Thursday, November 21, 2013

Difference of opinion

I went back to my first physical therapist tonight after trying unsuccessfully to break up with him over email. He asked me to come in so he could formally discharge me and I relented. He knows I'm seeing another PT but didn't seem interested in the new exercises I've been prescribed. In fact, he told me that he thinks the problem is not having enough support in my orthotics. My new PT wants me to (gradually) get rid of my orthotics because he doesn't think I need them. I am so confused--ultimately I'll have to follow whatever path seems to be working, but at this point, it is maddening to have two such different opinions about one foot!


  1. Welcome back to my world of trial and error. . . and error, and error ...

  2. Maddening indeed. My theory about health care of all sorts, which I've formed after reading one too many papers on Chicago School economics: the best approach is decided on a statistical basis, i.e., X or Y remedy works **most of the time**, and the harm from deviating exceeds the harm from following **most of the time**, so we prescribe that remedy (orthodic, no orthodic, what-have-you) **all of the time**, despite the fact that any one individual consultation by definition cannot take advantage of the law of large numbers.

    Thus, Chris Mcdougall taught that humans are "born to run," so it becomes gospel that we shouldn't do anything to interfere with that (like cushioning the footfalls, or whatever). But Macdougall's gospel ignores that not every human is born to run the same way -- and so it goes.

    I'm sorry to hear about the frustration! (And sorry to hear I'll be missing the "injured runners run" tomorrow morning.)