Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Different theories of clinical foot biomechanics

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Craig Payne, Nov 7, 2016.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    As part of the new online clinical biomechanics boot amp (here), I put together this list of all the models/theories/paradigms of foot biomechanics underpinning clinical practice. Am I missing any:

    1. Root Theory
    2. Tissue Stress
    3. Sagittal plane
    4. Arch Support Paradigm
    5. Bojsen-Møller's 'high gear/low gear'
    6. Column Theory
    7. CT Band Biomechanics
    8. Flow Motion Model
    9. Foot Core Model
    10. Foot Fault Syndromes
    11. Foot Function and Fascial Lines
    12. Functional Foot Typing
    13. Functional forefoot drop
    14. MASS Theory
    15. Preferred Movement Pathway
    16. Quadrant Theory
    17. Sensory Input Based Models
    18. Spring Theory
    19. STJ Axis Location/Rotational Equilibrium Theory of Foot Function
    20. Tripod Model of the Foot
    21. Wring Theory
    22. Biotensegrity
     
  2. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  3. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Hi Craig
    Do any of the theories listed consider the possibility that compression of the plantar intrinsics in early stance is the prime mover in the functioning of the PVP .

    Indeed is the possibility of compression of the plantar intrinsics ,between the bony arch of the foot and the plantar fascia during early stance ,mentioned at all in any of the 22 .

    Cheers
    Gerry
     
  4. Have got Demp's stuff in there?
     
  5. Petcu Daniel

    Petcu Daniel Active Member

    I believe it is worth to be mentioned the 'Roll-over Shape' concept !
    Some sources:
    -http://www.nupoc.northwestern.edu/research/projects/lowerlimb/rollover_concept.html
    -http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/2009_01_048.asp
    -http://lermagazine.com/article/the-quest-to-improve-rocker-effects-in-op
    -https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33975910_Roll-over_characteristics_of_human_walking_with_applications_for_artificial_limbs_electronic_resource
    -https://jfootankleres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1757-1146-6-24

    Daniel
     
  6. efuller

    efuller MVP


    When you make lists, you can always make the list bigger if you are a splitter. A splitter is someone who will tend to see different concepts as separate individual things. On the other hand groupers will tend group sinilar concepts together. For example, tissue stress uses all of STJ axis rotational equilibrium theory.

    The roll over concept that Daniel mentions looks like a lot like sagittal plane theory. It is possible that the measurements described in some of these papers would be the measurements that sagittal plane theorists should be using when talking about sagittal plane blockade. I never liked the term blockade because the foot just doesn't have the leverage to stop, or significantly slow, the forward motion of the body. The body has some forward momentum and if you wanted to stop forward momentum the easiest place to push to stop the momentum is at the center of mass. Now imagine trying to stop a large moving object with a yard stick that is perpendicular to the direction of travel of that object. The yardstick is going to break before you significantly impede motion. The foot might break as it tries to imped center of mass motion. This might be what sagittal plane theorists are thinking, but their wording is not the best at conveying this.

    The sagittal plane "blockade" can be equated with a badly shaped wheel. This is how you could group toether sagittal plane with roll over theory. They may be addressing the same thing with different terminology.

    Groupers, splitters, to each his own.
    Eric
     
  7. Petcu Daniel

    Petcu Daniel Active Member

    Making an hierarchy/tree of concepts we'll have groupers on the first one (general - on an imaginary vertical line) and splitters on the second one (specialized - on an imaginary horizontal line). I think is important for who knows about sagital plane blockade (known especially through Fhl concept) to know also about "roll over concept" and vice-versa. Especially because those concepts comes from different professions
    Daniel
     
  8. efuller

    efuller MVP

    I agree that is important for the Sagittal plane people to know about the roll over concept people. However, are they really different concepts even though the come from different professions.
    Eric
     
  9. Petcu Daniel

    Petcu Daniel Active Member

    In my opinion it is more useful to describe them as "particular instances" of the same concept (definition of concept: "an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept ). Can be presented / taught / understood /reduced a concept through/at one of its particular instances? Some professions probably will be tempted to do so especially with their specific "particular instances" of that concept. Is like a "house" is presented only as the "kitchen" or only as "living room" when in fact them are particular instances of the same concept but addressing different of its functionalities.
    Daniel
     
  10. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Or is it two professions looking at the same house and one calling it a building and the other profession calling it a structure? Are the sagittal plane theorists and the roll over process theorists seeing the same gait pattern and giving it a different name?

    They might not be, but they do sound quite similar.

    Eric
     
  11. Petcu Daniel

    Petcu Daniel Active Member

    Not sure because, seems that each theory is addressing mainly different rocker centre (Perry) and is producing different technical solutions: Kinetic Wedge - forefoot rocker (sagittal plane theorists) and rocker sole profile - ankle rocker (roll over shape theorists)
    Daniel
     
Loading...

Share This Page