Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
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 (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Hicks stated that: “When one toe alone was extended the corresponding metatarsal head was found to be moved by the mechanism posteriorly and downwards...
Although this mechanism exists in each of the five rays it’s effects are most marked in the first ray. Thus, when all toes are equally extended, the first ray shows the greatest degree of flexion and the fifth the least. This is a pronation twist of the forefoot.”
Hicks J.H.: The mechanics of the foot ii. The plantar aponeurosis and the arch.
Journal of Anatomy vol. 88 part 1
The presumption and modern interpretation seemingly being that each toe extends (dorsiflexes) by the same number of degrees during gait, and at the same time. In reality, the degree of dorsiflexion in each digit should be variable and phasic during gait. So where does this assumption that the windlass mechanism of the foot should result in a "pronation twist of the forefoot" during gait come from? My guess: a misinterpretation of Hicks.
Lets say the digits all dorsiflex simultaneously but by varying degrees- should we still expect to see a "pronation twist of the forefoot"- not necessarily. If the digits are each dorsiflexing by varying amounts: 5>4>3>2>1 then this could result in a supination twist of the forefoot, or no twist of the forefoot- right?
What influence does the variation in toe length have?
If phasic extension of the toes runs from the 5th toe through to the 1st, what influence should this have?
What influence might a tear in the plantar plate have?
Let me put it another way, since despite over a hundred views no-one has responded. Why do you assume that the windlass function of the foot should result in resupination of the rearfoot when you have no idea of the number of degrees of dorsiflexion occurring in the lesser digits during gait, nor of the timings of the extension of each digit relative to one-another?
"Errrr because the windlass mechanism causes resupination" Oh yeah? Who says?
BTW resupination can only occur if the net supination moment is greater than the net pronation moment. But does the lesser toes windlass action add to the net supination moment or, does it decrease the net supination moment?
Let me put it another way, since despite over a hundred views no-one has responded. Why do you assume that the windlass function of the foot should result in resupination of the rearfoot when you have no-idea of the number of degrees of dorsiflexion occurring in the lesser digits during gait, nor of the timings of the extension of each digit relative to one-another?
"Errrr because the windlass mechanism causes resupination" Oh yeah? Who says?
Bojsen-Moller anyone?
When you take a cadaver rearfoot and push proximally on the talar head and pull anteriorly on the attachment of the plantar fascia you get supination of the STJ. Some cadavers are easier than others. Unbpublished research of mine.
I think part of your question is related to the relative amount of metatasal motion as you go from medial to lateral. The original question talked about pronation of the forefoot. So, if the medial metatarsals plantar flexed more than the lateral metatarsals then it would appear as eversion of the forefoot. I think that explains the Hicks quote regarding the forefoot motion. Eversion of the forefoot is not necessarily what causes rearfoot supination. I believe it is the forces created in the first ray windlass that cause resupination as described in my windlass paper. Those forces are the posterior push from the navicular on the talar head and the anterior pull on the calcaneus at the attachment of the plantar fascia.
There are some other factors that will also be important. Since the first ray plantar flexes more than the other rays, we might be able to assume that there would be a medial shift in the center of pressure on the forefoot and this will tend to reduce the pronation moment from the ground. Another factor that might be relevant is that the bases of the medial metatarsals are higher off of the ground than the lateral metarsals, so that the slip of the plantar fascia to the respective toe will have a longer lever arm to cause plantar flexion of the metatarsal in the medial rays. Also, I recollect from Sarafian that sometimes there is no slip to the 5th toe as it goes to the base of the metatarsal.
I think part of your question is related to the relative amount of metatasal motion as you go from medial to lateral. The original question talked about pronation of the forefoot. So, if the medial metatarsals plantar flexed more than the lateral metatarsals then it would appear as eversion of the forefoot. I think that explains the Hicks quote regarding the forefoot motion. Eversion of the forefoot is not necessarily what causes rearfoot supination. I believe it is the forces created in the first ray windlass that cause resupination as described in my windlass paper. Those forces are the posterior push from the navicular on the talar head and the anterior pull on the calcaneus at the attachment of the plantar fascia.
There are some other factors that will also be important. Since the first ray plantar flexes more than the other rays, we might be able to assume that there would be a medial shift in the center of pressure on the forefoot and this will tend to reduce the pronation moment from the ground. Another factor that might be relevant is that the bases of the medial metatarsals are higher off of the ground than the lateral metarsals, so that the slip of the plantar fascia to the respective toe will have a longer lever arm to cause plantar flexion of the metatarsal in the medial rays. Also, I recollect from Sarafian that sometimes there is no slip to the 5th toe as it goes to the base of the metatarsal.
Eric
Thanks for your reply Eric.
Firstly, I agree regarding anatomical variation of the insertion of the plantar fascia into the 5th toe.
My contention here is really regarding the degree and timing of dorsiflexion of each digit during gait. The observation of Hicks being that with equal amounts of digital dorsiflexion, the first ray plantarflexes (due to the windlass mechanism) more than the other rays. Yet, if at a given instant in time during gait: the fifth toe were to be dorsiflexed by say 70 degrees; the fourth toe by 65 degrees, the third toe were dorsiflexed by 50 degrees, the second by 40 degrees and the hallux by 30 degrees, would the foot's windlass mechanism still be producing supination moment, or would it be producing pronation moment?
We don't know what the exact number of degrees of dorsiflexion of each digit should be required to have the same amount of ray plantarflexion in all rays, so the numbers above are somewhat arbitrary. But lets pretend that the degrees of digital dorsiflexion I gave above result in exactly the same amount of ray plantarflexion in all rays. Would you still expect eversion of the forefoot? Then pretend that the numbers I gave for digital dorsiflexion result in plantarflexion of the rays such that the 5th ray plantarflexes > 4th> 3rd>2nd>1st; are we still going to get forefoot eversion?
The forefoot "pronation twist" described by Hicks was dependent upon all digits being dorsiflexed by the same amount, at the same time. I don't believe this situation exists for more than an instant, if at all, during the propulsive phase of gait.
Let me put it another way: if we dorsiflex the 4th and 5th toes in isolation, would the windlass effect from this result in forefoot inversion or eversion? What factors define this effect?
My contention here is really regarding the degree and timing of dorsiflexion of each digit during gait. The observation of Hicks being that with equal amounts of digital dorsiflexion, the first ray plantarflexes (due to the windlass mechanism) more than the other rays. Yet, if at a given instant in time during gait: the fifth toe were to be dorsiflexed by say 70 degrees; the fourth toe by 65 degrees, the third toe were dorsiflexed by 50 degrees, the second by 40 degrees and the hallux by 30 degrees, would the foot's windlass mechanism still be producing supination moment, or would it be producing pronation moment?
We don't know what the exact number of degrees of dorsiflexion of each digit should be required to have the same amount of ray plantarflexion in all rays, so the numbers above are somewhat arbitrary. But lets pretend that the degrees of digital dorsiflexion I gave above result in exactly the same amount of ray plantarflexion in all rays. Would you still expect eversion of the forefoot? Then pretend that the numbers I gave for digital dorsiflexion result in plantarflexion of the rays such that the 5th ray plantarflexes > 4th> 3rd>2nd>1st; are we still going to get forefoot eversion?
When you have long gear pushoff (I don't like that term, but everyone seems to know it.) , when looking from behind, you can often see the 5th toe not touching the ground when the first met and hallux are both still on the ground. Certainly in this position, the slip of the fascia to 4 and 5 don't matter.
In some feet, where the 5th met is considerably shorter than the 2nd, there would have to be quite a bit of STJ supination to keep the 5th met on the ground during push off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
The forefoot "pronation twist" described by Hicks was dependent upon all digits being dorsiflexed by the same amount, at the same time. I don't believe this situation exists for more than an instant, if at all, during the propulsive phase of gait.
Let me put it another way: if we dorsiflex the 4th and 5th toes in isolation, would the windlass effect from this result in forefoot inversion or eversion? What factors define this effect?
Thinking about the retrograde force on the metatarsals, when you push the anterior facet posteriorly, you will tend to get pronation of the STJ. Now, thinking about it I don't recall pulling anteriorly at the fascial attachment at the same time. If you hold the talus steady and push posteriorly on the anterior facet of the calcaneus the STJ will pronate. I'm not so sure what would happen if you simultaneously pushed from ant to posterior on the anterior facet, while simultaneously pulling anteriorly on the attachment of the plantar fascia.
Again, I think the motions seen with activation of the windlass are not caused by a rotation of the forefoot relative to the rearfoot, but rather the more proximal pushes and pulls. If you want to give a function of the fascia that goes to the lateral rays, I would say that the big one is creating a plantar flexion moment on the ray that helps resist the dorsiflexion moment from ground reaction force.
I think the other variable worth considering is whether all slips of the plantar aponeurosis are capable of storing and releasing the same amount of elastic strain energy. I doubt the slip to the 5th Metatarsal/digit will have the exact same extracellular matrix and collagen profile as say the slip to the hallux.
The slip that is exposed to the greatest amount of loading during either windlass or reverse windlass loading should store the most elastic strain energy. Some of this energy is transduced directly into extracellular matrix and protein/collagen synthesis changes via mechanotransduction. With the majority of the energy returned to the system to create movement.
Pretty thought provoking subject Spooners five toed windlass......I haven't been able to get it out of my head for 24 hrs now....Thanks for that Simon!
The presumption and modern interpretation seemingly being that each toe extends (dorsiflexes) by the same number of degrees during gait, and at the same time. In reality, the degree of dorsiflexion in each digit should be variable and phasic during gait. So where does this assumption that the windlass mechanism of the foot should result in a "pronation twist of the forefoot" during gait come from? My guess: a misinterpretation of Hicks.
Leaving aside the equal amount of DF of the digits, I understood from this description that the largest windlass was the one around the 1st metatarsal head making a relative more plantar flexion moment of the first ray compared with the lesser metatarsals. if you would look at the forefoot alone - one could easily define a relative forefoot 'pronatus'
The biggest misinterpretation in my opinion is that the forefoot during propulsion is the fixed segment of the foot making contact with the ground. The heel begin lifted of the ground and being able to start an inversion movement.
For this to be true, a couple of parameters need to be defined?
What's the length of the plantar aponeurosis going to each digit?
What's the diameter of each metatarsal head?
How far (distal) on each digit does the PA end?
Does every toe equally DF.
Assume that the length of all segments of the PA are the same, the amount of DF of each toe is the same,... The effect would be only dependent on the size of the metatarsal head, and this is the Hick's assumption.
The question is, (if you have a 80° DF of D5, 70° of D4 etc. ) when do you reach a net result of equal windlass effect on MTP 5 and MTP1
in other words, how much DF in D5 do you need to equal out the inversion/eversion effect of the PA on the rear foot, when the hallux dorsifexes ie. 10°...
Not sure i'm making myself clear here...
__________________
kind regards
Ken
Ken Van Alsenoy, MSc Pod
Artevelde University College
Podiatry dept.
Ghent - Belgium My location
Leaving aside the equal amount of DF of the digits, I understood from this description that the largest windlass was the one around the 1st metatarsal head making a relative more plantar flexion moment of the first ray compared with the lesser metatarsals. if you would look at the forefoot alone - one could easily define a relative forefoot 'pronatus'
The biggest misinterpretation in my opinion is that the forefoot during propulsion is the fixed segment of the foot making contact with the ground. The heel begin lifted of the ground and being able to start an inversion movement.
For this to be true, a couple of parameters need to be defined?
What's the length of the plantar aponeurosis going to each digit?
What's the diameter of each metatarsal head?
How far (distal) on each digit does the PA end?
Does every toe equally DF.
Assume that the length of all segments of the PA are the same, the amount of DF of each toe is the same,... The effect would be only dependent on the size of the metatarsal head, and this is the Hick's assumption.
The question is, (if you have a 80° DF of D5, 70° of D4 etc. ) when do you reach a net result of equal windlass effect on MTP 5 and MTP1
in other words, how much DF in D5 do you need to equal out the inversion/eversion effect of the PA on the rear foot, when the hallux dorsifexes ie. 10°...
Not sure i'm making myself clear here...
Ken, I think you've defined the variables quite well... Yet we have not quantified the variables. Here's a simple one which should have been done- what is the average dorsiflexion of each of the toes during walking? You'll find lots of data for the hallux, but virtually nothing on the lesser digits. Here's another, what is the phasic relationship of dorsiflexion in the digits? What is the average sagittal plane radius of each of the metatarsal heads... etc.
There's your next project.
p.s. try the Spooner test: dorsifex each of the digits in turn, see if you get internal or external rotation of the leg, see if you get pronation or supination of the foot when each digit is dorsiflexed. This might give you an indication of what each digital slip is bringing to the party.
I love podiatry Arena for the threads like this that challenge some conventional thinking and make the lazy people like me think about biomechanics in a fashion well beyond my usual capabilities
However, when I go on to the new thread page, 2 things jump out at me
1. barefoot running
2. drsha has replied to many of the threads and, unfortunately, the threads degenerate into a slanging match about foot typing and architecture. Also unfortunately(and i am trying to say this without coming off as being a bully) Dennis' insistence on peddling his own system and nomenclature simply diverts threads to pointless arguements.
Other posters also frequently meintion their own paradigms but they are generally backed up by some peer reviewed literature that I can read about and decide for myself so this is far less offensive. Their varied views on things also serve to make them look less like one trick ponies
Not that my contributions to this forum are innovative or even, for that matter, interesting but I am rapidly going off pod arena for these reasons which is a shame
Dennis, please can you have a little perspective on this. I don't appreciate a continuous barrage of religious Dogma being shoved down my throat and i feel the same about my biomechanics.
Simon, good thread. My opinion, for what it is worth is that there must be a constantly changing net effect depending on met length, toe length, plantar aponeurosis tension and anatomy, proximal anatomical variations with respect to overall rotational amount versus line of progression. Also, i'm sure the elastic strain potential that Athol mentions has something to do with it but that is waaaaaayyyyy beyond me at the moment
The idea that the foot should resupinate at a particular point otherwise the foot is not functioning properly seems flawed based on this.
Hmmmm
__________________
I see you girls checkin' out my trunks
I see you girls checkin' out the front of my trunks
I see you girls lookin' at my junk, then checkin' out my rump, then back to my sugarlumps
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RobinP For This Useful Post:
I love podiatry Arena for the threads like this that challenge some conventional thinking and make the lazy people like me think about biomechanics in a fashion well beyond my usual capabilities
I do too.
That's why I participate Robin.
Problem is I have the nerve to offer challenges to conventional thinking that do not totally conform to The Arena Agenda.
and
I won't be bullied away or silenced especially because my following keeps growing elsewhere in spite of your personal attacks.
Craig showing me as Bart at the nuclear plant in his lectures. Spooner putting me next to a picture of a dinosaur and calling my parents mutants are merely seeds you are planting to eliminate dissent in your ranks to no avail. The world is watching.
You want to brainwash the students and those interested but less capable to your zealous biomechanical viewpoint.
I have no problem with that until you make me out to be Satin.
You state Architecture has no place in biomechanics because I preach it. Now Spooner has two threads, this one and the navicular height one that are Architectural. Not one of you ever will credit me with trying to keep structure alive as a vital part of biomechanics (Not even Jeff Root, the son of the architect of biomechanics).
I visit foot typing, a concept that makes so much sense to so many wanting to learn biomechanics. it assists in understanding, teaching and presenting biomechanics in practice and you have allowed me to turn Foot Typing into the "F" word for three years on The Arena.
All of you utilize STJ Neutral casting, yet all I get when I comment on the fact that we should be upgrading our shells to allow less use of ORF's and supply a starting platform for subgrouping feet into characteristic types what I get, fored from both barrels is Dennis, we utilize many casting types in practice which doesn't obviate the fact that your default cast is the one that you state you have no evidence for.
Scherer's and Kirby's labs when called state they prefer a STJ Neutral cast, can you understand that denies them of their arrogance and pulpits! Fuller hates me every time he takes a subtalar neutral cast and we all know how often that is. Robin, you must hate me everytime you take one as well.
You asked me to discuss topics other than foot typing, I have (have you read the recent Derm Thread?).
I have gotten thanks from a number of practitioners for the advice I offered in response to their clinical queries.
I lecture around the world and show slides of the brilliant men and women that live on the Arena and quote the additions they have made to the literature.
Robin, I piss on you because you piss on me on The Arena and I won't stop until you do. Haven't I proven that yet. Act like children and so will I.
First I was Rothbart, then Glaser, then ??? and now I'm Barefoot when in actuality, you all know I am one of you, but dissenting in some areas that are yet undefined in the literature.
I patent, profit and entrepeneur, so did Bill Gates, Henry Ford and Jonas Salk. Get over it.
Give me some props and watch what happens.
Throw me a bone.
Show me a crack in the door.
Even as a charlatan, at least acknowledge that I'm a good one.
Quote:
drsha has replied to many of the threads and, unfortunately, the threads degenerate into a slanging match about foot typing and architecture. Also unfortunately(and i am trying to say this without coming off as being a bully) Dennis' insistence on peddling his own system and nomenclature simply diverts threads to pointless arguements.
Actually Robin, you are a bully and that's why you need the parenthetical comment.
Have you ever witnessed what you (yes you) and so many others do on any thread that I start?
I worked with Chiropractors twelve years ago. Shoot me.
I have no evidence just like most of you (although you act as if you do).
The Subtalar Axis Paper had THREE SUBJECTS and the author posting here is so obviously biased.
You have no consensus on orthotics.
Leave one or two of my threads alone and watch what will happen.
Quote:
Other posters also frequently meintion their own paradigms but they are generally backed up by some peer reviewed literature that I can read about and decide for myself so this is far less offensive.
Give me one or two that have entered The Arena in the last 3-5 years with dissenting views to The Arena that have survived or were fairly evaluated.
Ask Bruce Williams and countless others how you treat opposing viewpoints like Dananberg's or Jeff on how you treat him or Dr Root.
When I publish peer reviewed articles (and I'm close to the second and third), you will destroy them all with your bias while vaulting any peer reviewed literature in your camp with higher praise than it deserves, you watch.
Kirby publishes in Podiatry Today or in his own self published world and you accept it as if it was JBJS. No bias there.
Quote:
Not that my contributions to this forum are innovative or even, for that matter, interesting
Here, I can't agree with you more (we both know you participate on a pretty high level but how does that feel?)
Quote:
but I am rapidly going off pod arena for these reasons which is a shame
No you're not but I bet you would win the beauty contest between us if it were held.
Quote:
Dennis, please can you have a little perspective on this. I don't appreciate a continuous barrage of religious Dogma being shoved down my throat and i feel the same about my biomechanics.
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!
David Smith tried to sling your dogma on an American site and he left with his eyes looking down.
Craig's two articles a year don't impress me and next year, you won't have many valuable additions one more time.
Biomechanics is just not very evidentiary. Get over that one too.
(At least Craig has the class to expose how he judges situations when there is no evidence available)
Quote:
Simon, good thread. My opinion, for what it is worth is that there must be a constantly changing net effect depending on met length, toe length, plantar aponeurosis tension and anatomy, proximal anatomical variations with respect to overall rotational amount versus line of progression.
Simon, good thread but let's face it, it is Architectural in nature.
Acknowledge who The Architect is here on The Arena and watch what happens.
My opinion is that you are examining the windlass in open chain and not considering the foot type specific collapse with the Truss-Tie Beam structure of the foot as a clinical factor when transposing your theory into something that is clinical.
The bones are collapsing secondarily stretching the soft tissue tie beam, not the reverse.
Clinically, when you dorsiflex the toes, you stretch the plantar plate and produce compensatory pathology. That's a no no for me in practice.
Quote:
The idea that the foot should resupinate at a particular point otherwise the foot is not functioning properly seems flawed based on this.
You know me Simon, Dr Pronation bad, Supination Good (what crap) so what can I say about this.
Summarily, When what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander on The Arena, watch what happens
or fall pray to those that wish me off The Arena and bury dissent with my banishment from your Kingdom.
unfortunately, the threads degenerate into a slanging match about foot typing and architecture
Quote:
Originally Posted by drsha
I do too.
That's why I participate Robin.
Problem is I have the nerve to offer challenges to conventional thinking that do not totally conform to The Arena Agenda.
and
I won't be bullied away or silenced especially because my following keeps growing elsewhere in spite of your personal attacks.
Craig showing me as Bart at the nuclear plant in his lectures. Spooner putting me next to a picture of a dinosaur and calling my parents mutants are merely seeds you are planting to eliminate dissent in your ranks to no avail. The world is watching.
You want to brainwash the students and those interested but less capable to your zealous biomechanical viewpoint.
I have no problem with that until you make me out to be Satin.
You state Architecture has no place in biomechanics because I preach it. Now Spooner has two threads, this one and the navicular height one that are Architectural. Not one of you ever will credit me with trying to keep structure alive as a vital part of biomechanics (Not even Jeff Root, the son of the architect of biomechanics).
I visit foot typing, a concept that makes so much sense to so many wanting to learn biomechanics. it assists in understanding, teaching and presenting biomechanics in practice and you have allowed me to turn Foot Typing into the "F" word for three years on The Arena.
All of you utilize STJ Neutral casting, yet all I get when I comment on the fact that we should be upgrading our shells to allow less use of ORF's and supply a starting platform for subgrouping feet into characteristic types what I get, fored from both barrels is Dennis, we utilize many casting types in practice which doesn't obviate the fact that your default cast is the one that you state you have no evidence for.
Scherer's and Kirby's labs when called state they prefer a STJ Neutral cast, can you understand that denies them of their arrogance and pulpits! Fuller hates me every time he takes a subtalar neutral cast and we all know how often that is. Robin, you must hate me everytime you take one as well.
You asked me to discuss topics other than foot typing, I have (have you read the recent Derm Thread?).
I have gotten thanks from a number of practitioners for the advice I offered in response to their clinical queries.
I lecture around the world and show slides of the brilliant men and women that live on the Arena and quote the additions they have made to the literature.
Robin, I piss on you because you piss on me on The Arena and I won't stop until you do. Haven't I proven that yet. Act like children and so will I.
First I was Rothbart, then Glaser, then ??? and now I'm Barefoot when in actuality, you all know I am one of you, but dissenting in some areas that are yet undefined in the literature.
I patent, profit and entrepeneur, so did Bill Gates, Henry Ford and Jonas Salk. Get over it.
Give me some props and watch what happens.
Throw me a bone.
Show me a crack in the door.
Even as a charlatan, at least acknowledge that I'm a good one.
Actually Robin, you are a bully and that's why you need the parenthetical comment.
Have you ever witnessed what you (yes you) and so many others do on any thread that I start?
I worked with Chiropractors twelve years ago. Shoot me.
I have no evidence just like most of you (although you act as if you do).
The Subtalar Axis Paper had THREE SUBJECTS and the author posting here is so obviously biased.
You have no consensus on orthotics.
Leave one or two of my threads alone and watch what will happen.
Give me one or two that have entered The Arena in the last 3-5 years with dissenting views to The Arena that have survived or were fairly evaluated.
Ask Bruce Williams and countless others how you treat opposing viewpoints like Dananberg's or Jeff on how you treat him or Dr Root.
When I publish peer reviewed articles (and I'm close to the second and third), you will destroy them all with your bias while vaulting any peer reviewed literature in your camp with higher praise than it deserves, you watch.
Kirby publishes in Podiatry Today or in his own self published world and you accept it as if it was JBJS. No bias there.
Here, I can't agree with you more (we both know you participate on a pretty high level but how does that feel?)
No you're not but I bet you would win the beauty contest between us if it were held.
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!
David Smith tried to sling your dogma on an American site and he left with his eyes looking down.
Craig's two articles a year don't impress me and next year, you won't have many valuable additions one more time.
Biomechanics is just not very evidentiary. Get over that one too.
(At least Craig has the class to expose how he judges situations when there is no evidence available)
Simon, good thread but let's face it, it is Architectural in nature.
Acknowledge who The Architect is here on The Arena and watch what happens.
My opinion is that you are examining the windlass in open chain and not considering the foot type specific collapse with the Truss-Tie Beam structure of the foot as a clinical factor when transposing your theory into something that is clinical.
The bones are collapsing secondarily stretching the soft tissue tie beam, not the reverse.
Clinically, when you dorsiflex the toes, you stretch the plantar plate and produce compensatory pathology. That's a no no for me in practice.
You know me Simon, Dr Pronation bad, Supination Good (what crap) so what can I say about this.
Summarily, When what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander on The Arena, watch what happens
or fall pray to those that wish me off The Arena and bury dissent with my banishment from your Kingdom.
Dennis
No further questions, your honour
__________________
I see you girls checkin' out my trunks
I see you girls checkin' out the front of my trunks
I see you girls lookin' at my junk, then checkin' out my rump, then back to my sugarlumps
The Following User Says Thank You to RobinP For This Useful Post:
Did some looking around on 'the vault topic'
I start to understand where we are coming from...
Kenya:
If you have any further questions about The Vault of The Foot and its clinical applications in Functional Lower Extremity Biomechanics or how it relates to The Foot Centering Theory of Structure and Function, please raise them on The Vault of The Foot Thread that Dr Spooner authored or in order to reduce the slanging matches, do as others continue to do and raise them personally to me @ drsha@foothelpers.com.
After reading his last posting, I think DrSha needs to start his own website so he won't be bothered by the rest of us.
The new website should be called:
Dennis Arena
I'm sure it will be verrrrryyy popular....oh yeah.....
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
After reading his last posting, I think DrSha needs to start his own website so he won't be bothered by the rest of us.
The new website should be called:
Dennis Arena
I'm sure it will be verrrrryyy popular....oh yeah.....
Kevin:
You miss the main reason that I am a Veteran Member, just like most of you, here on The Arena.
I wish to engage with some of the best minds in the world of biomechanics and exchange ideas and philosophies in order to grow our beloved science and take it forward from where Dr's Root, Dananberg, Kirby and Payne et al have brought us.
Yeah, I know he was second author. But, as he informed us that he was lecturing on the proposed re-classification recently, I assumed (one never should, I know) that he would be an authority on the subject.
And, before you say it; Yep, he probably is the cats father.
Great discussion!! I'm still trying to get my head around all the concepts, but I have an article to add for your reading pleasure. An interesting concept from this paper relates to the "pre-loading" of the plantar fascia during late swing. They also describe nicely the phasic strain in the fascia as gait velocity increases.
one questions of my own...
Is there a potential role of lateral force transmission from the intrinsics to the plantar fascia? If so can tension in the PF be directly modified by the activity in the intriniscs? what effect may this have on the lesser toes?
Anyway, I'll rejoin the discussion when I have my head around it
Great discussion!! I'm still trying to get my head around all the concepts, but I have an article to add for your reading pleasure. An interesting concept from this paper relates to the "pre-loading" of the plantar fascia during late swing. They also describe nicely the phasic strain in the fascia as gait velocity increases.
one questions of my own...
Is there a potential role of lateral force transmission from the intrinsics to the plantar fascia? If so can tension in the PF be directly modified by the activity in the intriniscs? what effect may this have on the lesser toes?
Anyway, I'll rejoin the discussion when I have my head around it
Five toed windlass
(we both know you participate on a pretty high level but how does that feel?) 
.
Hybrid Mode
