|
Post by samrandall on Oct 8, 2008 8:33:31 GMT
"The Heal-Ezee orthotic was created to address the escalating rate of injuries and some bone diseases like Ankylosing Spondylitis and Planta Fasciitis, causing great discomfort and pain. " The human foot was designed to land on a more rigid surface. Many shoes have been designed too soft and flexible causing an unstable surface for the foot. The resulting effect is instability, causing pain in the hip, lower back, knee and feet." www.heal-ezee.com.au/index.htmlThought this was worth porting over from pod arena.. Looking forward to Dave H's view on the sentence in italics. s
|
|
podmum
Full Member
"There is no dark side of the moon"
Posts: 169
|
Post by podmum on Oct 8, 2008 9:18:33 GMT
The human foot was designed to land on a more rigid surfaceIf this were the case then why is there such a complex muscle structure within the multitude of bones within the foot - surely there were no pavements in pre historic times Also found this quote on the website Stabilize the foot so that it doesn’t bend and twist’ Would hate to see the damage if person ran on cobbles ;D Podmum
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Oct 8, 2008 9:20:58 GMT
Seems reasonable to me! We're obviously designed for hard flat surfaces, thats why our rearfoot is perpendicular to the forefoot. Mr Root says so ;D. Well thats proof isn't it! And a pinch at 165 Australian dollars! Regards Robert
|
|
podmum
Full Member
"There is no dark side of the moon"
Posts: 169
|
Post by podmum on Oct 8, 2008 9:59:38 GMT
Mr Root says so Must be true then - curses on all who have come after him and muddied the water
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Oct 8, 2008 10:13:32 GMT
Damn them with their dangerously unconventional ideas! Heretics! Burn them all! Cue Blinda doing the "we found a witch may we burn her" sketch. I loved the way he contradicts himself within a few paragraphs. More rigid, = instant relief. Right, with you so far... More flexible = More comfortable. Lost me again. I might have to do an e mail. R
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Oct 8, 2008 10:16:06 GMT
duh! See? Flat hard surface!
|
|
podmum
Full Member
"There is no dark side of the moon"
Posts: 169
|
Post by podmum on Oct 8, 2008 10:36:29 GMT
See? Flat hard surface! Should have known that ;D And we have developed laser vision Why doesn't mine work
|
|
|
Post by samrandall on Oct 8, 2008 11:06:55 GMT
I opted for x-ray rather than laser vision..
Great on nights out.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2008 7:27:55 GMT
I suspect the originator of this particular scam orthosis looked at a "normal" plastic anatomical model of the foot for too long. For those who don't know, these invariably have the RF and FF in the same plane. On their website they mention that "research" was carried out at a University... No mention of which Uni, nor any ref to a Research Paper Hmmmmm . Reminds me of the famous Professor who undertook all the original research for Diet Soap (you use it regularly to wash away toxins and excess fat ;D). Similar situation - Prof could not be found, and no research write-up. Actually, thinking about it the Diet Soap advertising was a bit more subtle than the flat insoles website - but no more or less ridiculous. And the scientific proof that we are not developed for hard. flat surfaces? Check out range-of-motion in any foot (RI has the experimental data) - its far greater than we would need for hard. flat surfaces. It is however perfect for a mixture of: Hard Flat Undulating Soft Uphill Downhill The ocassional tree Etc If you are an evolutionist, check out the skeleton of Turkana Boy (Google it) - much the same as our own, except this is 1.6 million years old. If you are a fundamental creationist and believe we started life in the Garden of Eden around eleven thousand years ago you have to accept that what we know about the Garden of Eden does not include paving stones or concrete. Finally, wouldn't God have given us rollers rather than feet if we were designed for hard, flat surfaces? I rest my case (I think) .
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Oct 9, 2008 19:17:34 GMT
TurkanA boy. 6500 or so years actually . Not that i recall. But it might be in the apocrapha. I could check... Nah. No use on stairs! Not great on fields either. Regards Robert
|
|
|
Post by dtt on Oct 9, 2008 19:19:41 GMT
Hi David Probably Heelies ;D A Karma for thee for a post full of common sense Cheers D
|
|
|
Post by blinda on Oct 9, 2008 21:49:37 GMT
Going off topic i know....BUT;
I kinda agree with Robert here and I do not consider myself a Christian Fundamentalist. The majority of these groups assert that all physical creation was produced in six literal 24-hour days approx 10,000 years ago.
However, the Genesis account opens with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began. (Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old, but this does not contradict the Genesis account; The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Therefore, IMHO, science does not disprove the Biblical text.)
The Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when referring to God’s creative work, Moses referred to all six creative days as "one day”. The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. It states that all six of them have ended. However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continues. By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for over a thousand years and had not yet ended. Since the seventh day has been continuing for over a thousand years, it can be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least a thousand years in length
Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days is more in harmony with the evidence found in the earth itself.
Cheers, Bel
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2008 7:40:20 GMT
TurkanA boy. I stand corrected ;D. Robert and Bel, As I'm sure you know,there are several branches of Fundamental Christianity,each one of whom believes they know when we were on the Garden Of Eden (and each one disagreeing with the other of course). I picked "around eleven thousand years" as a rough average. As I understand it, the idea that we could have originated in the Garden of Eden (or a similar spot called something else) runs through a few religious teachings (Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedism to name three). Whilst veering towards evolution myself, I think the idea of creationism is perfectly reasonable (especially in the light of Bels' explanation about time being measured in different ways), which is why I mentioned it. It is awkward (to say the least) to have a dyed-in-the-wool Creationist stand up and ask you why - in the middle of a well-attended Talk - you think your well-thought-out theories on the evolution of the lower limb and its unsuitability for hard. flat surfaces could possibly apply, since life on Earth only started a few (I'll be careful here) thousand years previously . Robert, if you find any reference to concrete in the apocrapha please let us know! Del, Hi than kyew! ;D
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Oct 10, 2008 7:48:55 GMT
True. If you think the biomechanics arguments get heated you should see what happens when an evolutionist christian, a theistic evolutionist christian, an OEC (old earth creationalist) and a YEC (young earth creationalist) get going. It tends to get real nasty, real fast. Certainly if i'm one of them . I'll keep my eyes open. I think the chances of finding a roller disco in eden might be slim though . Anyway. Off topic. Robert
|
|