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.

Occam's Razon or the Law of Parsimony

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Brian A. Rothbart, Nov 3, 2021.

  1. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Clarification

    Regarding my foot classification system
    1. Clubfoot Deformity,
    2. PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity
    3. Pirmus Metatarsus Supinatus (aka RFS)
    4. Plantargrade Foot
    I first presented this foot classification (based on the ontogenetic development of the fetal foot) in 2002:
    • Rothbart BA, 2002. Medial Column Foot Systems: An Innovative Tool for Improving Posture. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (6)1:37-46
    The discussion in this thread is simply a recapitulation, delineated in my 2002 paper.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Brian , I understand the above to mean that your foot typing is not supported by the data .Is that correct ?
     
  3. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    My foot classification is supported by the embryological record, which I have presented in detail in my 2002 paper and in this discussion. 3d ultrasounds have taken pictures, the video above shows the developing foot passing through these various stages. When you state, it is your understanding that my foot typing is not supported by data, does that mean you are denying the credability of our standard embryology textbooks?

    Or possibly you are saying that you are not questioning that the fetal foot goes through these stages, but you feel that these various deformation are present at birth? If so, are you saying that the Clubfoot Deformity does not exist (which is one of the developing stages during fetalgenesis)? If that is your position, then it would be logical for you to question the postnatal existence of the PCFD, RFS and plantargrade foot.

    Nothing surprises me now. Do you know there are still people who argue that the Earth is Flat! Don't believe me, Google it (See Scientific America).

    So Gerrard, certainly challenge my Foot Classification System. However, I suggest that if you would like to be more credible, review your homo sapien foot embryology textbooks. And then challenge my classification system from that point of view.

    Please understand, I have no intention of belittling you or marginalizing your understanding of human embryology, and if it appears that way, I do apologize. However, I am starting to wonder if that is the case.
     
  4. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Eric,

    Ok, so you agree that Roots paradigm is flawed. That is a starting point! However, I simply do not follow your argument regarding discussing motion without the use of physics. Yes, we could describe motion using Newtons Law of Motion ( F = m x a ). I prefer to discuss gravity drive in terms of observation, that is, an object placed in space will, under the influence of gravity, fall until it rests on the ground (a very germane frame of reference in gait analysis).

    Regarding the prevalence of abnormal feet, I cannot state with certainty the percentage of PCFD and RFS in our population. That study needs to be done.


    I agree with your statement that when your predictions don’t match reality, it is time for a new paradigm. In fact, my paradigm does match what we are seeing clinically. And in fact, other researchers are starting to validate my research.

    What really confuses me is when you state the embryological foot types are the same as Roots foot types. From the above discussions and review of the embryological record, this contestation is so overtly specious and apocryphal, that IMO requires no further comment. Eric, I say this with no intent to criticize you or be condescending.

    All that being said, I thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
     
  5. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Nonsense .


    Here is what Simon said

    " based on the data we have from the two studies by McPoil and later Lufler, the best evidence suggests that torsion observed in the talus is unrelated to forefoot position in the skeletally mature human. Any data to the contrary? No."

    And my question was does this does this mean your foot typing is not supported by the data (other than your own data that this ) .

    Re animations, Disney makes these but they don't prove the existence of Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse .
     
  6. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    McPoil and Lufler are correct when they suggest that torsion observed in the talus is unrelated to the forefoot position in the skeletally mature human. Note the last three words, skeletally mature human- Their study was on the postnatal foot, not the prenatal foot.
    • In the postnatal foot, surgically changing the position of the talar head has little or no impact on the position of the medial column. As a surgeon for over 30 years, I can personally attest to this fact.
    • In the prenatal foot, the unwinding of the head and neck of the talus carries with it the entire medial column of the foot. This is written in stone among embryologist.
    In the skeletally mature human foot, the bones are ossified. Not so in the developing fetal foot which is still cartilaginous and malleable.

    I have said this before, but I will say it again, Review Your Human Embryology!!!

    Regarding my presentation animations, thank you for the compliment comparing my work to Disney's work.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021 at 5:46 PM
  7. But Brian your whole theory is based on the relationship between talar torsion and it’s impact on the skeletally mature human forefoot, ‍♂️
     
  8. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Absolutely wrong. As I have stated over and over again, to the point of ad nauseam:
    • My research is based on the relationship between the attenuation of talar supinatus and its' impact on the prenatal/cartilagenous medial column of the foot.
      • Not on talar torsion, but on talar supinatus
      • Not on the skeletally mature human foot, but on the prenatal cartilaginous foot
      • Not on the human foot, only on the embryological medial column of the foot
    It seems that Simon is flummoxed.

    Let's get a reading from the nearly 2600 views on this discussion.
    • Simply reply Prenatal if you understand that my research is based on the relationship between the unwinding of talar supinatus and its' impact on the medial column of the foot, prenatally.
    • Simply reply Postnatal if you are under the impression, as apparently Simon is, that my research is based on the relationship between talar torsion and it’s impact on the skeletally mature human forefoot
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021 at 6:51 PM
  9. No Brian, semantics are all you have “talar head supination” is it now, it’s been called talar torsion since it was first described by Straus, long before your ego got involved. Define a “Rothbart foot”? Not interested in the skeletally mature foot, really Brian? Ffs. No data to support your position, at least two that say NO. Again Brian, the day a charlatan like you will flumax me will be a long cold day in hell.

    and all of a sudden he was no longer prescribing snake oil “proprioceptive” wedges to skeletally mature adults… go figure the non-science espoused by, the tangled web woven by Rothbart: it’s incredible, no really: it’s incredible; go figure

    All of sudden Brian’s theory is only about the embryologic foot. So hold tight folks he’ll be offering advice to expectant parents re: “Rothbarts foot” at some website soon, somewhere.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021 at 7:08 PM
  10. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Well, we have Simon's vote. Let's add to that tally.
    • My vote is Prenatal
     
  11. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Come on Simon. You must know that:
    • The term talar supinatus is used when referring to the twist in the talar head and neck in the prenatal foot.
    • The term talar torsion is used when referring to the twist in the talar head and neck in the postnatal foot.
    Simon, have you taken any post baccalaureate course in Human Embryology? I only ask this question based on some of your prior surprising statements - again asked in all due deference to your educational pedigree.
     
  12. And if it’s unobservable in the adult foot and only in the embryo?
    brian, your theory and “paradigm” is based around your so called “Rothbart foot”, which as far as I can be arsed in considering is linked to a foot structure that is observable and measurable, according to you, in the adult, skeletally mature population, thus talar torsion is the accurate term by your definitions above.Are you seriously now resorting to the notion that your theory only applies to the embryonic foot? If it only applies to the embryonic foot: who cares?
     
  13. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    No Simon, according to Researchgate, they counted at least 196 citations in peer reviewed journals on my research. If you call that semantics, than so be it.
     
  14. I call that an inability to counter the arguments put to you
     
  15. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Simon, anyone who has the legal authority to prescribe foot interventions (surgical or otherwise), should care!
     
  16. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Simon, your position is noted. But is vastly outweighed by the reseachers accessing and citing my research in their peer reviewed publications.

    And specifically what arguments have you made that have not been addressed?
     
  17. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Where did that come from? Not from anything I wrote. In fact, as I stated in this discussion, the RFS is measured directly using PMSv test, or indirectly using CPA or KBT.

    Simon, I am starting to get the impression you are just trying to be argumentative and not really interested in having an honest exchange of ideas.
     
  18. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Simon, you still have not answered my question.

    If you have not taken any accredited post grad course(s) in embryology, that would explain many of your baffling and abstruse statements.
     
  19. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Simon, any more acerbic, trenchant remarks. I am all ears.
     
  20. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    Brian ,can you describe your foot types ,as found in an adult, without referring to your own constructs ( tests etc ) ?
     
  21. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Already asked and done.
     
  22. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    That's great Brian . So what I am looking for ,should you decide to provide it , is a list of 1 through to 4, laid out thus .

    Rothbart's foot classification .
    Class 1 - Description of foot leaving out any terminology you have coined yourself ,tests you have invented yourself or mentions of embryology .
    Class 2 - as above
    Class 3 - as above
    Class 4 -as above

    I greatly look forward to reading this simpler version of your classification and have no problems favoring your system if it makes sense .
     
  23. efuller

    efuller MVP

    We are trying to explain angular motion so the appropriate law is Moment = moment of inertia x angular acceleration. Moment = force x distance.

    The problem with the terms gravity drive pronation and hip drive pronation is that there is implication of where the moment comes from. The evidence shows that what you call hip drive pronation is actually caused by body weight and ground reactive force.

    Brian you should read your own 2002 paper where you said, "three hundred and seventeen patients were measured with microwedges (Fig. 7).
    Three hundred and six (96.5%) demonstrated an RFS..." Ok I was off by a couple of percent, but 96% of feet are abnormal??? You can question of the quality of the research. Yes you said that you don't use the microwedges anymore, but since you said that you posted a picture of how to use a microwedge (which would imply that you still use it) and re-posted the paper (that you feel is obsolete.) Come on Brian, get your story straight.

    Brian, your discussion, so far, is not a convincing argument that your foot types are different Root's. Your unwillingness to defend the idea that they are different speaks volumes. Both yours and Root's foot types discuss compensation from subtalar joint neutral position. I would attempt to compare them side by side, but you keep wavering on your definition and how you measure foot types. If you really wanted to convince use that your foot types were different you would post them side by side and show where they are different.

    Specious: having a false look of truth or genuineness
    apocryphal: of doubtful authenticity : spurious

    Brian your statement "From the above discussions and review of the embryological record, this contestation is so overtly specious and apocryphal, that IMO requires no further comment. Eric, I say this with no intent to criticize you or to be condescending." is both criticism and condescending. Should we take your words seriously?
     
  24. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Eric,

    As I have already said, I understand your position. My only intent was to describe my research (published and clinical) on this forum. Not to convince you, or anyone, to ascribe to it.

    As with all new ideas, there are critics and believers. I am no exception.
     
  25. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    The embryonic development of the prenatal foot, now being taught in over 200 colleges in the United States (See Development of the Apendicular Skeleton) is identical to what I have presented in this discussion.

    Where my research divagates (veers) and expands upon the embryology taught to college students is:
    1. Based on our understanding of fetalgenesis, I have identified two congenital aberrated foot structures present in the postnatal population (PCFD and RFS)
    2. Established the algorithms used to diagnosis PCFD and RFS
    3. Published on the pathogenesis linked to the PCFD and RFS
    4. Presented a course of action to reverse the pathology
     
  26. scotfoot

    scotfoot Well-Known Member

    That's great Brian . So what I am looking for ,should you decide to provide it , is a list of 1 through to 4, laid out thus .

    Rothbart's foot classification .
    Class 1 - Description of foot leaving out any terminology you have coined yourself ,tests you have invented yourself or mentions of embryology .
    Class 2 - as above
    Class 3 - as above
    Class 4 -as above

    I greatly look forward to reading this simpler version of your classification and have no problems favoring your system if it makes sense .
     
  27. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Well-Known Member

    Again, in all deference and with no intent of sarcasm (I have written this preamble more than once, to be absolutely sure that my intent is not misunderstood), what you suggest above is an Oxymoron.

    Embryology is the foundation in which the understanding of PCFD and RFS are derived. Defining PCFD and RFS without embryological reference, is like asking a cook to prepare a well done roast without using fire.

    As far as the terminology I have coined (e.g., BioImplosion, Gravity drive pronation, PCFD, RFS, etc.), this was a necessity in order to present my novel foot paradigm.

    And again, whether the readers of this discussion "favor" or not my research, is NOT my objective for initiating this discussion. My intent is to discuss my work (answer questions), no more, no less.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021 at 9:58 AM

Share This Page