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. Sponsored Content: The Interpod Keystone for measuring supination resistance. Read about it here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. 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.

Which podiatry articles / papers / books etc have had the biggest impact on your professional career

Discussion in 'Teaching and Learning' started by Rob7, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Rob7

    Rob7 Welcome New Poster


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Hi all,

    I'm currently in my second year as a podiatry student and I'm currently finding that a lot of things are suddenly beginning to make sense!

    I was wondering - as professional or student podiatrist, which particular piece of research, journal article, book or similar has made the biggest impact to you in your career to date?

    Cheers,
    Rob
     
  2. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    God strike me down for this - but it has to be Root volume 2. Even though now I have publicly disagreed with much of its scientifica basis, it must be read in the context of the day. It day was 30 years ago, about the time that the silicon chip hit the world. Notwithstanding that, the realisation that 2-4 million yo prehuman fossil foot bones revealed morphometric ghosts of our genetics - our developmental history, was the biggest epiphany of my life.
     
  3. Griff

    Griff Moderator

  4. Barry Onion

    Barry Onion Member

    By far and away the greatest influence on my life has been Born to Run by Chris McDougall.

    It simply makes sense that we were born to go barefoot.:good:
     
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    The only impact that this book had on me was to make me realise just how many people are that gullible that they actually fell for the nonsensical manipulation, misinterpretation and misquoting of pseudoscience. It was a work of fiction. Obviously, you fell for it as well.

    BTW, if barefoot is so good, why are we seeing so many injuries in those doing it? The injury rate in barefoot/minimalist runners is probably 10x, if not 100x greater than shod runners. This whole trend is an economic stimulus package for those that treat running injuries.

    BTW, we were born to do a lot of other things that we don't do now. Why single out barefoot? What about all the other things?
     
  6. pod29

    pod29 Active Member

    Craig

    Barry might take a while to answer that question. He's out trying to catch a rabbit with his "bare" hands for dinner, while his wife is trying to start a fire with 2 sticks.:pigs:
     
  7. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Spoke to someone the other day who said something similiar to this.

    I drew their attention to the fact that they sat at their desk for 9 hours a day, then drove home in their Ford Focus car with a bluetooth headset plugged in just incase their wife called them whilst driving. Once home, they slipped into their Nike Dri-Fit running kit, took their i-Pod off charge and then went for a barefoot run. They are clearly living a completely "natural" and paleolithic lifestyle....duh....

    Another spectacular irony for me is the barefoot brigade who bark on about being 'the way nature intended' or 'the way we were born', but inform us all of this from their android phones on media such as Facebook and Twitter.
     
  8. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    My new years resolution is to be a barenaked practitioner........because I was born that way which is the way nature intended.

    I expect my pratice to fourish(I can bench about 220lb)
     
  9. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    I weighed 220lb once......
     
  10. N.Knight

    N.Knight Active Member

    Also surely, as nature intended, concrete paths and roads were not around. It was all mud and wild bush, which correct me if I am wrong the impact forces shall be a lot lower

    Book wise if you want understanding of basic MSK and Sport conditions, I would recommend, Clinical Sports Medicine by Peter Brukner and Karim Khan.

    Nick
     
  11. The turkey we had at Christmas was about that too.
     
  12. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    I'm not sure this has ever been shown. We know from Nigg's work (and others) that shoe midsole hardness does not seem to influence impact forces. And the neuromuscular control mechanisms which keep external impact forces constant have also been documented. Therefore could we assume there won't be a significant difference in magnitude or loading rate of impact forces when running on concrete Vs mud?

    Never been a fan of this book personally, although I know many are.
     
  13. Barry Onion

    Barry Onion Member

    Agree entirely, it's not the surface that controls the impact it's the structure of the foot, ankle, leg, knee and hip kinetic chain that works synergistically to minimise the impact forces. Humans have evolved to run barefoot on hard surfaces, such as when lunch decided to take a trot over rock or baked hard clay pans.:good:
     
  14. man0os

    man0os Welcome New Poster

    I think humans can run on rocky, hard surfaces, but I don't think their feet likes it a lot.
    I could climb a cactus if I needed to, but I would look for other solutions first.
     
  15. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran


    No evidence that this is so. Look around - the human foot has evolved for support/ambulation on a variety of surfaces, of which hard and flat is only one.

    You may like to consider (really, the whole"bare foot running is better" supposition is ridiculous - I'm only posting because I have some time to kill) that the human frame and brain also evolved at the same time as the foot, giving us the ability to throw a projectile or send a dog out after lunch if it took a trot over rock or baked hard clay pans:empathy:. Efficiency is a keyword here.

    Back on topic, Prof Robb Kidd wrote a paper a looooooong time ago questioning some commonly-held biomech concepts of the time. It had Conerstone in the title. Maybe Robb could let us have the full ref?

    It opened my eyes for sure.

    Other than that I had an epiphany moment when I first saw the fossil lower limbs of Nariokatome Boy (also called Turkana Boy), along with a skeleton of Gorilla Gorilla which someone had wired to stand upright (poor thing).
     
  16. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    MMmmmm. I was invited to a lunch once, together with several colleagues - the lunch was put on by my Dean in the College of Science. He opened the procedings by saying - "You are all here because you have stood up to be counted". Before I could move my lips, my Rosalind said - "and yes, he has been shot on many occasions". Look guys, Corner stones was published in the UK journal in 1991. It was very badly written, and I do a load better now (it was publication number 2 of what I think is now about 150 [though the majority are nothing to do with podiatry]). However, I stand by every word. At the time, the podiatric world was divided into two - those that wanted me put down, and those that said something like "at last someone has the balls to stand up and say something". It was the first of many such publications designed to make people think hard about what they were doing - to question hard accepted dogma. In that respect, I believe I was right. I mean - for goodness sake - it was the embryo of this arena (though that was not obvious at the time). The full ref is (about) - Questioning some of the more common cornerstones of modern podfiatric diagnosis, and was in the UK journal in about August 1991. I do remember that is so ****** off Tim Kilmartin that he wrote a letter to the journal suggesting that it not be regarded as a publication.....but that was 20 years ago.

    You mention epiphany moments - of several, the one that hit me between the eyes was the realisation that the genetics of foot evolution was demonstrable (with the aid of some complex canonical variates analysis) in the fossil record.

    Thanks for the vote David - I get about 1 positive for every 50 negative.
     
  17. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Kidd R. An examination of the validity of some of the more questionable cornerstones of modern chiropodial diagnosis. J Br Podiatr Med Assoc 1991; (9):192 pp172-173.
     
  18. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    To put this into context, in the early days (late 70's into the 80's) many pods, certainly in the UK but probably in Aus and USA too, simply accepted the biomech dogma of the time.

    In fairness to the podiatry profession in the UK, very few pods here had registered or completed a degree, so perhaps our collective enquiring, scientific mindset had yet to develop. However I do remember strange looks from colleagues at one gathering when I voiced the opinion that it seemed odd that all my patients (I mean ALL) presented with a biomech anomily or dysfunction according to Dr Root et al. It was only much later, when I had the opportunity to study over 100 normal subjects using sound methodology that I had personal confirmation that some of the founding biomech work was flawed.

    Rob, as far as I know, was the first author to have the courage to put into print what some of us had suspected for a while. Well done also to the SCP (I don't often say that) for having the courage to print it. Saying that, I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the Editorial Committee didn't realise what they were publishing............

    Not to knock Dr Root and colleagues work. I feel privileged to have been around and involved in biomech in the early days, and for all part of the work may have been flawed, we pods involved with biomech also had some great successes utilising and applying the then up-to-the-minute biomech teaching.
     
  19. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    My Goodness me! Two complements in one year - and its only January 3rd! To be absolutely clear: my writings have never been personal, and I never criticised Root, nor any of his colleagues in person. I have been known to take the odd shark bite out of outrageous, unreferenced, untenable statements, but again, they are not personal. What I dig at is doctrine, unsupported by science. And it is simply not good enough to say that it must be true - we all see it......... but I have said that already. Two issues:1) the truth, 2) the perception of the truth. Not always the same thing colleagues. Rob
     
  20. Hi folks

    Does anyone have the article from Kidd (1991) "An examination of the validity of some of the more questionable cornerstones of modern chiropodial diagnosis"?

    Kindest
    Jose M.
     
  21. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I have a pre-publication copy somewhere in the archives, should be the best offer that you get. As said above, it was a lousy paper, and would go straight file 13 if it was sent today to any refereed journal; however, at the time, it needed saying. As always in my life, I could said it with more tact, but, you see, I bombed out of tact and diplomacy 101. As my mentor said to me, about a million years ago: "education is best defined as that process that brings about a permanent change in behaviour". this was 1991, we have all come a long way since then. Rob
     
  22. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    If you do manage to dig it out, if appreciate a look at it of possible please. Thanks
     
  23. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    OK, against my better judgement I have trawled the vault and found this - a decided pre-publication version. Please, please read all comments above before shouting at me. I look at this and cringe - but we all develop.

    If it made people stop and think, well good, but it is 1/4 of a century ago - I had hair then, and no grandkids - I now have 5. Rob

    View attachment cornerstones.pdf

    As a matter on interest, the attachment process seems odd - I will try again if it does not work
     
  24. Thanks for that Rob. I appreciate it. I'll have a read.
    Have a great day!

    Best wishes
    Jose
     
  25. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Rob,

    I am confused ... you have five hairs or five grandkids? (ya, smartass I know) :)

    I agree with the upload issue and had to give up a few times. I thought this site was to be upgraded but I guess that's a monumental undertaking.

    Why Dr. Kilmartin, back in the day, might be angry about your comments mystifies me. He also lectured about the failings of the contemporary orthotic approach on the back of his PhD thesis on bunions. Perhaps your article pre-dates his own findings. I am getting old and forget the chronological sequence......

    I really want to say thanks for making available that paper. We can all appreciate and put into context the limitation of the day as well as the clarity of vision provided by hindsight. But historical papers such as this are wonderful to have and read.
     
  26. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Well I do not know for definite. All I can say is that I was in Western Australia by then (publication), about July 1991. Tim wrote a letter to the editorial board of the UK journal that was a bit dismissive not to put too finer point on it); there is no point in arguing about this, it is there in the fossil record, for all to see. I say again, my publication was very shallow, but it did need saying; I have no regrets saying it. What I wish, is that I had today's skills in doing that. What was required was science, at least better writing of.
     
  27. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Rob,

    I took a look to know what Tim might have said, but the SOCAP online archives go back only to 2008. It's a matter of historical curiosity only. And, IMHO, your comments are not so shallow but got to the heart of, and encapsulate, what many others since investigated and wrote about.

    As an aside, and for what its' worth I agree that Root Vol.II deserves to be read and understood. In my 7 years of life in the US I have not yet met a Podiatry student who owns a copy, much less has read the volume. A good many haven't even heard of Root, Orien & Weed. Yes, aspects of this work have been called into doubt but don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

    The publication contains, to this day, core foundation knowledge and understanding of importance. No other single publication has yet matched, replaced or provided as comprehensive an update to this work.

    In addition, Dr. Kirby's four books (collection of newsletters) are an invaluable aid to the biomechanical / orthoses oriented practitioner and may well represent the definitive segway from Root et al. to contemporary knowledge and understanding.

    Some would criticize this cook-book approach, butI am also a fan of Dr. Scherer's work and his pathology oriented textbook.

    Best,
     
  28. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I gave my copy of Root (2) to the School of Pod in Johannesburg - they could not afford one. If you trawl right back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that I made comment that is was the text that most influenced me. That does not mean I agree with it now - on part or in whole.
     
  29. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Rob, PM me your address and I will send you the book. Much has changed since then but a seminal work.
    Best regards,
    Jeff
     
  30. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Rob, and that's ok but here's the deal. In the same way that Root, Orien & Weed influenced you, it can similarly influence new practitioners. The student needs to understand the history to understand better where we are, now. At the same time, if you find yourself in the educational business (or even as a practitioner) what WOULD you use as a source reference, if not Root, Orien & Weed. We're not yet in that place to abandon this fabulous volume in its' entirety, unless you can tell me of a different, better resource. All that followed, did so on the back of this work. Plus, there are still a good many gems within the work. Just my opinion. Dr. Kirby has done a fabulous job to re-direct our language and thought process, but did so also on the back of this benchmark work, and to the best of my knowledge, no school has yet made a wholesale shift over to another system - although this might be overdue! (please correct me, Dr. Kirby, if this is inaccurate)
     
  31. I am forever indebted to Mert Root, John Weed and Bill Orien for publishing their three books which I read cover to cover during my podiatry school and Biomechanics Fellowship days from 1979-1985. In addition, I am happy that Tom Sgarlato published the Compendium, even though much of this material was Mert Root's lecture notes from CCPM and were published without Dr. Root's permission (from what I have been told).

    That being said, I don't agree with everything in either of those books and definitely don't agree with many of the things I was taught at CCPM regarding foot and lower extremity biomechanics. But, without my education from CCPM and those books that all gave me a better understanding of foot biomechanics, I probably would have never been able to obtain the level of comprehension that was required in order for me to further add to the knowledge-base of the international podiatric profession.

    As a podiatry student and Biomechanics Fellow, I was also heavily influenced by the early books and research of Benno Nigg, Peter Cavanagh, and John Hicks, to name a few. These individuals had a true physics approach to foot biomechanics that I could immediately see was lacking in much of Root, Weed and Orien's books and my education at CCPM. After reading the works of Nigg, Cavanagh and Hicks especially during my Biomechanics Fellowship, I immediately began to see how foot biomechanics should be taught, using the terminology of the international biomechanics community, and not using "podiatric-specific" terminology that was tautological, vague, ambiguous and not mathematically-quantifiable. In that regard, I spent many, many hours at the CCPM library reading older foot biomechanics research papers which, at the time (early 1980s), were not very numerous. Also, since this was pre-internet, my knowledge was gained by copying papers and book chapters, or buying the books, and doing lots of reading. These were truly the early days of foot and lower extremity biomechanics.

    All in all, my belief is that we should not discredit individuals such as Mert Root, John Weed and Bill Orien since they did a great service for podiatry by publishing their books. In science and medicine, we can never rightfully take claim for something new without acknowledging those who came before us, who helped pave the way, and who gave us the proper foundation of knowledge that allowed new knowledge to be discovered. The famous quote from Sir Isaac Newton very much applies here: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
     
  32. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I totally agree with you
     
  33. N.Smith

    N.Smith Active Member

    Anything on tissue stress. It's not always about, what it looks like but more to do with, if the tissues can handle the forces being placed on them. You can look like Quasimodo and have no pain...maybe even a good athlete. Or have the body of Usain Bolt and struggle with pain. If the forces placed on the tissues go outside their ZOOS, you'll get pain. The push, (compressive force) pull, (tensile force)or rub, (shear force) of pain. Quasi has a big zone, Usain, small, so you can't always see it!

    Neil
     
  34. Have enjoyed this paper for many reasons over the years: http://www.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/jbjsbr/44-B/3/642.full.pdf right now, I'm thinking about tibio-talar coupling... The work of Gordon Rose has always surpassed that of Merton Root in my opinion. I just think he was further ahead of his contemporary; In-vivo bone pin studies in 1962..

    Seriously I'm at about 220 now. (Sorry for the in-joke).
     
Loading...

Share This Page