The Best Foot Type?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Theoretical Clinical Question # 5
What is the best performing, best functioning, least injury prone Foot Type? (Define the Ideal Foot)

"The capability to operate on a foot or fabricate an orthotic that could change a patients foot for the better is my personal theoretical goal as a practitioner.
Until I define that "Healthy and Fit Foot, and develop treatment tools that makes that foot healthier and more fit, I must wait for my patients to break down, deform, reduce activity or develop pain before I can offer them care and sadly, I am offering them band-aids and not a cure".
Dennis Shavelson, D.P.M.

It all starts with defining The Ideal Foot.
Dennis

 

Why does there have to be an "ideal" or "best" foot type?

I thought we were moving on from that sorts of definitions towards those that falk about forces (I know CP loves to keep reminding us that its the forces that do the damage to the tissues).

I recall an old thread about defining normal ("best") foot being one with forces low enough not to produce tissue damage.

 

My theoretical question was”
What is the best performing, best functioning, least injury prone Foot Type? (Define the Ideal Foot)[/B]

I even further defined it as The Ideal Foot so as not to confuse it with a Normal Foot!

I am not referring to a Normal Foot! In my opinion, Normal Feet are not the best functioning, the best performing and the least injury prone feet.

In Scherers Classification System in Valmasseys Text, there are nine foot types and the Normal Foot Type was neither pronated or supinated in Root neutral Position, rearfoot or forefoot. This system had no clinical applications and that it why it is vestigial and its Normal Foot is Not Ideal, clinically.
In Functional Foot Typing, there are sixteen foot types and The Normal Foot Type has a vertical Rearfoot SERM Test and a level Forefoot SERM Test.
However this normal foot, like Scherers when overused or impacted by additional forces like weight, age, poor fitness. Etc, developes deformities, poor performance issues, overuse and pain syndrome issues and therefore is NOT The Ideal Foot Type. It is a less than perfect rigid lever, a less than perfect flexible adaptor and a poor morpher. It does not react to pronatory and supinatory moments or 1st ray dorsiflexion stiffness moments successfully over a lifetime or when overused.

In the referenced thread “The Normal Foot”, Dr. Tom Novella posted:
“I believe a normal foot is one which successfully contributes to the individual's ability to maintain an asymptomatic equilibrium while engaging in necessary weight bearing activities. In addition, this normal foot should enable the individual to gradually adapt, under reasonably accelerating circumstances, to desired overuse activities within the obvious restrictions of their foot and body type”.
His definition is more like the one I am asking for as it does not ask for “Normalcy” it calls ffor an Ideal, foot type-specific.

I totally agree that Normal Feet develop pathology and performance issues and that is why its definition has little to no clinical appeal for me.
If I knew what the Ideal Foot is, I could use that as a model for developing improved treatment protocols.

Eliminating abnormal pronatory, supinatory and dorsiflexion stiffnes moments for me, is great care but could be improved upon.
I am simply asking What is The Ideal Foot Type that would respond “perfectly” to an orthotic that reduces or eliminates these moments.
Dennis

 

??????????

No response to a "Best Foot Type" after over 100 visits to the thread?


OK,

The Best Foot Type is a
Rigid Rearfoot, Flexible Forefoot Functional Foot Type, whose extrinsic and core intrinsic muscles are trained.

This is not a Normal Foot Type which wouldf be the
Syable rearfoot, stable forefoot, foot type.
Look for another theoretical on a new thread.
Dennis