Howie,
I agree with what you suggest; the clinical part of me is quite happy with
it. What I am unhappy with is the pursuit of the associated pseudo-science
that is often tacked on . If we accept a clinical approach AND accept that
we are uncertain as to why we achieve the apparent success that we do, then
we have the hope of finding some of the underlying truths. However, as long
as each clinical observation is swamped by a deluge of speculation but not
chased by scientific experimentation we are doomed to languish in the doldrums!
Keep up your good work.
Kind regards,
Steve Urry
>In a message dated 10/2/00 5:38:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
><< Maybe a functional model should be based on functional information
> (such as pressure measurement) rather than structure / shape / morphology.
> >>
>
>After reviewing thousands of pressure measurement and recognizing their
>importance, I would suggest that the above statement of Steve is correct
>excepting the following: After the words "pressure measurements)", this
>sentence should read "in addition to" instead of "rather". Pressure
>measurement adds a good deal to the equation of understanding pedal
>biomechanics, but do not exist in a vacuum. They are adjunctive in the
>information they provide, but foot "structure / shape / morphology" cannot be
>ignored.
>
>Regards,
>Howard Dananberg
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|