"Vault" of the foot

1. How is it false logic to apply Newton's laws to biological structures?
2. What are you doing when you say the foot is a vault?

Dennis are you simultaneously saying that you can't apply architecture/engineering to the foot at the same time you are applying architecture terms to the foot?

Dennis what is the difference between following the laws of physics and imitating them?

When the bird flaps its wings it applies force to the air. The air applies an equal and opposite reaction and applies force to the birds wings. When the force on the wings is greater than the force of gravity the bird will fly. I guess you could call that defying gravity, but it is physics.

Eric

 

A man jumps off the top of a 30 story building. All the way down he continues to shout "It's illogical to attempt to apply the laws of physics to biological structures! It's illogical to attempt to apply the laws of physics to biological structures! It's illogical to attempt to apply the laws of”------ Splat!

He broke the law, for it is illegal to commit suicide. He died because it is impossible to break the laws of physics, even when applied to biological structures.

 

Here you go, lessons here:
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/07/01/if-you-break-the-laws-of-physics/

 

If any of Dennis' responses contained a modicum of science or fact he would be an interesting person to bounce ideas off of, discuss biomechanics etc. but the fact is he is dogmatic and peurile in his unerring defense of his 'ideations'. He is trying to hold others to a standard of scientific investigation and fact the he himself cannot claim. This thread is proof.

I have followed this thread and waited for Dennis to provide a reasonable, SCIENTIFICALLY based explanation of the vault of the foot and how his 'centrings' accomplish the claims he makes here and on his website (as probably many of us have on numerous other threads). Whenever the heat gets turned up he posts a new thread attacking theories already in practice or people, erecting straw man arguments, projecting, obfuscating, blah....

Dennis, I am not one to join the flock or sheepishly accept the standard as the rule and meekly mill along on blind faith. I am not a podiatrist obviously so I had to look far outside of the box of my own profession to become a better provider of orthotic services and that meant countless hours reading this forum, applying the principles to my own clinical practice, shedding what was not useful, adopting that which was and most of all learning some level of discernment in the scientific quality of what we profess and provide.

I pride myself in learning to discern when someone is blowing huge plumes of smoke up my a** Dennis, you are blowing smoke up everyone's a**. Period :hammer:

 

:good: Best posting of the thread....David. Keep up with your very clear and accurate observations.:drinks

 

The other question to ask is whether you want a person new to the arena to come on and see someone posting who is claiming to be picked on and not given an opportunity to prove his point. We need to be able to point to a thread where he was given a fair hearing and failed to convince anyone of his ideas.

Cheers,

Eric

 

Re: vault of the foot

Dennis, my statements were a critique of your logic. Is there anything more to your theory than orhotics support the bones of the foot like a centering supports a stone arch as it is built? How, can this possibly work if soft tissues prevent the centering from supporting the bones?

Belittling the author without addressing the point.

Enjoy your labor day weekend.

Eric

 

I, Bob Smith, have just created a revolutionary new invention that is guaranteed to cure foot pain related to a lack of foot support. I call it the plantar foot prop (PFP).

A prop is defined as:
prop 1 (prp)
n.
1. An object placed beneath or against a structure to keep it from falling or shaking; a support.
2. One that serves as a means of support or assistance.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prop

The PFP fills the plantar foot space (PFS) to keep the structure from falling or shaking. Falling sounds bad doesn’t it, and shaking doesn't sound like a good thing either. The PFP fills the PFS to provide both support and assistance. Assistance, what a nice word. Let us assist you by allowing you to attend our PFP workshop for a modest fee and we will license you to sell our PFP's to fill PFSpaces. By filling PFSpaces you call fill your wallet and ours because no one else can sell PFPs so, you can charge more. In order to prevent cheep imitations, I have named my Bob Smith invention after myself. I call it the BS PFP. I want to dominate the market by flooding it with as much BS as possible.

Thanks for your support (oh, I like that slogan)
Bob Smith, orphan and inventor of the BS PFP

 

Love it! Best laugh I've had all week. Falling and shaking does indeed sound bad (although not quite so bad as adult collapse). Should do well :drinks.

I wonder if one could generate a biomechanics paradigm generator by randomly combining such words...

 

Hey Bob, got a great idea for future marketing ideas regarding your new orthotic. You should trademark your new supports and call them Foot ProppingsTM. Then start up a website proclaiming that your new idea about biomechanics is called NeoEsoteric Biomechanics and then try to patent that phrase. You could even make up a new word such as Healthful Biomechanics and even patent that word also. You should also be sure to use, so that the less knowledgeable podiatrists will believe all the bull**** you are making up out of thin air, the phrase A New Paradigm for Diagnosing and Treating Feet. One more thing, be sure to include on your website the idea of Functional Foot Propping Types (be sure to trademark this phrase also) so you can be certain to really fool the most gullible podiatrists.

Now...go out and spread the word....!!

 

Spread the what was that?

I'm not sure its "the word"

You're both bad men (#19.3)

 

Re: vault of the foot

You are never too young to start your kegel exercises :empathy:

 

Re: vault of the foot

Tried to do kegel exercises but unded up exercising a keg instead! :drinks

 

Not sure I deserve that but thank you Kevin, just the way I see it.

I have an immense respect for Eric not only as a clinician and mentor to us all but as a person. Eric is always the voice of calm and reason when there is disagreement and makes a very valid point. At the same time you have asked Dennis this same question a number of times........

 

I think the problem with your arguments with respect to newton's laws revolves around the thought that you have more than an hypothesis with regards to the tissue stress paradigm and SALRE and other tenets that you offer as equatable with Newtonian.

You act as if they have been proven after stating that newton's laws guide all.


In physics, there was an evolution with regards to the body of work and the understanding of how things work.

I do not know the time line of Newtonian Law but it’s safe to say there was a time when experiments opened up areas that did not fit with the rules and laws at that time and there was a need to explain the apparent defiances (#4).

Once these were explained, the science rose to its level of acceptance.

The STJ Axis cannot be accurately measured, neither can tissue stress, neither can the amount of counter force needed to eliminate pain or deformity be measured or defined. you are measuring external forces with regards to internal stress that cannot be accurate.

Your orthotic cannot be defined, postings cannot be defined, materials needed cannot be defined. Different subjects deliver different results, different examiners deliver different results. Everything is relativ eand nothing is akin to the exactness and repetitiveness of Sir Isaac.

You turn to mockery and personal abuse because you cannot allow inspection and examination of your work at the level you claim it to exist.

In 5-6 years of focused research with regards to tissue stress, SALRE, that is claimed "the abundant research of the international biomechanics community" collectively, you have come up weith valgus wedges to treat medial knee pain resulting in pedal pronation, the anticrist of pedal health.

Like my example of the bird, in early days, experiments revealed the need for either the laws to be reworked or the need for a different explanation in order to define why the protocols of that day seemingly were being violated.

I wait for those experiments with regards to your work and mione and others as well.

BioNewtonian Science is relatively new and lacks the maturity and irrefutable tenets of Newton's Laws of inert objects. It needs more time, new rules and additions to the body of work. It should not be compared to the body of Newtonian Science that has had hundreds of years to develop and withstamd scrutiny.

Let’s go back to a similar time for Sir Isaac when he was trying to understand and prove his Gravitational Laws.

He took hundreds of objects at a certain height and then dropped them to time how long they would take to fall to the ground.

He hypothesized that all objects would fall at the same speed to the ground and announced that if this was true, that would be of great benefit to the scientific community.

It worked for all objects and he gained a following.

Then he (or someone) tried the experiment with a cat and in its twisting, it hit the ground slightly later than all the other objects. Then he tried it with a bird and it did not hit the ground at all.

This created the need to expand his laws to include draft and other factors described by Jeff Root that allow the law to be "broken" in order to explain the facts that these objects violated his laws.

In BioNewtonian Science, like in the early days of Newton, too often the expected result does not take place with regards to experimentation or the development of laws.

A certain force delivered to a foot does not have the same impact upon all subjects as predicted by the Laws of Newton because of variables in weight, fitness, postural and functional position, range of motion of the pedal segments, etc.

We are still in the process of building these “exceptions” to the law and concensus and research has not yet reached the level of Newtonian Science.

Explaining why a bird obeys the laws of physics in not falling to the ground like a bar of gold uses unfair hindsight as a response to my example (7) (22) (23).

Dr Sha

 

As a wise man once said

Read all about it here

http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=27042

As the song goes

Cos the rest of us do

 

Don´t worry about Vaulting the foot. I want more from Bob Smith, orphan and inventor of the BS PFP


Genius at work I tell you.......................

 

Robert:
I suppose it's really hard to reduce rearfoot pronation bias as the center of the universe even when you allude to proof of the opposite.

I typed: pedal pronation, the anticrist of pedal health.

You converted that to STJ Pronation and referred to another thread as having import when it has none.

Valgus wedging reduces the power and leverage of the peroneus longus muscle-tendon unit in function. If the SERM is inverted or vertical (rigid or stable), the function of the p longus rapidly changes from a pronator of the rearfoot into being a supinator of the forefoot by stabilizing the 1st ray.

However, the flexible forefoot types in closed chain are impacted by the valgus force of the wedge because it produces a dorsiflectory moment that collapses the forefoot segment of The Vault.

So my suggestion is that possibly a separate evaluation of the rearfoot and forefoot that replaces the import of a rearfoot evaluation and a secondary forefoot relationship exam reducing focus on the rearfoot for diagnosis and eventual treatment considerations.

To say it another way, rearfoot pronation + forefoot pronation = pedal pronation.

That leads to the thought that pedal pronation could be better served therapeutically on the sagital (dananberg, glaser) or transverse (glaser) planes than on the frontal plane (root, kirby).

Dr Sha

 

T

If the rearfoot everts in relationship to the ground the forefoot is unable to follow and therefore becomes inverted relative to the rearfoot!

In stance therefore the forefoot can not "pronate' relative to the forefoot unles the rearfoot is inverted "supinted.

Maybe!

 

Root patented a device called the triplane heel wedge. Root was a triplane thinker and anyone who makes a claim to the contrary demonstrates how poorly they understand his work.

 

Dennis:

I am getting very tired of you referring to my last 25 years of work on foot and lower extremity biomechanics as being "only on the frontal plane". If you would only take the time to read some of my published papers, book chapters and three books, you would be able to clearly see that I don't only discuss the frontal plane but also the sagittal plane and transverse plane function of the foot and lower extremity.

Either you haven't read my papers, books and chapters or you can't understand the concepts I am trying to promote. Maybe you are just making things up, which seems to be your continual mode of operation here on Podiatry Arena, in your quest to minimize the ideas that others have worked so hard on in order to make your weak and dead-ended concepts seem more valid.

Additionally, I find it even more insulting for you to classify Dr. Merton Root's work as being only on the frontal plane. I attended numerous lectures given by Dr. Root where he talked about the sagittal plane, transverse plane and frontal plane compensations that occurred in the foot. To say or suggest that Dr. Root only considered or discussed the frontal plane shows how ignorant you are of his work. Dr. Root was more three-dimensional than you ever will be. In fact, to analogize, Dr. Root's ideas would seem very solid and three-dimensional on even a flat piece of paper whereas your ideas would appear flat and one-dimensional even when your ideas were described in a three-dimensional environment. I'm sure that Jeff Root can back me up on what his father spoke on since he heard his father talk on these subjects much more than I did.

The bottom line is that these straw-man arguments you continually make against those of us who have devoted a good part of our lives toward attempting to advance the knowledge and level of therapeutic care for the podiatrist seem to only be designed to make your own odd ideas of foot function seem more useful and less commercial. This type of behaviour here on Podiatry Arena only makes you look much worse than you probably really are.

My suggestion to you is that you should discuss first what you and your trademarked and patented foot and orthosis systems have to offer us and then let everyone decide if they truly have merit. If your ideas were indeed that good, then you wouldn't need to create false impressions about the works of others by creating straw-man arguments in order to make your ideas seem better than they really are.

 

You are the wind beneath my wings. :drinks

I've always found the terminology of forefoot pronation or mid tarsal pronation a bit misleading, a bit needlessly obfuscated. Apart from anything else, it sort of depends what "axis" of the MTJ we are talking about.

Valmassey describes mid tarsal joint motion around the longditudinal and oblique axes as different anyway. And that, of course, is assuming that we buy the two axis model.

Dennis.
As Graham points out, rearfoot pronation in weight bearing requires forefoot inversion (a much less ambiguous term). Forefoot inversion is forefoot supination on the longditudinal axis. So actually

rearfoot pronation + forefoot pronation = Pretty much impossible unless you dig a trench under the medial forefoot. Because what you are saying is

Rearfoot pronation = forefoot eversion

Which is true until the forefoot reaches the ground which is immovable.

Pedal pronation.... = You just made that up on the spot to cover your whoopsy didn't you.

And as A BTW, what is an anticrist? Your literary creationism is on form today!

No no NO. Get them back in their pigeon holes this INSTANT. You can be a frontal plane thinker or a saggital plane thinker but never both. Kevins avatar is a cruel trick to convince people of the contrary, as is the last thought experiment.

 

Kevin

It sucks you in though doesn't it. Its like a scab. You KNOW it will hurt and make it worse but you just HAVE to pick it.

Sorry. Couldn't resist it Pax.

 

No, I've seen it in lots of cyclists.

 

I stand corrected.

Sorry.

I stand within a ZOOS and ZOOTS. We don't know what "corrected" is these days do we?

 

Robert:

So in heel contact phase, when the rearfoot is pronating and the forefoot is not weighted on the ground, the rearfoot cannot pronate unless the forefoot is inverted?

In your discussion, are you talking pronatory motion or the positional state of a foot being to the everted side of vertical?

Please clarify.

I think that statement is the fruit of your use of a rearfoot-forefoot relationship in order to diagnose feet. If you consider them separately, things might be easier to understand.

Certainly, if I am sprinting (not heel contacting), my forefoot can invert in closed chain without any rearfoot influence even if a taped it into eversion/inversion or vertical.?

Also, are you talking pronatory motion or the positional state of a foot being to thew everte3d side of vertial?

 

No, when I was a lad "corrected" meant being beaten around the head with a ****ty stick until you understood basic biomechanics, you "young 'un's don't know your born"........

 

Which brings us to forefoot to rearfoot coupling and the direction of power flow within the foot during sprint running. What are your views on this, Dennis?

Here's some ammunition/ bombs depending on your point of view
http://www.gaitposture.com/article/S0966-6362(06)00063-4/abstract
http://www.clinbiomech.com/article/S0268-0033(06)00159-8/abstract
http://people.umass.edu/ryanc/aboutme/Chang_PFOLA_07_Syllabus vfinal.pdf
http://www.runwithoutlimits.com/uploads/Orthotic_forefoot_rearfoot_strike.pdf

 

I don't use rearfoot forefoot to diagnose feet. I use "finding out which structure is bust and how" to diagnose feet. I'm talking about the definition of forefoot pronation in the literature.

I refer you to my earlier answer

But you are splitting hairs Dennis. . Are you saying that the anticrist of foot health is rearfoot pronation and forefoot pronation in the milliseconds between heel strike and forefoot load? And in sprinting? Thats even more bizarre than usual.


C'mon, be honest. You made up pedal pronation to cover where you contradicted yourself, then you came up with the above to cover the fact that you got forefoot pronation and supination muddled up. Din'cha.

Tell you what. Go read valmassey page 14-19 on the mid tarsal joint, its axes, and relative motions. Thats what I was trying to sum up for you.

 

While you're there, go read the chapter written by Paul Scherer...

 

Dennis, can you tell us the examination process for measuring "perms", "serms" etc.?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

Oooooooohhhh we used to dream of being beaten about the head with a ****ty stick! It would have been like holiday in t'ut maldives. Our lecturers used to jab us in the ribs with sharpened bamboo canes, smeared with ricin. If we was Lucky.

 

Did I say born? I was actually aborted in the womb with a coat-hanger and a vacuum cleaner for not being able to summarise the compensation patterns seen in a forefoot varus. The youth of today...

 

Metal coathanger?

Luxery.

 

Did I mention that it was rusty?

 

Not a hand blender then? Thats what we had, and we were glad to have it too!

You tell the young people of today that jebidiah, And they won't believe you

 

"SALRE, as a theoretical framework is useful when making decisions re the amount of a medial heel skive to use or not; it is also useful as a framework to explain the amount of forces that are seen around rearfoot motion (ie tissue stress theory"
Craig Payne

C'mon Kevin, the focus of your work has been rearfoot and frontal plane oriented.
there is no false impression here and I did not create it, you did.

Dr Sha

 

I don't know what an Australian rock band have got to do with it, but I have always loved the mechanical engineering of hand blenders.

 

LOL:bang::bang::bang:

Sorry, Kevin you will only be judged on Dennis's interpretation of what you have written on the subtalar joint and rearfoot, the stuff you've written about the rest of the foot and lower limb will not be included because it......

What????? Dennis, the more you write, the more you make yourself look like a tit. As Kevin and lets face it, virtually everyone has suggested to you, go educate yourself... Please list the articles and books you have read by Kevin. Dennis, I can understand that you are trying to make a name for yourself, as a relatively unknown figure who is fast approaching the end of your working career, to have gone unrecognised must cut you quite hard. But you are REALLY barking up the wrong tree here, and showing you ignorance.

 

I say this with kindness.

There is, Dennis, but only with you.

This is from the recent thread on the MTJ

Its in the saggital plane.

This is thought experiment number 9

It involves the talo crural joint, in the saggital l=plane.

The seminal work, SALRE, focusses mainly on the frontal plane, yes. But note it is sub talar axial location AND rotational equilibrium. Rotational equilibrium is a principle which applies to all planes.

Just because someone has done good work looking at the frontal plane should not devalue the things they have done more generally, or specifically in the frontal plane. If Kevin had been hung over the morning he came up with anything remotely frontal plane, we'd think of him as a great saggital theorist.

Please, actually read some of the things he mentioned, and give it some thought.

Robert