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.

Foundational Wellness Biomechanics: 2011 Abstract

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by drsha, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    In response to requests, I am posting a foundational abstract of Wellness Biomechanics updated for 2011.

    The Foot Centering Theory
    The Foot Centering Theory of Biomechanics is based on the functional dynamic arches and the vault of the foot. In Valmassy’s 1996 text on biomechanics, Dr. Paul Scherer wrote a chapter introducing a classification system for typing feet into one of nine foot types. This classification fell short in clinical relevance and in its ability to classify all feet. The Functional Foot Typing (FFT) System, the foundation of Foot Centering, upgrades Dr. Scherer’s work into a profiling system that serves as the starting platform for Modern Biomechanics.

    The paradigm considers both structure and function as variables to consider when working with functional lower extremity biomechanics (FLEB).

    FFT profiles feet, before or after developing pathology, into one of 16 functional foot types (90% + fall into Five Common FFT’s). Each subgroup is composed of subjects with individual complaints and biomechanical needs sharing common characteristics that allow practicing professionals to offer better outcomes and expanded services that Subtalar Joint Neutral Casting and Prescribing, the current “gold standard” in The United States cannot.

    Although Wellness Biomechanics incorporates Architecture, Mechanics, Engineering and Physics into its science as do all paradigms of Functional Lower Extremity Biomechanics, Wellness Biomechanics chooses to utilize Architectural Terminology as much as possible as a language that can make greater numbers understand biomechanics reducing the mainstream biomechanics language that although it is understood by researchers and those well versed in Physics, etc, has confused professionals, academicians and the foot suffering public alike for decades.

    After dividing the foot into three sections: a rearfoot pillar, a forefoot pillar and the digits, the model contends that the rearfoot and forefoot pillars can function as separate mobile units or they can unite at their apex, or keystone, as a supportive unit. When united, they form The Vault of the Foot, that by position, determines the supportive foundation and leverage that the bony structure of the foot provides to the foot and the rest of the posture in closed chain. Unlike Root, the goal of foot centering is to place the foot in each patients Optimal Functional Position (OFP) and not in cookbook fashion into Subtalar Joint Neutral Position.

    The dynamic arches of the foot are viewed as inherently faulted biomechanically due to the following properties, foot type-specific:
    • The pillars of the dynamic arches of the foot are not symmetrical.
    • The bones are of different size, shape and density.
    • The keystone is off-center.
    • The foundational pillar areas of the bases of the dynamic arches are unequal.
    • The pillars of the dynamic arches are not balanced to the three body planes.
    • The pillars that form the dynamic arches are not balanced to each other.
    • The two feet are not balanced to each other.

    If the dynamic arches of the foot were architectural (composed of symmetrical pillars, a centered keystone and proportional bones), they would support very well but they would not flex to accomplish the activities of daily living. Every pair of feet, inherit their FFT and live on a biomechanical timeline that predicts their ability to perform sophisticated movements and functionality as well as their precursor tendency to weaken, degenerate, deform and develop pain and overuse syndromes unless actively treated biomechanically on a case to case basis.

    Not unlike the vascular or neurological status, the biomechanical status is assessed before rendering care or addressing chief complaints to any group of patients because by foot type, one or both pillars can be rigid and supportive, flexible and adaptive, or any combination of the two and until this is determined, the variables of treating all patients from Subtalar Joint Neutral Position or from a Pathology Specific or Tissue Stressed randomly selected by each practitioner instead of Optimal Functional Position reduces a practitioners ability to diagnose, treat and research the complaints that develop as a result of underlying biomechanical pathology.

    Foot Centering differs from Roots concepts primarily because it takes into account that there are so many daily functions that do not involve loading the rearfoot first. Consider for a moment static stance, backward movement, side-to-side movement and up-and-down movement using Root theory, and one realizes it is lacking. Elderly diabetics, for instance, rarely walk much distance in their daily lives. Instead, they stand in one place or antalgically maneuver about their apartments.

    The basic tenets of Foot Centering emphasize the need for maximum balance and support of feet at all times and can be summarized as follows:

    • The vault of the foot is inherently faulted and needs Optimal Functional Positioning, Foot Type-specific with or without the use of props or training.
    • The rearfoot pillar needs to be centered to the three body planes.
    • The forefoot pillar needs to be centered to the three body planes.
    • The rearfoot and forefoot pillars need to be centered to each other.
    • The foundational area of the bases of the two pillars of any arch should be equal.
    • The two feet need to be balanced to each other and the muscle engines must be well leveraged and capable of functioning in phase and with power.

    The Functional Foot Typing System
    The FFT system is predicated upon two positional open chain measurements of the rearfoot and two positional open chain measurements of the forefoot that provide diagnostic information about the state of the dynamic arches of the foot and the vault of the foot as they perform in closed chain. All tests are referenced from subtalar joint congruity with upward pressure under the fifth metatarsal head equal to ground reactive force (GRF) as a well known and interpersonally reproducible position in the biomechanics community described by Dr. Root decades ago. They differ from Root’s forefoot/rearfoot testing in that they are independent and do not place emphasis on the rearfoot due to reduced focus on “The Gait Cycle”. The two rearfoot measurements are the subtalar supinatory end range of motion (SERM) test and the subtalar pronatory end range of motion (PERM) test. The two forefoot measurements are the forefoot supinatory end range of motion (SERM) test and the forefoot pronatory end range of motion (PERM) test.

    The Rearfoot SERM Test is recorded as the open kinetic chain position the rearfoot assumes after applying a strong inversion force upon the calcaneus until it can no longer move. There are two possibilities for the Rearfoot SERM Test: inverted or everted. If the rearfoot is tilted toward the medial arch, the Rearfoot SERM is recorded as inverted. If the rearfoot is tilted toward the lateral arch, the Rearfoot SERM position is recorded as everted.
    The Rearfoot Serm Test suggests the position of the weighted foot at the contact phase of gait.

    The Rearfoot PERM Test is recorded as the open kinetic chain position that the rearfoot assumes after applying a strong eversion force on the calcaneus from SERM position until it can no longer move. There are three possibilities for the Rearfoot PERM position: inverted, vertical or everted. If the rearfoot is tilted toward the medial column, the Rearfoot PERM position is inverted. If the Rearfoot is vertical to the ground, the Rearfoot PERM is perpendicular. And if the rearfoot is tilted toward the lateral arch, the Rearfoot PERM position is everted.
    The Rearfoot Perm Test suggests the position of the weighted foot at the early midstance phase of gait.

    The Forefoot SERM position is recorded as the position the first metatarsal head assumes in open chain with reference to a frontal plane bisection of the fifth metatarsal head after applying a strong plantarflectory force downward upon the first metatarsal from above until it can no longer move. There are two possibilities for the Forefoot SERM Test: plantarflexed or dorsiflexed. If the first metatarsal head is positioned below the fifth metatarsal, the Forefoot SERM is recorded as plantarflexed and if the first metatarsal is positioned above the fifth metatarsal, the Forefoot SERM is recorded as dorsiflexed.
    The Forefoot Serm Test suggests the position of the weighted foot at the early midstance phase of gait.

    The Forefoot PERM Test is the position that the first metatarsal assumes in open chain with reference to a frontal plane bisection of the fifth metatarsal head after applying a strong dorsiflexory force upon the first metatarsal from below
    until it can no longer move taken from Forefoot SERM position. There are three possibilities for Forefoot PERM position, plantarflexed, in line or dorsiflexed. If the first metatarsal head is positioned below the fifth metatarsal, the Forefoot PERM is recorded as plantarflexed, if the first metatarsal head is on line with the fifth metatarsal the Forefoot PERM is recorded as on line and if the first metatarsal is positioned above the fifth metatarsal, the Forefoot PERM is recorded as dorsiflexed.
    The Forefoot Serm Test suggests the position of the weighted foot at the end of the heel lift phase of gait.

    In the FFT system, there are four rearfoot and four forefoot types: rigid, stable, flexible and flat. When one plots the four rearfoot types longitudinally and plots the four forefoot types horizontally, there is a 16-box matrix with each box representing a corresponding functional foot type. After determining the rearfoot type and the forefoot type, every foot can be assigned a Functional Foot Type as a starting point to biomechanical care. As with Rootian diagnostics , 90% of all feet can be typed into one of five Common Functional Foot Types (table 1 -- magnify and read attachment).

    Table 1 The Common Functional Foot Types

    Advocates of The Foot Centering Theory state that it expands the diagnostic and treatment capabilities for practitioners of foot biomechanics by using language and concepts that are teachable and easily understood by the public and the
    medical community. Furthermore, they claim they are enjoying increased applicability of biomechanics in Podiatry Practice and renewed clinical success.

    In addition, U.S. Patent Protection is allowing Podiatry, by degree, to be the only profession that can work with this foot typing method, preventing others from claiming to be on a par with Podiatry when it comes to biomechanics.

    Summarily, The Foot Centering Theory of Biomechanics serves as a modern starting platform from which to practice Functional Lower Extremity Biomechanics, on a case to case basis, professionally.
  2. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Those requests must have been off of the arena. This post did not answer many of the questions that I have asked regarding FFT.

    Is a subgroup the same as a foot type? Which groups have which complaints? Nice claim about better outcomes. Why should there be better outcomes by classifying feet into types using this method?

    This foot typing system adds confusion. Confusion is added by abstract concepts like pilars and centerings. If you want to talk about the foot then you should talk about the bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments. Abstract concepts like unlocking of joints (not part of FFT) that don't examine the bones and the ligaments that create the "unlocking" just add confusion. This is my main concern with the use of functional foot typing. It's just adding names to things without doing anything different.

    Wow, what a paragraph. The bolded sentence makes no sense. How is a patients optimal functional position determined? How is a foot placed in its optimal position? How is this not cook book?

    Root et al, have stated that putting the foot in STJ neutral was not their goal. Balancing forefoot to rearfoot relationship yes, but not putting the foot into STJ neutral. Others have been confused by this, but that is not what Root et al said.

    More to come

  3. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Don't these points apply to all feet? How is this foot type specific? It would be much less confusing if bones were named instead of using the term pillars. How do you balance a pillar? How do you tell when a pillar is unbalanced. Is an unbalanced pillar a bad thing? How does an orthotic treat an unbalanced pillar? Dennis, people should not switch to your system unless there are answers to these questions.

    More words. Less meaning.

    Wow, an entire paragraph with many commas and one period. This paragraph sums up FFT quite well. There are a lot of words, but not really a coherent point. Is part of what you are trying to say that in tissue stress we randomly select an anatomical structure to treat? This is just plain wrong.

    More later.

  4. efuller

    efuller MVP

    FFT and centering also differs from Root Neutral position measurements in that Root et al referenced their measurements relative to the ground. If you have a foot with only 5 degrees of eversion to the leg and tibial varum of 8 degrees you could be pretty sure that the STJ was at the end of its range of motion if the heel bisection was 3 degrees inverted (ignoring the possibility of measurement error). The idea of the partially compensated varus is an important one. This concept doesn't even care about neutral position, but it does care about the tibia and the ground. Someone with these measurements is much more lilkely to have sinus tarsi pain because they are functioning at the end of range of motion of the STJ. This is true when walking backwards, forwards and sideways as well. The Root measurements had some relationship with pathology.

    The FFT paradigm looks at supination end of range of motion. FFT does not look at the leg relative to the foot or the ground and loses this information. There has been no explanation of how classifying the position of supination end of range has any relation to pathology.

    Is the fault of the vault related to the angle of the dangle? How do you know if a vault has a fault? How do you know that a foot is in its optimal functional position? How and why do you change an orthosis based on the type of the foot to get the foot into its optimal functional position? How do you center a pillar? Why does a pillar need to be centered? Dennis, do you have answers to any of these questions? Why should anyone measure a foot type using this FFT system if they did not have they answers to these questions?

  5. Dennis you should perhaps write after making such statements - in my opinion.

    Anyway getting to my point.

    So FFT is Bio-Architecture

    And now we are having A debate between Bio-Mechanics and Bio-Architecture (FFT) and this above sentence is saying that Terms in Bio-Mechanics are confusing, but now you introduce a new set terms - terms of Architecture - which reading you post is very confusing to me as I never studied Architecture.

    So what is a Pillar ?

    What is a vault ?

    What makes up the rearfoot, midfoot and forefoot Pillars ?

    Got any pictures of the above pillars when they are normal or abnormal ?

    Got any pictures of the Vault when it is normal or abnormal ?

    What links are there to faulty Pillar or Vault structure and Pathology ?

    and 1 last question how does one know where the body planes of the body are specific enough to know when a Pillar or Vault is faulty during gait ?
  6. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Your exposing the fact that you have "never studied architecture" enables me to better understand why you and possibly other biomechanically wise, passionate and committed practitioners are so resistant to the importance of determining foot type and optimal functional position as the starting platform to practicing biomechanics.

    It explains the tentative comfort so many practitioners of biomechanics have to continue to use Root's Position as their basis for casting orthotics even though they know how unproven, unscientific and flawed it is.

    It has created a school of biomechanics that does the best it could to diagnose and treat feet without using Architecture. One that necessitates Rube Goldberg skill in utilizing ORF's to control and offset moments and stiffness, torques and frictions that continue to defy concensus and an ability to develop strong, concrete evidence in its defense.
    Even stranger, that they use the lack of consensus and evidence that other schools of biomechanics such as mine share as justification to avoid seeking even foundational knowledge about them.
    I may never understand why when practicing Biomechanics, you wish to tie its Architectural Arm behind your back .

    Now I see why someone as smart as Dr. Fuller doesn't understand The Vault of The Foot.

    Why on this thread he asks questions that an architectural first year student could answer like is a subgroup the same as a type?

    Why he calls concepts like Pillars and Centering "abstract" when they are Architectural facts embedded in The Acropolis and history.

    Posing, Positioning, Posture, Yoga, Pose-Running, Arches, Vaults, Trusses, Tie-Beams, Struts, Foundation, Voissoirs and so many other concepts and accepted terms come from Architecture that sadly must confuse you.

    Although my inventions are entrenched in Architecture, I have studied and am fairly well versed in Engineering, Physics and Mechanics. What's your excuse?

    I now am convinced that the reason foot typing will always be The "F" Word on The Arena is the scant interest that you have for architecture as witness Moderator Weber.

    As two exercises that might enlighten you to what I feel are biomechanical shortcomings that I and other foot typers have gone beyond, why don't you key in a few paragraphs in your reply to this post on Posture and
    Explain how, if you are waiting for pain or symptoms (complaints), you can practice or research prevention, performance enhancement or quality of life issues biomechanically?

    "Open Chain Medicine and therefore Functional Lower Extremity Biomechanics starts by placing the feet on the ground. Every foot has an Optimal Functional Position (different almost always from Subtalar Joint Neutral Position) that when allowed to deviate produces predictable, progressive, pathological changes throughout the feet and posture. Determining the Optimal Functional Position and preventing it from changing when in closed chain is my foundational golden rule of Biomechanics.
    Understanding the Architecture of the Osseous structure of the foot is the true Foundation of Biomechanics".

    I have always heard that we do not have a definition for a "normal" foot (I'm assuming Architecturally).

    I have mine:
    "A normal foot is a foot whose Optimal Functional Position is its Subtalar Joint Neutral Position". That's why they are so hard to find.

  7. Mike:

    You must realize who you are trying to communicate with....

    From his website: http://lifestylepodiatry.com/lifestyle/index.htm

  8. Oh Lord.

    Must we do this? It never ends well.
  9. Although dammit I'm going to bite. I wish I could quit you!

    A vault ;-
    The keystone of a vault is not a supportive unit. Its the unit which turns downward force into lateral thrust. For the vault to function this lateral thrust must have a counter force. In the foot that comes mostly in the form of tensile structures (unless you nail the forefoot and the rearfoot to the ground). Would that not mean that a better architectural description for the foot would be a series of trusses rather than a series of vaults?

    Vaults do not involve tensile elements. The counter force to the lateral thrust in a vault generally comes from the ends of the vault being buried in the ground. The foot, on the other hand, relies rather heavily on tensile structures as can be seen when one sees a foot with ruptured ligaments.

    Don't let the chiropractors hear you say that ;). After they said such nice things about you...

    And you say such nice things about them...

    Messy break up? ;)
  10. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    I wet myself reading this Robert...ha ha.... Any idea how one of those professionals "not on par with Podiatry when it comes to biomechanics" could get a hold of those FFT DVD's or is it really one of those high-brow, closed clubs by invitation (or is it solicitation?) only?
  11. drsha

    drsha Banned

  12. drsha

    drsha Banned

    David, you (and surprisingly Robert"s) movement down to the gutter, reinforces Foot Typing and Wellness Biomechanics as you try to beat the man and not the work..


    Foot Typing.
    Foot Typing.
    Foot Typing.
    Foot Typing.
    Foot Typing.

    I have five of a kind. That beats your bluffs.
    Come back when you have a hand to play.

  13. I play a lot of poker. There's no such hand as 5 of a kind. Unless you're cheating of course ;). And I'm sorry you don't like that, but you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. Those are your words right? You can't claim the kudos of being a staunch pod only stalwart whilst at the same time trying to woo chiropractors and not expect people to call you on it. I have some admiration for you Dennis, but business is business.

    The rules of physics DO apply to biomechanics. Friction is one of those rules.

    Excellent. We agree :drinks .
  14. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis, I understand the vault of the foot as well as you do. Neither of us can explain how the term vault applies to the foot.

    A Vault (French. voûte, Italian. volta,) is an architectural term for an arched form used to provide a space with a ceiling or roof.[1]

    The foot has a ceiling? The foot provides a space?

  15. Also not known for being flexible and dynamic, your average vault. When more force is applied to a vault, it is resolved as move compression in the keystone. No movement unless the keystone is deformable. Whereas a truss system with a tensile tie or series of ties can flex and alter depending on the length and stretchability (sorry, can't think of the proper word) of the ties. Given that these qualities are controllable in the foot (some of them are muscles) it means the properties of the truss are controllable. Quite remarkable really.

    That's one reason I can't see bio architecture catching on. Architecture has no analogue of muscles. It has analogues of bone (rigid blocks) and even ligament (tensile cables) but nothing dynamic, contractile and responsive. Nothing with proprioception.

    Buildings are designed, in the main, to stay the same shape. The foot is designed to do the opposite.
  16. drsha

    drsha Banned

    What were YOU doing biomechanically thirteen years ago?

    I was realizing that the Podiatry marketplace was inept biomechanically as well as searching for more ideas about biomechanics from other professions since I knew that I needed to replace Rootian eval and casting as well as incorporate some form of muscular training into the protocol. That time proved to me that my energy was best spent focusing on the Podiatry Community because, as a profession, it had no competition.

    The only community that taught me something and that I continue to research, publish with and work with was the PT community.

    I became a C.ped (I got absolutely nothing from the training and I dropped using the letters three years after joining) and felt very early on that I was authenticating them with my DPM degree and still feel the same for DPM's that use the letters with their degree (I wonder why they never put the C.Ped first).

    One of my preceptees wives was Dean of The New York Chiropractic College before it moved to Seneca Falls, NY and I formed a relationship with her that led me to The Chiroview Chatroom you allude to. It lasted about three months and during that time, I recall 1-2 posts or requests for information and I never met a Chiropractor that had even an inkling of biomechanics beyond FootLevelers.
    I don't remember who but either Langer Lab (Mr. Kraus) or Jeff Root printed my place on ChiroView on Barry's site (as you have taken the time to do thirteen years later) and blew my cover (I guess my work annoyed them too) and I had to admit that The Chiropractors were all monkeys with no primary thought about biomechanics, no literature, no interest beyond the fact that they could make money dispensing orthotics.
    I have not attempted to nor worked with a Chiropractor for thirteen years and have none on my speed dial (I have 185 MD's on speed dial... how many do you have?).

    I once more tried to reach out to that profession when I gave Dr. Wedemeyer the hint that I thought that he had made personal sacrifice to practice biomechanics in the same way I did Chiroview and quickly realized that he had his own plan to attempt to win over the Chiropractic community for his own profit as he was forming his own lab with financial partners so that he could compete with FootLevelers so they could compete with the DPM's (where are you up to with that project Dr W?).

    Robert, you would be better off playing poker, having a beer or gaining foundational kowledge of my work then taking whatever lonely hours you spent on your computor vetting it in order to come up with this lame 13 year old attempt to impotently call me Chiropractic friendly or even hint at the fact that I am not ProUSAPodiatry.
    Am I that close to blowing your EBM cover?

    My Patents are a gift to my profession to use to market themselves as The Orthotic Profession, no more. I am already rich and comfortable because of Podiatry with my family enjoying generational protection. Your profit motive argument never held water for anyone who knows me.

  17. drsha

    drsha Banned

    What else do you conveniently ignore in Tissue Stress Eric
  18. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Robert: This reveals the flaw in your arguments and the blinders worn by The Arena faithful.

    I specifically said Primary Laws (Newton I, II and III) which are often violated in biological situations (much like the pure definitions of a Vault when applied biologically as pointed out by Eric) which then lead to the development of secondary and tertiary laws that help explain what happens in real life, in real time that doesn't obey the primary laws (much like FFTing and Compensatory Threshold Training).
    Draft, Friction and the ability of a live object to slow itself down or even stop defying inertia when rolling down a hill trump your Newton's Laws bluff.

    You blindly avoid the fact that I point out that a bird can fly instead of falling to the ground but when arguing Architecture, you state that the foot is not imbedded into the floor and that there are no muscle engines pushing a building when discussing biological objects. Double Standard anyone?

    You my friend (I hope you are feeling well), are Biased!
  19. Staring myopically at STJ motion graphs in much the same way a chimpanzee might look at the apollo lander.
    That is so very, very true! Although that particular one took minutes not hours. I have a slightly obsessive memory for that kind of detail ;).

    The laws of physics are never violated. That.s what makes them laws. A bird flying does not breach any of the laws of physics.

    Feeling much better thank you. Final gastroscopy Monday week but all seems much better.
  20. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Architecture - 'the art and science of building mainly rigid structures, especially the art of designing a building and in particular a habitable one'

    Mechanism - 'a system or structure of moving parts that makes up a machine and performs some function'

    A rigid structure is designed not to become unstable to applied forces

    A mechanism or mechanical structure or machine is or is designed to be unstable to applied forces usually, if intended to be useful, in a known and controlled manner.

    A civil engineer builds and services rigid structure like habitable buildings, tunnels and bridges

    A mechanical engineer builds and services machines.

    Some rigid structures contain mechanisms within them and so require both civil and mechanical engineers to deal with them.

    In reality there is no rigid structure is really completely rigid and most mechanisms must have some displacement/time dependent boundary restraint i.e. they don't just collapse with applied force.

    Some structures like suspension bridges must allow some desirable displacement within a certain boundary restraint limit but then some machines must be as stable as possible to the smallest displacement tolerance e.g. jacks and cranes.

    So where does the architect finish and the mechanical engineer begin? I would say the test or the question to ask is what is the intended function and under what conditions does the structure/mechanism function best.

    A structure is designed to support loads and often to be habitable, it functions best when it is as stable as possible and not moving.

    A mechanism is designed move loads and functions best when is has some controlled instability and is moving.

    I think the latter best describes the design / intended function and conditions of optimal function for the foot. Therefore the foot is a mechanism and requires the discipline of mechanical engineering to best understand its operation. Seeing as it is a biological unit it would seem logical to call the discipline biomechanical engineering or biomechanics.

    There is an element of architecture obviously but once you add movement then the concept of pillars, buttresses, keystones, rigid arches and vaults become a bit redundant except for simple analysis purposes.

    On the contrary, I think you have revealed the flaws in your own propositions and thoughts DrSha.

    They never are violated and
    are all encompassed in these laws

    What laws would they be?

    What the hell are you going on about man! Clearly you understand very little about the physics of mechanics. Call our Newtons Bluff if you like but what is a Hill Trump anyway? Now I'm just making up the nonsense too DrSha. I believe there is some need of a DOC here (demented outpouring compensation)

    That's a principle of physics!

    Its not!

    There aren't, ever!


    DrSha, your bird has flown right over the cuckoo's nest, your foot is firmly embedded in your mouth and something's muscled into your mind and pushed you right over the edge of your architecturally insane building. You appear to have tripped (probably on LSD) over the Keystone Kops and vaulted into some twilight zone of optimum delusion (T-ZOO'D).

    You write utter twaddle but this post won't affect your thoughts one bit since you seem to be locked in a psychosis of delusional grandeur.

    Regards Dave Smith
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2011
  21. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    I’m not going to enter into another educationally and scientifically worthless drama with Dennis. I do however feel that I need to address some of the dispersions and information found in his latest rant.

    Let’s not forget the words he allowed to be printed bearing his name prior to the comments he has made here. Additionally he makes statements which are completely contradictory. In fact in all of the statements underlined Dennis yet again contradicts himself when he states in this thread:

    Well which is it Dennis, were chiropractors expressing “high levels of interest in foot orthotics and biomechanics” or are we all “monkeys with no primary though about biomechanics”? You plainly state that “every chiropractor has the ability to improve patient care while generating new income when they dispense foot orthotics in practice”. Foundationally we can’t be “monkeys” then following your initial premise, now can we?.

    I strongly advise you to retract and desist from referring to an entire profession in such a derogatory manner Dennis. Your comments regarding the pedorthic profession are as well completely unwarranted, unprofessional behavior. I’m sure that anyone reading can discern your true motive based on your reprobate disrespect of other professions (as well as your own below).

    And yet you state “my energy was best spent focusing on the Podiatry Community because, as a profession, it had no competition”. You express contradictory and very conflicting statements yet again Dennis. In my experience this occurs when people are caught in a misstatement or a mistruth and you’re guilty of both. You can’t have it both ways Dennis, either podiatry is and always has been clinically and biomechanically superior to all other profession in foot orthosis dispensing or it is not.

    You waffle more than the House of Pancakes Dennis and vacillate more than any politician on Election Day; your words cannot be trusted.
  22. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis quoted (out of context) the words in bold from the above full quote which was describing why functional foot typing is a step backward from Root et al. Dennis then asked the above question.

    Dennis, we ignore things after we figure out that they don't matter. Dennis, you matter in that you are spreading misinformation (such as we should pay attention to architecture instead of physics).

  23. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis, I'm really tired of your game of "I know something you don't know." (Architecture) Architecture is the wrong body of knowledge to use when explaining the biomechanics of the foot. I recently remodeled my house. I got an architect to design the addition. The architect informed me that I need approval from an engineer that was going to cost me a couple of thousand dollars more. I was happy to pay it because I want someone who knows how it should be built, to say how it should be built, so that it won't fall down.

    If you fabricate a paradigm on foot function, and don't use physics, your paradigm may collapse down upon you.

    Dennis, engineers have mastered the physics of flight quite well. If you've noticed, we've built airplanes that fly. It has to do with force of air pressure under the wings being greater than the force of gravity.

    You can't use architecture to describe the foot because buildings don't fly.;)

  24. A good point Dave.
  25. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Dennis I cannot argue with the fact that Foot Levelers enjoys a disproportionate share of the chiropractic orthotic market. I say this not with pride and have endeavored to try to compel more of my colleagues to elevate their standards of foot orthosis dispensing. The same can be said for a segment of all professions that dispense foot orthoses I feel.

    Thank you for finally coming clean and admitting that you contacted me in an effort to introduce FFT to the chiropractic market Dennis. In light of this would you care to retract your statement that “I have not attempted to nor worked with a Chiropractor for thirteen years”? Its actually 10 years unless another internet posting like the Chirosmart one or another DC pokes their head in here and informs us that you contacted them in an effort to get FFT into our market. This scenario wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

    As I stated, I am in fact partnered with a company and a lab that is attempting to bring a more evidenced based practice to chiropractors in an effort to improve patient care and their individual practices.. To that end, I am one of two chiropractors who will oversee the new lab, manufacturing, educational training and continuing education seminars. We have been working very hard to achieve this Dennis and I’m certainly not timid about of my involvement. I gave this involvement and participation a great deal of thought after assessing the current status of knowledge, products and dispensing in the chiropractic profession. I had other offers and was solicited by other companies to be a consultant but found their goals and mine were not mutual. In Empowering Chiropractic I found a company with an ethical approach and a goal to improve the profession; especially with regard to our favorite topic:


    You should patent your comments as well Dennis, you've patented everything else except the sun and moon you benevolent guy you :rolleyes:
  26. One thing that I have noticed about individuals such as Dennis Shavelson, Ed Glaser and Brian Rothbart is that they only seem to take the time to comment on threads here on Podiatry Arena that deal with things that they have a financial interest in. I find it interesting that these individuals seldom ever want to have an intellectual discussion about something that doesn't relate to their financial interest. Is this because they don't want to spend time away from something that will promote their ideas and products or because they know so little about physics and biomechanics that they can't converse intelligently on the subject?

    At least Brian Rothbart with all his wild claims of how his varus forefoot wedged orthoses can cure nearly everything from infertility to reduction of menstruation pain seems to be somewhat knowledgeable of some of the literature surrounding the mechanics of the foot and lower extremity.

    And, where is our good friend Ed? Has he given up on us because we question his ideas about what he calls "MASS theory"?

    What say you?
  27. drsha

    drsha Banned

    I know David, you are donating all the profits to fund biomechanics into Chiropractic you philanthropist you.
    No profit motive here. You pitiful, selfish, biased, lying, fabricating little twat (term I learned on The Arena).

  28. drsha

    drsha Banned

    As I am and you are, we are all entitled to opinions and sometimes exaggerate and maybe even stretch the truth in defending them.

    But I have participated in threads on The Arena involving students with queries, practitioners with cases wanting advice from colleagues, threads on Barefoot Running and other non profit for Shavelson, non foot typing threads.
    I have been "thanked" during some of these moments. I have recieved personal emails and developed relationships with some of you that go beyond a year (Robert being one...sorry Robert... :) ).

    Finally, I have never profited one dime (pence) from any of you and I can only imagine how much time I have offered onto The Arena and how important I remain as the voice of opposition that will not go away and I dare most of you to honestly state that I have never added anything positive to you, this site or to biomechanics in the three years that I am a member.

    As for you Kevin, most say behind your back that despite how brilliant you are, you have a self-serving, angry, problematic personality.

    You pitiful, selfish, biased, lying, fabricating little twat (term I learned on The Arena).

  29. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    That Chiroview revelation really struck a raw nerve eh Denny?

    Where have I lied tell us? I've never claimed to work for free, what a ridiculous statement. You're a piece of work Denny boy and in bad need of mental health counseling. :empathy:

    I predict that you will advance five years from now to precisely where you are currently with FFT (despite your patents), which is precisely where you were five years ago. You know why Dennis? You cannot get along with anyone because you're a grade A, world class male chicken.

    Wager anyone?
  30. Dennis:

    The problem with you is that you think that just because we don't agree with your ideas, that you think we are personally against you. I am not personally against you, even though you seem to have a problem with me disagreeing with you and have no problem calling me foul names, even though we have never met.

    As far as I can see from your postings here on Podiatry Arena, you have not demonstrated a good understanding of the basic physics and biomechanic principles that would be required for you to be able to fully comprehend the function of the foot and lower extremity. Your learning and comprehension of biomechanics seems to be at about the level that I saw in many podiatrists during the mid-1980s while I was the Biomechanics Fellow at the California College of Podiatric Medicine. Now, over a quarter century later, most of us have progressed in our knowledge and have rightly realized that we must respect the literature from the international bioemchanics community that shows that our previous ideas about foot biomechanics and lower extremity function are no longer true.

    Instead, you seem to have gone sideways, instead of forwards, in trying to use architectural ideas that may relate to some aspects of static foot structure but unfortunately can not describe the kinetics and kinematics of the dynamic foot and lower extremity. In making this ill-advised sideways journey, that you have now patented and trademarked, you have gone down a dark and long dead-end alley which will produce no useful advances in our knowledge of foot and lower extremity biomechanics and, unfortunately for you, will soon be forgot once you are no longer around to promote your own ideas.

    I believe that you would greatly benefit from studying some basic biomechanics textbooks so that you can better understand why we disagree with your theories and ideas and that we are not against you personally, but are very tired of your continued accusations against those of us who disagree with you and are extremely tired of your childish name calling.

    Here is a list of books you should buy and read that will help you better understand the physics and biomechanics concepts we are discussing.



  31. What he said.

    I have no personal beef with you Dennis! There is much about you I admire, and would emulate. And I don't believe profit is your motive for being here. I suspect you've made your money. I think your motivation is that you have a model which you passionately believe in and wish to promote and share!

    The problem is that regardless of my feelings for you personally, I believe your model has some major and fundamental flaws. That, as I said, is not personal, it's just professional. Personal feelings aside, I think architecture is a poor way to model a biological and dynamic system. Sorry! I wish it were otherwise.

    Also I think it's unfair to put Dennis in the same category as Brian. Dennis's insoles, regardless of the thinking behind them, probably help people. They work on physical principles rather than the entirely spurious model of proprioception.

    It's just business. Its just what you say that's important Dennis, not who you are. It's what you say that people object to!
  32. I would go further than that, I think they are nothing else than blatant unsubstantiated salesmen of products or theories that are best unproved and at worst discredited. They are snake-oil purveyors of the lowest kind. It is tiresome, degrading, misleading - and although the majority of visitors to this site will be fellow colleagues who can, no doubt, form their own opinion, there are also members of the public who may venture these pages for information. As far as possible we have a duty of care to those people too insofar as we should strive, at all times, to ensure the opinions offered on topics are as accurate and truthful as possible. I also think the time has come perhaps, for some review of the moderation in this regard. Maybe Craig would be kind enough to comment. I despise censorship, but I do think the time has come for this kind of adverpost to be deleted from the database and if the OP is a regular miscreant, then their access suspended.

  33. G Flanagan

    G Flanagan Active Member

    The problem is, over at www.podiatry.com where Dennis is a frequent flyer the Podiatrists (who mostly focus on surgery) seem to lap up his biomechanics spiel.

    They even have him as there 'biomechanics' go to guy. :eek:
  34. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

  35. Daryl Phillips, DPM, has much more patience than I have. In addition, Daryl is one of the most intelligent and experienced authorities on podiatric biomechanics that I know so when he talks, I listen.
  36. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. For snake oil purveyors of the lowest kind, look Here. These are people who sell something actively toxic and claim it cures cancer.

    Even Brian could, IMO, be accused of snake oil, because he trades on the basis of a "virtually" universal panacea, curing infertility and "making Downs syndrome children look normal" using a mechanism with no basis in science.

    Dennis and Ed occupy a different niche. Whilst there are things about both we may dislike, such as the fixation on their own model and general attitude, that does not make then snake oil salesmen. Both provide products which although they differ somewhat from what most podiatrists do, are not so alien to what we are comfortable with that they might not be expected to have some success. Neither claim to cure things which we might not think reasonable.

    Lets not lump them all together indiscriminately. While they share some characteristics, there are also many differences.
  37. Yes Robert, you are of course correct; there is a difference. Rothbart et al wear snake skin deviously. Dennis is simply intellectually challenged. The pity is that both are accessible by an unsuspecting and largely ignorant public.
  38. drsha

    drsha Banned

    I think you are over-stereotyping the group and overestimating their lapping up my spiel, honestly but thanks.

    I take what I learn on The Arena and elsewhere and apply it to my work. I even talk moments, stiffness, physics, leverage and mechanics, prn.

    Does anything I spiel there make sense to you, Flanagan?
    Dr Sha
  39. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Robert et al:
    Can we discuss the importance of architectural principles at two moments in biomechanics instead of looking at heel contact gait of a moving subject.

    1. static stance

    2. midstance in The Gait Cycle


    Attached Files:

  40. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis, I've written an article on the mechanical principles of a tied arch. Those principles will apply in static stance and the midstance period of gait. In that article I described the mechanics of a tied arch (like the picture in the quoted psot).

    Fuller, E.A. The Windlass Mechanism Of The Foot: A Mechanical Model To Explain Pathology J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2000 Jan; 90(1) p 35-46

    I'd be really interested on why you think architectural principles would be a better way to examine the arch than using mechanical engineering principles. Some of your earlier explanation lacked reference to the anatomical structures of the foot. Which anatomical structures correspond with which architectural principles?


Share This Page