Two interesting thoughts on PFPosted by Elyse B on 12/14/04 at 07:46 (165603)
I just read these and I think I am starting to believe more and more that this is true:
Walking and running place impressive demands on the feet, no question about it. But a foot is remarkable in its shock absorbing abilities. If you are like most of us, as you walk or run, when you put your forward foot down on he surface, your rear foot rolls to the inside. As the full impacetof your footstrike spreads throughout your foot, your shin rotates internally, taking your foot with it and converting your foot to a shock absorber. The subtalar joint (on top of your foot, where the ankle joins he foot) converts the vertiical force to longitudinal force, spreading the sock through your entire foot. You adjust the torque to the surface on which you are walking or running and then, continuing in forward motion, you instantaneously roatte your foot to the outside. Your foot then returns to being rigid, which allows you to lift off again. It's a wonderful, miraculous process. The arch of your foot acts like a spring or a shock absorber. It takes the 'hit' from your foot plant and keeps it from jarring your knee and hip. If you put a support in your shoe, you are guaranteeing that your 'spring: has nowhere to go and your shock absorber cannot absorb shock. It will feel good temporarily, because it will tension in our foot and leg, but long term it will accomplish nothing. In fact, it will fool you and keep you from looking for a solution to your problem.
It's a far more intelligent to try to strengthen your arch so that it will work properly.
My experience comes from treating workers with plantar fascitis as an occupational doctor. I focus almost exclusively upon foot and ankle strengthening. Calf/achilles stretching is seemingly valuable too. Oral medications are nearly useless. Steroid injections may help, but are not the mainstay of treatment. Flexible store-bought foot orthotics (eg, Powerstep, Spenco) provide fair comfort and support during re-conditioning for many.
Begin with seated toe raises, 20-25 per set, then progress to standing with partial weight bearing and eventually to full body weight, single foot. Usually 3-4 times per day. Be respectful of pain--don't over do it!-- both for for number of reps (you may acheive only 5-10 initially) and load or weight. Maximum height or excursion of the toe raise will not be present early on. Expect 3-6 weeks minimum to regain spring in the foot and power. These exercises may be performed on a step, accompanied by heel lowering.
The changing understanding of this and many other tendon/fascial attachment problems (achilles tendon, patellar tendon, tennis elbow, even rotator cuff problems) is that an inflammatory problem is not the main issue, or it exists for only a short time (5-10 days). Gradual strengthening works for most people. Foot and ankle power and coordination need to be re-established.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFRACHAEL T. on 12/14/04 at 22:44 (165638)
I found this post informative & interesting enough & wonder why no one (particularly our professionals) posted a reply???
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFDorothy on 12/14/04 at 23:14 (165640)
Rachel - and Elyse -
I think the whole issue of strengthening versus the idea of rest being the paramount response to the foot and ankle problems we deal with here IS interesting and one that appeals to me on an instinctual level; I've said this here before. What did cause me to think about this post from Elyse was the fact that the writer refers to him/herself in terms of what he/she believes and what his/her profession is, etc. - but the author is never identified. Elyse has posted here for some time and, to my knowledge, has never mentioned being a doctor before so if this is her writing, then I was not aware of her background before. Whether it's hers or someone else's writing, I wish the author were identified. Otherwise, I think the concepts make sense, at least in principle, as many of us here have discussed quite often.
What do YOU think and want to say about the ideas expressed in the piece Elyse posted?? I would be very interested in YOUR thoughts, particularly since you have had some success with your foot problems, if I recall correctly - or I hope so, anyway. I remember that I learned about Brooks shoes from you and SteveG. and that was certainly good information!
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFElyse B on 12/15/04 at 07:10 (165651)
Dorothy why is it necessary to have an article identified? Everyone here who posts, posts their own individual opinons and are not doctors. That is totally ridiculous. It was just information for people to peruse.
FYI, the first article is http://www.aistretch.com/ which is a book written by Phil Wharton about Active Isolated Stretching.
The second posting is from someone on Runners World who was talking about PF.
Dorothy you are being way, way too defensive.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFDorothy on 12/15/04 at 09:43 (165658)
Dear Elyse - There was nothing in what I wrote that was 'defensive'; you are misusing or misunderstanding the word. I have nothing to be defensive about because I did not post the information and have no vested interest in it one way or another. I was responding to Rachel and only addressed you in the post as a courtesy because you had posted the information originally.
It is common and accepted, and expected, practice to cite - give citations - for any article or piece of information of the sort you posted here, but I wasn't going to say anything about it - because I don't care, frankly - until Rachel, whose postings here have been informed and helpful - asked for input (although she asked most especially about the doctors' opinions) on the article. I was interested in a citation because whoever the writer was identified him/herself as a doctor and was promoting ideas and practices. How about if you post some 'good ideas' about treatments and practices written by a 'doctor' - and it turns out it came from Dr. Seuss. You weren't posting your own opinion; you were posting articles from someone somewhere, who id'd themselves as 'doctor'.
What is your problem with just posting that it was from the Wharton book (or from a magazine)? There is nothing new about that. I have had both of the Wharton books for years and have read them; their work is founded on the Aaron Mattes' methods - which have been discussed here several times, including by me. We have discussed these books and methods here before. Where is the news and why the secret? They are respected in their field. Why didn't you just say where your information came from? Almost all other people who post info. here do so. I don't understand what your problem is nor why you have lashed out at me for what was a very innocuous comment - and, in fact, a comment that was generally in agreement with the general gist of the articles that you posted. Good grief. You have a lot of aggression! I don't have time or interest in silly disagreements like the one you are apparently to start. Learn some manners and learn accepted writing protocols - and while you're at it, learn the correct definition of 'defensive'.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFElyse B on 12/15/04 at 10:25 (165662)
Sorry for what you term is aggressive behavior. I was posting something that I felt was informative and you once again jumped down a poster's throat. I am done with this posting. You have way too much vested in these Boards.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFSusan on 12/15/04 at 10:57 (165667)
I don't understand this response, since Elyse started by saying what she was posting was something she had read. How does it follow from that that she is possibly a doctor and not identifying herself as such? I don't see the logic.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFJulie on 12/15/04 at 14:35 (165675)
The problem was that in the original post it sounded as though Elyse herself was making these statements.
But that was not the case, and it was clear to me (as it was to Dorothy) that the statements came from some other, unidentified source. It is ALWAYS important to know where information comes from. Without identification, one cannot judge the reliability of the information. Sources should always be identified.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFSusan on 12/15/04 at 14:49 (165677)
I also read the original post and it was very clear that Elyse herself was not making those statements. Dorothy's responses to Elyse's post went far beyond requesting the authors of the statements. Did you read them? What was your impression of their tone, what was asked and the way things were asked? Would you like to be responded to in the manner in which Dorothy posted? Did you think it was appropriate?
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFJulie on 12/15/04 at 15:19 (165678)
It doesn't really matter, Susan. My point was that the source should have been identified, and wasn't. I'm not judging you, or Elyse, or Dorothy, just saying that the source should have been identified and wasn't.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFSusan on 12/15/04 at 15:22 (165680)
Interesting that you don't want to answer my questions. It says a lot.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFRACHAEL T. on 12/15/04 at 20:07 (165693)
Wow! I've been away all day; I was shopping! (& yes, my feet are still good at this moment, but I don't take them for granted.) I am glad to be able to shop this year several hours without pain wearing my BIRKS. Of course, after 3+ years of pf, I am still cautious. But, I exclaim WOW as I only posted my msg. so that maybe someone would give their experiences with strengthening vs rest vs anything else ~A suggestion by someone who could offer as their testimony for healing/controlling pf.....which is what I think these msg. boards are for. I am sorry if I offended you Dorothy by 'requesting' some input on the matter & didn't give 'my opinion' first...although, I didn't think my opinion was required first in order to request others' thoughts on the matter. My reason for not posting my opinion was merely this: At the time I wrote the post you are referencing, I didn't have the necessary time to explain my positive progress in my personal PF journey - but I shall now. Yes, I am the 'poster' who promoted Brooks & I am happy that you took my Brooks Ariels suggestion & found the shoes to be beneficial - as they are great for pronation & stability & control--as well as comfortable. (I wear mine with orthotics.) If in your last paragraph you were requesting my thoughts on Elyse's post - I did understand that Elyse had 'read' the article that she posted.... & I found it interesting & informative (as I stated in my prior post that you answered;)but I was anxious to learn more of others' experiences/opinions; thus, my post requesting that info. As for my opinion which can only be based on my personal experience....it is that rest is key for us pf'rs at the VERY moment of feeling any slight presence (not pain, not discomfort - merely presence - a twitch or inkling if it so be called.) I also think that wearing orthotics is key - & finding the 'correct' orthotic for 'different' activities is key. (I wear 1 orthotic more comfortably in Ariat Boots for horseback riding & barnchores & yet, I wear a different orthotic for some other activities.....I also enjoy SDOs for 'a rest or a strengthening exercise of the intrinsic muscles' around the house at night time or when my feet are tired of being 'controlled' by Brooks with accompanying orthotics &/or by Birkenstocks. So, I think it is a combo of 'rest & strengthening' - which is the 'fine line' that Julie refers to in her posts. This fine line makes a lot of sense to me ~ which I've often referenced it as 'my foot budget.' So, in answer to your request as to what I think - those are my thoughts -- but this opinion is merely my personal opinion BUT I know that my journey (3+ yrs. of PF with all the regular treatments + ESWT & umpteen cort. injections) has been a trek - but at this point & compared to the onset of pf, I am doing so many more activities than I did back then - I ride my horse &/or my bike every other day; I do Swiss ball stretching exercises every other day; I do stall chores for 2 horses daily (which requires walking on cement & uneven terrain) & I do feed chores 3 x daily; I shop when I want now; I clean a large home & manage to do gardening chores.....so in essence, I have most of my 'life' back - My dilemma usually involves a 'dressy event' when I just cannot wear 4'heels anymore nor do I ride 10 horses daily (even though I'd like to do both of these things!) Now, I 'budget' my feet ~ which is something that I started doing when I couldn't walk a step & I have continued that 'budget' throughout these pf years. Fortunately, my foot budget has increased....thankfully! & With that in mind, I hope other pf'rs who are in pain now & read this find some hope & comfort. I also hope that now you understand my post which requested for more experiences &/or info on strengthening vs rest - as I continue to try to familiarize myself (as others do here also) with that 'fine line' that Julie describes between the two -which I call my 'foot budget'.....my budgeting shall continue & when I error in that budget, I KNOW! I hope this answers your questions, Dorothy - I have been waaaay too thorough & chatty! Sorry!
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFRACHAEL T. on 12/15/04 at 20:11 (165694)
OH My! I am sorry I was so oooo wordy! I just wanted to be clear! I am laughing at myself (which is a good thing - so they say!) - after I saw how long my post was....! Happy Season! (-;
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFJulie on 12/15/04 at 20:44 (165696)
Susan, I don't know why you are hounding me. I don't know why I should 'answer your questions'. I have no interest in them. I made a simple statement. Sources should always be identified so that readers can judge their reliability. Most posters identify their sources: you can check this out. Elyse did not. I thought she should have. Full stop.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFHilaryG on 12/15/04 at 21:01 (165697)
Elyse is a newcomer to the Boards. I think everyone is overreacting. Can't we all get on with our lives and leave her alone?
Re: Get over itHilaryG on 12/15/04 at 21:06 (165700)
Bt the way.. I'm a Librarian so I know that people should cite their sources, but everyone makes mistakes.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFRalph on 12/16/04 at 07:22 (165721)
Dorothy who desired nice posts while ill can sure hand out the nasty notes
to other posters. Elyse was very clear in stating that she did not write
the articles. Lucky for her she didn't also put them in ALL CAPS TOO.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFSusan on 12/16/04 at 09:04 (165725)
You certainly expect everyone to do what you ask, Julie. Think about it. I'm not hounding you. I'm defending Elyse who is being hounded by you. For the sake of the boards, consider the fact that you do not own them, and that it is not your place to tell others how to post. It simply is not.
That concept is simple yet difficult apparently, so here is an example of what I mean.
Appropriate post: 'I was interested in the articles you posted. Can you give their authors?'
Inappropriate post: 'You are supposed to cite the authors of any articles you post. Why are you not giving the authors?'
You did not want to answer my questions because of what the honest answer would have to be, not because you were not interested.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFElyse B on 12/16/04 at 09:14 (165726)
thanks Ralph!!! I really did not mean any 'harm'. It was my 'heinous' error to omit the authors of the articles. This Board does not work two ways unfortunately. Certain 'nameless' persons can dish it out in a very nasty way but refuse to take responsiblity.
Re: Susan and ElyseJulie on 12/16/04 at 12:03 (165741)
I wasn't hounding Elyse, Susan. I liked the extracts from the articles she posted and agreed with their substance. I felt when I read them that I'd have liked to know where they came from, but I wouldn't have said anything, except that when you said you didn't understand Dorothy's response, I tried to explain what the problem was.
I know everyone makes mistakes, and I don't think Elyse felt attacked by me. At least I hope she didn't, but Elyse, if you did, that was not my intention and if it had that effect, I am sorry.
Re: Susan and ElyseLynn F. on 12/16/04 at 12:13 (165743)
Let's lighten up, people.. it's the holidays ~~
..and while Dorothy may have taken matters to heart, she gave me a great idea for a new book.... 'How The PF Stole Christmas!' :-)
Re: Susan and ElyseElyse B on 12/16/04 at 12:36 (165750)
Julie, not to worry, I did not feel attacked by you only by Dorothy.
Re: Susan and ElyseJulie on 12/16/04 at 14:43 (165758)
Thank you, Elyse. That's what I thought.
Re: Susan and ElyseSusan on 12/16/04 at 15:10 (165766)
You asked why I was hounding you. You responded to a post I had written to Dorothy, and I responded to you in the manner in which you posted to me.
Re: Two interesting thoughts on PFDr. Z on 12/18/04 at 06:17 (165827)
How's this. Elyse where did you find this information.? Would you give me a link if you have one.? I bet its a just a tough day for all