Is there a link between infertility and abnormal foot motion

Regrettably, from what I can remember, women rarely, if ever, stand up after intercourse! Besides, even when they do, how many women would think about wearing their orthotics? In the three cases you cite, was it established that they wore their insoles following insemination?

If that is the case, surely traditional orthoses must do the same?

I think I would also prefer to have input from other sources and I await the response from the RCOG with interest.

Mark Russell

 

Netizens

Humans are the only species who can copulate face to face and our soft round wobbly bits can be seen (unlike other species). This has led anthropologists to believe we developed sight at the expense of our other senses. Coitus in the missionary position is a comparative recent innovation for human brings and it would be fare to suggest the act of procreation has taken place, standing. squatting and bending since the begining. There would be no reason to assume individuals did not walk away and out forebares would have as much concern for child bearing as we exercise today.

Rather like the use of Thomas Crapper's convenience forcing the human feame to sit rather than squat might not be physiologically absolutely ideal for the internal organs. By the same token reliance on missionary position intercourse for procreation may be less efficient than we think and whilst socially conventional not always the best for procreation.

Something well worth further study, I would think.

On my feet, as usual
Cameron

 

Agreed, but would they be wearing posture control insoles? I'm perfectly willing to be open-minded about most things, but certainly in the last decade or so, coitus is probably overwhelmingly performed in the prone position and is normally superceded by periods of supine inactivity. I can understand what Brian is getting at but for me it's an enormous leap of faith. But I could of course be wrong.

Mark Russell

 

Infertility et al.

Brian

The impression I have formed over the last week or so, since your insoles and theories have come up for discussion, is this.

Whilst I can follow some of your reasoning I find it extremely difficult to justify it into many of the claims that you make. The uterine retroversion theory for instance - and your claim that the insoles help menstrual problems and perhaps conception in infertile women. The reference provided does not discuss positional or structural retroversion of the uterus in conjunction with abnormal lower limb biomechanics. It relates to the post-coital insemination in prone subjects, and whilst I can just about accept there may be a link to correction of the pelvic position and the use of orthoses, you have not proved or established that in any way whatsoever. Positional uterine retroversion is an interesting concept in menstruation I agree, but from the information provided on your website, it almost reads like established fact, when in reality, I would suggest, it is merely conjecture.

I have to say that I suspect this is why you attract so much controversy from your peers. If you are to promote insoles which do all the things you claim, then you have to establish these claims factually and beyond reasonable doubt through credible research. When a Professor and a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine attaches their name to clinical advances of the magnitude you describe, the public rightly takes note. But unless these claims are reliable - and can be factually substantiated - you run the risk of tarnishing the reputation of the profession as a whole. I'm sure this is a fact that is not lost on you.

There is much about established biomechanics theory that I do not agree with and there may indeed be a place for some of your ideas within current practice, but you must be able to demonstrate and articulate them accurately and prove them evidentially. In all humility - remembering I’m only a simple podiatrist - I am not at all sure that you have – or indeed that you can. But I remain to be convinced otherwise.

Respectfully yours

Mark Russell

 

Mark et al

I have no idea about the claims for insoles simply because there is no evidence. Coincidence is one thing but in the absence of supporting independent evidence then it comes down to a matter of opinion.

As a general statement, unsupported efficatious claims in advertising copy are open to legal actions from unsatisfied clients so being circumspect might be cautioned, however that would be up to the individual and or company. Thee is certainly evidence that nonsense foot appliances continue to appear in the samll ads, not because they work but because unsatisfied customers do not complain.

Something which does clearly arise from the discussion is the need for foot health professionals to be discerning in their appraisal of requisite advertisements. As a general statement practitioners are presented with more and more psuedo science in advertising copy and as a key professional competence the need to be able to read critically if the best care is to be passed onto their clients is essential. This I am convinced is why podiatry benefits from being a science degree (and not an arts degree)

As informed consent is a critical matter in negociated care then not knowing to any level of predictability the outcome of elected care pathways is consistent with bad practice. Whilst it would be human nature to believe there is a pancea the likelyhood is that conditions apply. Knowing those conditons is a mark of the true professional so I agree you are right to be sceptical.

Cameron

 

Mark,
David R. summed up my attitude and approach to treating patients. As a clinician my first priority is toward the patient. Conservatively, I would estimate that 80% of my clinical applications were learned post-college. Most of my college instructors did not have a private practice where virtually every post-graduate instructor did. Which of these do you think was more concerned with clinical outcome?

The question that you may actually be asking is possibly rooted more deeply into the topic of ethics? Namely, what I do say to the patient? Is that a concern of yours?

David Beltakis

 

Having read the abstract, I can't see how it relates to the topic at hand at all. It is not in any way postural or related to stance - merely referring to a post-coital position.

Do you have any references that actually relate to uterine position in the stance phase and how that relates to infertility.

It might be my eyesight or a lack of speicificity in the graphic, but i don't see a positional change of the uterus here - just a change in the shape of the surrounding tissues.

With regard to increasing fertility, would the benefits of pelvic tilt be counteracted by the forces of gravity?

Are they separate entities?

 

Mark:

Proprioceptive insoles are neurological devices. They change the neurological input to the body from the feet. And this changed input has the effect of changing the position of the body and internal organs. That is because the body gets a more accurate picture of itself and where the different parts are.

The proprioceptive system of the body has far reaching effects on the body. It effects all parts of the body. And Posture Control Insoles are specifically designed to correct an inaccurate proprioceptive input. This inaccurate input occurs from a incomplete growth pattern in the bones of the great toe.

In SOT, we deal with the propriceptive input from the sacro iliac and the sutures of the skull. This complex is called a Category Two. In its most basic form it is a sacro iliac weight bearing ligament sprain or strain. This is now being called a "subclinical" sacro iliac lesion.

SOT was researched and developed and taught by Dr. DeJarnette. In his writings on this subject, he says:

"Catgegory Two has the ability to disturb more of all parts of man than can any other happening except a lethal blow to the skull or a chest wound. This Category Two comples directly deranges more proprioceptor systems than can any other human problem, except deep and lasting grief."

The point is that any correction that a doctor can make to the proprioceptor system of the human body is of great benefit to the patient. And Posture Control Insoles are a devise designed to do just that, make a correction to the proprioceptor system. Correction of that system will improve any part of the body and could play a great role in getting a women pregnant.

David R.

 

As I said repeatly in the other thread....THATS NOT PROPRIOCEPTION!! All any insole/insert/orthotic/etc can do (regardless of what its called) is change pressure on mechanoreceptors on the plantar surface of the foot. The body then uses that additional information to do something with. THATS EXTEROCEPTION, not PROPRIOCEPTION.

 

Brian:

After reading your websites and comments on these pages, it becomes very clear to me that the level of evidence that you need to use in marketing your insole product and that you need to make claims on the internet for its therapeutic effectiveness is far below what I could ever use as a medical professional. In other words, I don't know of any podiatrists who I respect and try to model my behavior after who would dream of making the claims that you have about your in-shoe inserts.

If you want to gain my respect, and the respect of 99% of the worldwide podiatric medical profession, then you will need to get your claimed research on Rothbart's Foot Structure and the effects of your proprioceptive insoles published in a mainstream peer-reviewed podiatric or foot orthopedic journal such as JAPMA, JFAS or Foot and Ankle International. Until then, you and your ideas will likely not be received favorably by respectable podiatric medical professionals around the world.

In closing, I will respect your request for civility as I feel any specific further contributions that I could make regarding this thread on a possible link between infertility and abnormal foot function would not be considered to be of a civil nature by either you or your friends you have invited to support your opinions on this subject.

 

We now have two sides to the arguments. The speakers arguing against my theories (Podiatrists) and those arguing in favor of my theories (SOT chiros). Interesting..... It is not my purpose to convince or change minds. I simply presented my work. It is up to each and everyone of you to decide for yourselves.

I am hoping to hear from physicians in other specialties on this subject before this thread is closed.

It has been a very stimulating discussion and I thank everyone for their input.

Brian A Rothbart

 

I just received an eMail message from an associate professor in clinical medicine at a Osteopathic College in the United States. He was unable to post on this thread. I asked him to eMail me his response, and I will post it for him.

 

Proprioception (from Latin proprius, meaning "one's own" and perception) is the sense of the position of parts of the body, relative to other neighbouring parts of the body. Unlike the six exteroception human senses of sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing, and balance, that advise us of the outside world, proprioception is a sense that provides feedback solely on the status of the body internally. It is the sense that indicates whether your body is moving with required effort, as well as where the various parts of the body are located in relation to each other.

Therefore any device that affects any joint position will affect proprioception.

David Beltakis

 

Yes it does, but thats not what I am talking about. Please explain how if I change the position of a joint with any sort of plantar foot insert from an angle of 'x degrees' to 'x +/- a few degrees', that I have "improved" proprioception and thats how the insert works. Why does the brain suddenly react miraculously by proprioception to the 'x +/- a few degrees' position when it did not react to the 'x degrees' position?

Its just more psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo to suggest that any sort of foot orthotic or insert work by proprioception. Orthotic/inserts may well work via other sensory means, but the evidence for that is flimsy and we have presented data that shows they don't.

 

Sorry I'm a bit uncertain of your position now. Are you now saying that it does affect propioception but not 'the kind you are talking about'? Who talked about "improved" proprioception? Is there or is there not a more biomechanically efficient position for every joint in the body? If yes, then you have answered your own question of 'how if I change the position of a joint with any sort of plantar foot insert from an angle of 'x degrees' to 'x +/- a few degrees', that I have "improved" proprioception.

David Beltakis

 

David and Craig:

The preceeding factor here is the embryological malposition of the great toe. Brian's finding is that the interruption of the normal "unwinding" as the foot grows puts the great toe in a position that indicates it is off of the ground. This false signal is fed to the propriocepttion system thru the mechanorecptors. It is the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". If you put false or inaccurate info into a computer the anwer and reaction it gives will by definition be wrong or inappropriate.

David R.

 

David

With respect, the title of this thread was; "Is there a link between infertility and abnormal foot motion?" Are you suggesting that women with an elevated first metatarsal will have infertility problems because they may also present with a retroverted unterus and therefore will have problems conceiving? Although I am no researcher, I would have thought the starting point would be to compare the incidence of the so-called PMS foot type in women with infertility problems then examine them for retroverted unteri. At that point you might be able to establish a causal link providing you could prove retroverted unteri was a cause of infertility. Nothing I have read from Brian in this thread supports this methodology and the one reference provided - from a fairly obscure source - established no link between pedal mechanics and conception. Your submission above gives no clarity whatsoever on this issue.

Regards

Mark Russell

 

Sorry Brian but no, I don't agree. Your friend made a claim for which he clearly has no supporting scientific evidence. I posted a link to a report of a meta-analysis which demonstrated that chiropractic manipulation was ineffective in the treatment of certain conditions. I don't see how this is disrespecting an individuals expertise. It is a point of fact that the researcher made this conclusion after reviewing the literature.

I ask again, show me the evidence, because just saying doesn't make it so.

Here's a thing, I think that the world is not spherical, but is in fact a moebius strip. I call this Spooner's Moebius Strip Theory. I'm now going to find some friends who will write in e-mails supporting this view. So all of a sudden this is a fact. Give me a break.

What next? Believing that man has been to the moon

 

Can you see the problem?

 

Brians finding ???? He has NOT found that. He has speculated that and I think its been pointed out ad nauseum by many many people many many times thats what he is suggested in totaly false. As far as I am concerned it complete and absolute rubbish. What Brian is describing is nothing more than an acquired forefoot supinatus.

 

No. It is not "improved" proprioception. Its just a signal to the body that the joint is in a different position. Thats a "changed" signal, not improved. As its a changed signal its a huge leap of faith that the body reacts magically to that "changed" proprioception signal, let alone change the ability to get pregnant.

 

I just received this outrageous and insulting eMail from an anonymous poster on the ThatFoot Site: http://www.thatfootsite.com/forum/viewmessage.php?rootid=6554
Enough is enough. Craig, closed down this thread. I am no longer willing to be verbally abused and insulted over and over again simply because I was asked (by Mark Russell) to participate in the Podiatry Forum.

Prof Brian A Rothbart