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.

Forefoot angle determines duration and amplitude of pronation during walking

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by NewsBot, Nov 3, 2012.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Forefoot angle determines duration and amplitude of pronation during walking
    Gail M. Monaghane, Cara L. Lewis, Wen-Hao Hsu, Elliot Saltzman, Joseph Hamill, Kenneth G. Holt
    Gait & Posture; Article in Press
     
  2. Andrew Ayres

    Andrew Ayres Active Member

    Is it possible to get the full paper any where? Please.
     
  3. Mert Root's revenge on all of us!;)
     
  4. I've been trying to get my head around it from the abstract in isolation.

    They state: "clinical foot angle, the relationship between the foot and an axis extrinsically defined relative to the ground, was calculated from digital photographs taken in a prone position."

    ?????


    "During three speeds of over-ground walking, we measured frontal plane rearfoot and forefoot angle relative to the ground at foot contact"

    OK so it's the angle the forefoot makes to the ground at foot contact- forefoot contact or heel contact? I'm guessing most will be in inverted positions. Isaacs, this is the interface angle we discussed some time ago...


    "and the following stance phase kinematic measures: amplitude of rearfoot and forefoot eversion, duration of rearfoot and forefoot eversion, and duration between heel-off and onset of rearfoot and forefoot inversion. We found that the clinical forefoot angle predicted the forefoot angle at foot contact. Individuals with a large inversion forefoot angle at contact also had greater amplitude of forefoot eversion and everted longer during stance."

    So, those that had a forefoot which was inverted more to the ground at foot strike, everted further and over a longer time period than a foot which was inverted by a lesser degree to the ground at foot strike... well duh!

    Am I missing something?

    Take two identical cubes, lift one up so that it rotates about one of its edges such that that the bottom face of the cube is angled at 10 degrees to the floor, now take the other cube and rotate it so that it's bottom face makes an angle of 45 degrees with the floor. Release both cubes at the same time- which one rotates through more degrees to settle back on the ground? Assuming the two cubes have the same mass and dimensions which one takes longer in time to reach the ground? Really, am I missing something because this sounds like a no brainer to me?

    And how does this predict pathology?
     
  5. Griff just sent me the paper. On first read I see a whole host of potential problems with the technique they employed to assess what they termed: "clinical foot angle, the relationship between the foot and an axis extrinsically defined relative to the ground, was calculated from digital photographs taken in a prone position."

    Thanks Ian.
     
  6. I also read the paper. What is interesting is that, in 1992, I was one of the researchers in a biomechanical study done at the University of California Mechanical Engineering Department which was published in the Journal of Biomechanics on the mechanical effects of certain structural measurements on the knee joint loads during seated cycling (Ruby P, Hull ML, Kirby KA, Jenkins DW: The effect of lower-limb anatomy on knee loads during seated cycling. J Biomech, 25 (10): 1195-1207, 1992).

    For this study, I developed a few separate measurements, very similar to the "forefoot to end of table measurement", which this most recent study by Monagahn et al also used in their study, in order to find a "plantar plane of forefoot to ground measurement" that would correlate to knee joint loads during cycling. In addition, our 1992 paper was the first ever published study to describe a method of quantification of the subtalar joint axis location in the biomechanics literature and to analyze the effects of STJ axis location on lower extremity function. I did the STJ axis, forefoot to ground measurements and other non-weightbearing measurements for the study and David Jenkins, DPM, did the weightbearing measurements for the study.

    I am attaching an illustration of the two forefoot to ground measurements we did for the study which clearly shows that they are very similar to the measurements used by Monagahn et al. In our study from 20 years ago (Ruby et al), the one measurement that was found to correlate the most to knee joint loads during seated cycling was the relationship of the plantar forefoot to the transverse plane when the subtalar joint was in the neutral position. From what I can tell, this measurement is very similar to the one done by Monagahn et al in their study.
     
  7. Here is the paper from the Journal of Biomechanics from 20 years ago that I was talking about (Ruby P, Hull ML, Kirby KA, Jenkins DW: The effect of lower-limb anatomy on knee loads during seated cycling. J Biomech, 25 (10): 1195-1207, 1992). The forefoot to ground relationship with the subtalar joint in neutral best predicted knee joint loads during cycling. I believe this measurement parameter was very similar to that done in the recent study by Monaghan et al.
     
Loading...

Share This Page