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.

Talar ontogeny and midtarsal joint motion

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Rob Kidd, Oct 27, 2010.

  1. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    {ADMIN NOTE: this thread has been split off from the podiatry mythbusting thread}

    I note from the above contributions that there is some issues of access to both the 1984 and the 2000 FFS papers. I will post them both on my return to civilisation. As I said earlier, the first is really not even worthy of reference - it was not refereed, and was a straight vomit of Root theory onto my paper. The second, however, was thoughtful, and in my opinion insightful. I do remember I had quite a tussle with one of the referrees!

    To all, please excuse my spelling! In the absence of a spell checker, my true level of quality control of the English language is demonstrated!

    And one final comment. While I can sometimes be quite forceful in my writings, I do ask you to note that it is NEVER personal. While I have criticised Root (and others) with some venom from time to time, it is never the person, merely the words. Rob
  2. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    Perhaps I should contibrute the myths that I find so blatant.

    1) "That the forefoot is perpendicular to the calcaneal bisection line" For this to be true, there has to be a rightangle relationship between the plantar surface of the calcaneus (at least that bit touching the ground) and the posterior surface of the calcaneus. Not only is there NO evidence for this, McPoil and Cornwall (and maybe others) have repeated demonstrated that is NO relationship.
    2) "That forefoot-hindfoot relationship is controlled via talar head torsion" (and a lack of this is the cause of FFV). This is so laughable its not a joke. Two mainstreams texts by podiatrists (including one very glossy, very expensive one), assert this with no evidence or reference. It is outragous to accept this, and miss the real point of talar head torsion - the development of the midtarsal restraining mechanism. This is well referenced, though perhaps by only one author.

    And yet, over beer or six with Bill Orion many years ago (I stilll lived in Manchester then), he actually said to me that in Root2, they had only suggested it might be, and was quite happy to accept that they were wrong. We had this conversation in about 1986 - long before either of the texts I have in mind were published. Somewhere along the way, "it may be" got turned into "it is" - and not by Root et al. I address at some length in the the FFV paper of about 1997-8. Rob
  3. Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    And worthy of further discussion, can you explain the "midtarsal restraining mechanism", please?
  4. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    Certainly, I will give you my slant on this when I have returned home from a very good drinks party in SW West Australia. In the mean time, please read two papers. 1) Kidd: gradualistic evolution as expressed in the hominoid talus (Chiropodist, about 1992) 2) Kidd 1992, The evolution of the long arch etc, The Ozz pod. Then you wil have the background to the issues. I will reply in a few days. Rob
  5. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    To Simon and others:

    The midtarsal restraining mechanism is a vague adaptation, but, in my opinion, a valid and important component of hominid evolution.
    Herb Elftman, in about 1960 described this in rather non-scientific terms, in his simple and short paper (Elftman, 1960). One should recognise this as being incomplete, and lacking in scientific content, it was groundbreaking. Now, add to that some decent anthropological stuff; look at Straus, (1928), but far more importantly Pete Lisowski (1967) and you begin to see real science. Pete, who I knew well, and died four years ago, was a world leader in talar morphology. His own mentor, Professor (later Lord) Zuckerman, emeritus of anatomy at Birmingham, said to his staff: “there is something funny about the talus – go and find it”.
    Pete did a huge amount of work of angular changes in the primate talus (Lisowski, 1967). This paper has never had the recognition that it deserves – an outrage. While Pete didn’t make the connection between midtarsal function and the talar head torsion (why would he, he was an anatomist and a medical doctor), he was the first to note the peramorphic heterochrony, sometimes described as gerontomorphosis (taking the ancestral state, and accelerating it forwards), when compared to African Apes. This was a huge advancement back in 1967. What he noted for the first time was that the adult value of the ape, was the same As the infantile value of the human. This is incredibly important, and essentially not recognised in the podiatric world.
    Look at the figures in either of your compulsory readings for this. You will see how the torsion of the head on the talus needed to be advanced in order to provide the obliquity of “axes” as described by himself. This has never been picked up on by any other writer, apart from myself.
    Compare the bisection lines in humans and any other primate, and you will see a striking difference. Those that we associate with the st pronated state, you will see in others in the st supinated state; but of course m/t mobility is the norm in non-human primates; they all have a normal m/t break. Always think in form and function.
    Why was this ignored by Root et al? I suspect because they lacked a proper biological background. Ask yourself: how many podiatrists understand heterochrony, allometry, numerical taxonomy & other morphometrics, just to mention a few of the vital tools required to grasp fully the biological implications of shape changes in bone (or any other structures, come to that).
    Elftman H (1960) The transverse tarsal joint and its control. Clinical Orthopaedics 16: 41-5.
    Lisowski FP (1967) Angular growth changes and comparisons in the primate talus. Folia Primatologica 7: 81-97.

    Required reading:

    1992 Gradualistic evolution as expressed in the hominoid talus. The Journal of British Podiatric Medicine 48: 171-174

    1993 The long arch: new thoughts on the evolution of an old structure. The Australian Podiatrist 27: 35-43
  6. Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    Thanks Bob,
    Viz. the degree of talar rotation seen in the human infant should allow a "mid-foot break", while the adult talar rotation should not. Thus, variation in the talar neck/ head orientation should allow variation in the dorso-plantar excursion of the forefoot on the rearfoot about the MTJ (specifically the talonavicualr joint).- right?

    If you have copies of the above papers which you could send to me I should be greatly appreciative.

  7. Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    Craig, could you split off Robert Kidd's and my discussion from this thread to form a new thread so that this doesn't get lost, please? Something like "talar ontogeny and midtarsal joint motion".
    Many thanks.
  8. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Re: Podiatry related medical myths - Busted?

    Done. The original mythbusting thread is here.
  9. Thanks..

    So, how does the talar rotation influence the MTJ stiffness?

Share This Page