Forefoot Valgus

I haven't bisected a leg in 20+ years. Are you still doing that? Are you Jeff?
With what proof? What EBM?

My application for patent used that as a starting position in honor of Dr Root and his magnificent work.

It was changed in arguments with the US Patent office early on when the examiners
brought up the same point as you have now and I explained that it was simply a random position that everyone in biomechanics knew and wouldn't argue over.

As I have explained before, your basis of knowledge of my work is a patent application that is six years old and meant to gain a patent and not to educate someone like you on a science. Ask a patent attorney.
You no nothing about patents as I advised earlier.

SERM-PERM can actually start form anywhere within the ROM of the STJ of any foot, or first ray, or 5th ray for that matter (yes there are other SERM-PERM tests that you don't yet know about).

Unlike TS which is relatively stagnant clinically IMHO, Foot Centering continues to grow and upgrade by leaps and bounds with clinical success.

In my example, I'm using a vertical bisection of the back of the foot as in the hands of the clock as an understandable starting point.

We all know that leg bisections have been proven totally fallable, irreproducible and of having no applicability clinically or in EBM. Why are you still using it? Jeff?

Even Jeff used the word theoretically when he posted trying to explain tibia varum to me.
THEORETICALLY (having no proof).

I, as you have done to me, reject your tibia varum explanation as having no applicability in clinical bi0omechanics unless you are focused on frontal plane rearfoot correction and I being foot type specific only utilize frontal plane care in two rearfoot types (can you guess which). Otherwise, I use sagittal plane and transverse plane rearfoot vaulting.

Summarily, tibia varum is a red herring IMHO and of no clinical import.

So using the clock hands (which are real and reproducible eliminating error, please explain tibia varum and its importance i a clinical sense.


So please proceed from that point if you can.

Dennis

 

We are quite different, you and I Eric.

You state that the fix for biomechanics for students and the schools is:

"My answer for the chaos of multiple theories is that students should be given a concise one page description of each theory and then be told to start asking questions".

I applaud that stand.

Then you state:
"The reason that I would not include functional foot typing is that the one page description would not have enough information".

I good sir, would have no problem putting my one page explanation on the table when the time comes.

The difference between you and I is that I would welcome any and all who believe their theory adds even one iota to the common knowledge including Tissue Stress.
I fear that your version of the table would have but one page, yours.

If we get our wish and the schools open their academic minds to allow biomechanics to flourish, I hope you are not sitting in judgement unchecked as you do here on The Arena.

Dennis

 

Eric:
Thank you for verifying that RF SERM Position relative to the leg is unwavering, theoretically.
That means a great deal to my work's validation.

But when you state:
"there will be a change of the heel position of SERM relative to the ground" implying that this is due to tibia varum influence makes no sense.
If the leg SERM relationship is maintained, how could it change relative to the leg when weighted as a tibia varum influence?

I maintain the change in the STJ rearfoot relationship to the ground is not occurring as a frontal plane correction to tibia varum since the ERM in SERM is E nd R ange of M otion. There simply is none left.

I theorize that foot type specific, the closed chain collapse you reference exists but is coming from medial plantar soft tissue pad collapse, STJ sagittal plane rearfoot collapse, STJ transverse plane rearfoot collapse, lateral column 5th ray sagittal plane collapse and medial column sagittal plane 1st ray collapse and/or combinations of them.

Dennis

 

Dennis, what are you waiting for. On the one hand you complain that we haven't examined your theories and on the other hand you refuse to complete your paradigm. The complaint I have against functional foot typing is that there is no rationale for treatment related to different foot types. Dennis, why would anyone want to type a foot if it never changed their treatment?

Eric

 

See what I mean Bruce.

Dennis

 

Eric:

I honestly don't know why you still bother.....:deadhorse::craig::bang: