healthy ultimate
> players without congenital defects or acute injuries, I do believe
> they would all be better off in the long run with intelligent barefoot
> training and some light behavioral modification to ensure they aren't
> spending 16 hours a day with their feet scrunched up.
Fair enough, and possibly correct. The world will never know. Of
course you leave yourself a lot of leeway with the term "congenital
defects" - this could theoretically include any foot shape that
deviates in any way from some theoretically optimal one. Who is to
say Adam does not have a congenital defect?
Rob
Peterson
and one foot to PGW and let them compete in trying to convince thier
subject foot that it is smarter than the other foot. They can teach
each foot it's own way of proving logical and scientific arguements.
Then, when your feet are reunited, they can have a battle to the
death. Keep us all posted.
Peterson
Dan
wrote:
> freeze a water bottle and roll your foot on it...it helps
spambump
BFG
>
> And when you say "every single person in this thread has agreed with
> the basic tenets of your papers," you are just wrong - you yourself
> vehemently disagree with the basic tenets of those papers, and I
> disagree but far less vehemently.
Reading comprehension. Those first two papers talked primarily about
treatment of people with inflamed fascia. Who here has said you need
to jump around on rocks barefoot when your fascia is already inflamed?
> I never made any claim that there would be articles with data - only
> that they would disagree.
Let's break it down here, when an article says "Data indicates:
barefoot > shoes" I would take a disagreement to be "Data indicates:
shoes > barefoot."
So far we've gotten "Data indicates: well-fitting shoes > bad-fitting
shoes" and "Doctors like to prescribe inserts." Whether or not I've
made it perfectly clear, that's been my stance the whole damn time.
> Fair enough, and possibly correct. The world will never know. Of
> course you leave yourself a lot of leeway with the term "congenital
> defects" - this could theoretically include any foot shape that
> deviates in any way from some theoretically optimal one. Who is to
> say Adam does not have a congenital defect?
True, although if I'm not mistaken you also advised to leaving a
little wiggle room. In any event, if somebody's been playing ultimate
for years without previous foot pain, that suggests (although it
doesn't prove) their foot isn't congenitally defective. This is
another area where doctors are very useful - diagnosing structural
abnormalities.
Reggie Fanelli
---i got heal cups from the doctor...and a pain reliever
perscription....and more prescriptions pushed on me the next time that
i went to visit him....i declined the additional
perscriptions......and asked him to just fix my foot.