11 Reasons Podiatrists Dislike Bare Feet

Another example is stents. It was the "best practice" for a long time but they never really did a decent study on them. Then when they finally did, they found out stents had no extra benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/h...onary-artery-disease.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ditto for a lot of back surgery (right, TJ?). "Best practice" was to operate if X-rays showed a bulging disk. Until they started looking at the X-rays of people without back problems, and they had plenty of bulging disks, too.
 
There is only one coronary artery that has been scientifically proven that, if stenosed, open heart surgery will prolong life, and that is the left main, i.e. the widow maker. It is the first artery to come off of your aorta and all other coronary arteries trace their roots back to it. That's why if it clogs you're a goner. It would compromise blood supply to the entire heart. Quick and easy death, though ;). They probably don't have data on the lesser arteries of the heart because it becomes very very hard to truly measure the real success of the procedure when a heart attack in those arteries wouldn't likely result in death to begin with, just a really crappy day. The left main is pretty black and white. If it goes, you go. If the surgery prevents it from going and you live another 10 years and die from something else, well the surgery can be considered a success.

It's not recommended to stent the left main, though I have seen it done. That article is kind of brainless and misleading because they only measured placing stents in patients with STABLE coronary artery disease as a way to manage painful symptoms associated with stable coronary artery disease (shortness of breath, angina, fatigue, etc). Stents are best used for UNstable coronary artery disease, i.e. a heart attack, and swift intervention with a stent during a heart attack saves lives and can even prevent any permanent heart muscle damage from occurring. I deal with these types of patients on a daily basis, and if I should ever have "the big one," by all means throw a stent in. Sooner rather than later while you're at it. Stents DO help.

Backs are tricky tricky things to deal with. You can have a massively blown disc and never know it because the contents (nucleus pulposus) of that disc that spew out upon rupture may never come in contact with any nerves, nerve roots, or spinal cord. It would merely occupy "empty" space in the back bone. On the other hand, even a tiny bulge or rupture that happens near a nerve, nerve root, or the spinal cord will give you terrible symptoms. Even if you have horrible symptoms and the back surgery goes perfectly the surgery still could make matters worse. A known consequence of any surgery is the production of scar tissue. Scar tissue isn't very well behaved and can grow with a mind of it's own. If that scar tissue should get rampant enough to start growing onto the sensitive nerves around it (adhesions), guess what, back to mega pain. Please please please take care of your backs!! Any decent back surgeon will only operate as a last resort. Theoretically, the vast majority of back issues producing pain and mild neurologic symptoms (numbness, weakness, tingling, etc.) will resolve with conservative treatment. It takes a long long time and careful living to heal properly, though, and most people are unwilling to deal with it. Surgery should mostly be reserved for those who have enough neurologic compromise to really threaten function (foot drop, weak grip, muscle atrophy, etc). For example, not being able to run because you have back pain isn't really a good reason to have back surgery, IMO. Stop running, get proper therapy, and get better non-surgically, even if it takes a year.

Man we've digressed, still a fun discussion, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SI barefoot and Sid
Not just scar tissue, but stem cell tissue. Did you see the story about the woman who had stem cells implanted into her spine. They hoped they'd turn into neural tissue to help her paralysis. Instead, they developed into nose tissue (where the stem cells had come from). Yoicks!

http://www.newscientist.com/article...tment-causes-nasal-growth-in-womans-back.html


I'd still pick scar tissue management for starters and for the $$$$$. It is less controversial and nobody likes scars, so an effort to control them would likely be easily accepted by the public. You'd forgo arguments about growing new brains or wieners that might end up being noses, and you'd be inventing something will utra-application to todays medical practices. A lot of what we do makes nasty problematic scars inside or out.
 
The podiatrist's solution to everything is orthotics. How can they sell orthotics to someone who doesn't wear shoes?

I have seen two podiatrists in my life. The first one sold me orthotics, then tried to sell me surgery, then told me there was nothing he could do. His name was Stan James and he was of some reknown.

The second one told me I'd need surgery even before looking at my x-rays, and injections just to confirm the referred diagnosis. Fortunately it was not a codable visit so I didn't have to pay him anything. He was also a jerk. I won't mention his name unless you live in Oregon and want to know what podiatrist not to see.

So in my experience, the best podiatrists are incompetent, and the worst are con artists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
To me, it's quite simple really. Shoes create problems for the human feet. Orthotics require shoe wearing. See where I'm going with this?

Also, oddly enough, the majority of the people who "need" orthotics are shoe wearers.