Roots Theory

[ians]

Hi all
I have been asking a lot of questions of Robert in private messaging that followed a set of photographs(not postcards)about a case history i sent him.
It just evovled in my preparation for the fundamental biomechanics day coming up. He has suggested it would be better to ask on here.
At present i am very confused about the Root theory which i was taught and what it has evolved into.
So would a kind person please explain the evolution and current thinking if possible and why.
STN ,RCSP, FF to RF relationships and their measurements.
What about the foot posture index, is this evolution?
Casting, do you relate you angular measurment on the back of the cast. How was it measured?

Head, block ,bow curtain, axes in the corner form an orderly line please. Please give me a snippet to take to the afterlife before the axe comes down. If you take an axe.
Thank you all its been great knowing you.
Ian

[Admin]

Hi Ian,

You should have been at Tamworth2 yesterday, where Roberts excellent lecture showed Root Theory (and several other biomech theories) to be fairly full of holes (you wouldn't want to carry water around in any of them ;D).

I'm certain the Biomech Day with Robert will answer all your questions fully.

Regards,

[robertisaacs]

Hey ian.

Sorry for not replying sooner! As David said, been busy with T2.

I'm not ignoring your relevant and excellant question, as soon as i have time i'll upload some slides from my talk and run through a few bits.

Cheers
Robert

[ians]

I realize how busy you are and will wait patiently because i am sure it will be worth it!
Regards
Ian

[lawrencebevan]

"Roots theory" is incorrect. At the very least Mert Root published his work in conjunction with at least 2 co-authors and much of it was a conglomeration of thinking of many 1960's west coast US Pods.

[billliggins]

Jul 14, 2008 12:36:04 GMT lawrencebevan said:

"Roots theory" is incorrect. At the very least Mert Root published his work in conjunction with at least 2 co-authors and much of it was a conglomeration of thinking of many 1960's west coast US Pods.

[billliggins]

In fact, Root's theories (plural) are no more correct or incorrect than other theories, although I agree that there are gaps that a horse and cart could be driven through! Bill Orien (his co-author) pointed out that Root never claimed that his ideas were anything but fallible. He published (with Weed and Orien) "Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot" and the introduction states 'The truth of this text is based primarily on coherence.....The practitioner must have the best possible basis upon which to make treatment decisions, he cannot wait until sufficient research has been conducted (to treat the foot)..... Sound methods for diagnosis and treatment of abnormalities can be developed, once normal function and structure of the foot is understood". Root used logic to advance his theories, and as we all know science is not always logical; even engineering principals cannot be logical in an illogical system eg. the human body is never a true closed kinetic chain even when the foot is in a WB situation. Although He drew on the thoughts of his colleagues (why not?) opening his book at the end of a random chapter gives the following reference dates pre-dating 1960 on one page alone. 1948, 1932, 1955, 1952, 1914, 1927, 1954, 1958, 1941, 1949, 1956, 1939, 1953, 1948, 1953, 1957, 1955, 1943, 1948, 1926, 1948, 1876, 1932. He clearly referred to published material from previous generations and that published material included papers from Dermatology, Orthopaedics, Kinesiology, Embryology, Paediatrics, Anthropology and Radiology amongst others.

I am no apologist for Root but his contribution to our profession must not be diminished because some of his concepts have been found not to stand up to modern research methodology - that's what he said should happen.

Above all, he taught us to look at the lower limb in the context of the whole body and to use a coherent and rational method of examination and description - better, dare I say, than the anatomical descritions still in use today eg. what does hallux valgus relate to; the mid line of the foot or the body? What is supination and pronation? Can the foot truly supinate or pronate in anatomical terms? Does the ankle joint extend or (dorsi)flex? Yet you and I (and everybody else in the business) knows precisely what those terms mean and we use them constantly - thanks to Root.

What I am suggesting is that we should never accept what a senior figure states is correct because they are held in awe (parent, for those at the weekend) but always question, research and modify theories as time goes by (adult). However, part of that questioning should be an acceptance that we are building on the work of others and not destroying. As Issac Newton said of Robert Hooke " If I have seen a little further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".

[robertisaacs]

Moved this to biomech discussion. Too contentious for education!

[Admin]

Jul 14, 2008 16:24:24 GMT billliggins said:

(Much cut...) In fact, Root's theories (plural) are no more correct or incorrect than other theories, although I agree that there are gaps that a horse and cart could be driven through! Bill Orien (his co-author) pointed out that Root never claimed that his ideas were anything but fallible.

I am no apologist for Root but his contribution to our profession must not be diminished because some of his concepts have been found not to stand up to modern research methodology - that's what he said should happen.

Bill, I absolutely agree, and those of us who practice Biomech today probably use more Rootian methodology than we realise.
You raise an important point - that Root and colleagues gave as a starting point, not a definitive methodology, and were keen to make others aware of this.

It would seem our problems with complicated biomech (complicated as in dodgy science, not as in number of tools in the toolbox) came about because Biomech started to be taught by others as though the Root et al paradigm was gospel. I well remember my first Biomech Course (run by a well-known UK subsidiary of a USA Lab) who did just that. That was around 30 years ago.

Some Labs (and others) are still doing this

[robertisaacs]

There was a fantastic quote which i am kicking myself to have lost. It graced the top of my dissertation which i have since lost. From memory...

"when a ruler appears lines tend to get drawn, angles measured and measurements emerge with the aura of indisputable scientific facts when they remain, in truth, subjective estimations."

Biomech started to be taught by others as though the Root et al paradigm was gospel

I suspect that sociologist Bill would confirm that by and large, late converts make the best zealots.

Regards
Robert

[ians]

Is it easier to explain "these holes" as if we run through the Root examination?
Say if we started with the patient prone on the couch and start with the dissection of calcaneous with a line then the centre of the Gasroc etc.
Personally i was never happy trying to take accurate measurements from rounded,spongy,stretchy things it was going against all i was tought in engineering.
Its like drawing a centre line on an elastic band and using it as a datum. Then drawing the same line on another elastic band and comparing them accurately. I found myself questioning accuracy of my drawing between left and right. Or were the results because of bio fault on the patient?. I thought it was me just being finicky,a poor student, as the whole of the Biomechanic world was getting accurate results this way.
These are only my thoughts and i am certainly not knocking Biomechanical Engineers who clearly have pushed the profession forward.
Please show holes in examination i think someone used the expression KISS (excellent phrase)
David has for example pointed out "Equinus" 10 degree hole from the t2 experiment.
I was told i was not pushing the foot hard enough into dorsiflexion or too much as the couch scooted around the floor! ;D
Regards
Ian

[lawrencebevan]

Whoa

I meant only to call it "roots theory" was incorrect not the theory itself!!

[billliggins]

Indeed, and no critiscism of you was intended. I was trying to point out that "Roots Theory", like so many theories, was based on work done by others, sometimes centuries previously.

Who invented the first steam engine? No it was not James Watt, it was as far as we know Hero, in about 4 AD although he may have re-discovered someone else's work. Several working steam engines had been in use long before Watt improved on them and finally coupled them to a belt drive in Bouton's factory to truly begin the industrial revolution.

Harvery re-discovered the circulatory system although Arab physicians had redisovered Greek and Roman medicine themselves.

William Ellis of Gloucester described many of our concepts of biomechanics before Inman and he derived many of his ideas from a Dutch anatomist (whose name escapes me).

So basically, we all agree that Root and his co-workers reinvented biomechanics by research. Good, lets take it on from there.

All the best

Bill

[Admin]

Jul 15, 2008 16:00:16 GMT billliggins said:

previously.

.

Harvery re-discovered the circulatory system although Arab physicians had redisovered Greek and Roman medicine themselves.

That bugger Martin certainly hides his light under a bushel then.




;D

[lawrencebevan]

Fabulous post Bill!