Skip to main content

Are Root Biomechanics Dying?

Yes. While Dr. Root made a number of substantial contributions to the profession, this author says emerging research has exposed flaws with the subtalar joint neutral theory and the curriculum at podiatry schools has shifted toward alternate theories of foot function.

   Forty-three years ago, Merton L. Root, DPM, established and became director of the first Department of Orthopedics at the California College of Chiropody. This college later became the California College of Podiatric Medicine and is now the California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt University. The Department of Orthopedics was soon renamed the Department of Biomechanics in order to reflect the relatively new field of foot and lower extremity biomechanics, a scientific discipline that had become of great interest to researchers in the post-World War II era in their efforts to design better and more functional lower extremity prostheses.

   Dr. Root taught and developed many of his concepts within the Department of Biomechanics with his colleagues, including John Weed, DPM, William Orien, DPM, Christopher Smith, DPM and Tom Sgarlato, DPM. These colleagues collaborated with him to help develop new and exciting ideas on foot and lower extremity function, including the publication of four textbooks on podiatric biomechanics.1-4

   Dr. Root was responsible for many important accomplishments. These accomplishments included:

   • establishing the concept of a neutral position for the subtalar joint;
   • developing a classification scheme for many foot and lower extremity deformities;
   • defining eight biophysical criteria for normalcy as a model of ideal foot and lower extremity structure; and
   • creating and developing the modern thermoplastic foot orthosis and its casting and manufacturing techniques.5-7

   In addition, the Department of Biomechanics, which Dr. Root founded, established the Biomechanics Fellowship program at the California College of Podiatric Medicine. Up until 1998, this program provided post-graduate training in podiatric biomechanics and foot orthosis therapy to many nationally and internationally recognized podiatric biomechanics educators.

   I had the great fortune of being able to attend many lectures given by Dr. Root during my years as a student, my Biomechanics Fellowship and early practice years. During these lectures, I was always impressed by the passion that Dr. Root had for the subjects of foot and lower extremity function, and foot orthosis therapy. He was not only a walking repository of valuable information but was a dynamic speaker who greatly inspired me as a young podiatrist.

   During his lectures, Dr. Root would say he did not want podiatrists to take his word as gospel and that he had more respect for those individuals who challenged his ideas than those who agreed with everything he said. Dr. Root encouraged scientific research that he hoped would lead to better treatments of the painful maladies that podiatrists saw on a daily basis in their busy practices. Dr. Root often stated during his lectures that he fully expected that the information in his textbooks would become outdated within a decade of their publication due to the influx of new scientific data that would lead to a different and more complete understanding of foot function.

Noting The Emergence Of Alternative Theories Of Foot Function In The Curriculum

   Today, over 30 years after the publication of Root, Orien and Weed’s most influential textbook, Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot, there is now sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that many of Dr. Root’s ideas and theories need to be either modified or discarded in order to more accurately reflect recent research findings and newer theories of foot and lower extremity biomechanics.3

   Even though many podiatrists within the United States have little knowledge of this fact, many podiatry schools in other countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Spain have already started to move away from teaching Dr. Root’s subtalar joint neutral position theory. These schools have moved toward teaching alternative theories of foot function such as subtalar joint axis location/rotational equilibrium theory, tissue stress theory, preferred movement pathway theory and sagittal plane facilitation theory.11-19

   At the California School of Podiatric Medicine, Dr. Root’s subtalar neutral theory is now being taught along with other theories of foot function and foot orthosis therapy that broaden, balance and strengthen the overall biomechanics curriculum for the podiatry students.

A Closer Look At The Flaws With Subtalar Joint Neutral Theory

   The gradual move toward developing and teaching other theories of foot function is at least partially due to the many problems with Dr. Root’s subtalar joint neutral theory that have been noted throughout the years.20,21

   First of all, the neutral position itself is a rotational position of the subtalar joint that has never been adequately defined. A precise anatomical definition of the subtalar joint neutral position is necessary for researchers to determine whether Dr. Root’s theories are reliable and accurate. Unfortunately, the definition for subtalar joint neutral position used by Root and co-workers is “that position of the subtalar joint in which the foot is neither pronated or supinated.”3

   This tautological definition of the subtalar joint neutral position, “neither pronated or supinated,” creates great difficulty for scientific study since it lacks a description of the exact anatomical rotational alignment of the calcaneus relative to the talus that could more precisely define the neutral position.

   In addition, many podiatric biomechanics educators, including myself, have commonly found inter-examiner errors of 5 degrees or more in drawing the calcaneal bisection and determining the subtalar neutral position. One must ensure accuracy for both in order to determine the degree of rearfoot varus/valgus deformity, the degree of forefoot varus/valgus deformity, the neutral calcaneal stance position (NCSP) and relaxed calcaneal stance position (RCSP), all of which are important examination findings in Dr. Root’s subtalar joint neutral theory.

   As a result of these inter-examiner errors, it has been my experience in teaching hundreds of podiatrists and podiatry students that not only does the rotational position of the subtalar joint vary widely when one clinician determines a foot’s neutral position compared to another, but the forefoot to rearfoot relationship, NCSP and RCSP also may vary widely from one clinician to another.

   The result of these differences in interpretation between one clinician and another is that different clinicians may make significantly different orthoses for the same patient, even though the clinicians all think that they are precisely following the teachings of the subtalar joint neutral theory advocated by Dr. Root and his colleagues.

   In fact, in a study by Australian podiatric researchers on the variation in neutral position negative casting of a single foot by multiple experienced and inexperienced clinicians, researchers found that the forefoot to rearfoot relationship of the negative casts ranged from a 10-degree forefoot valgus to a 6.5-degree forefoot varus, or a difference of 16.5 degrees in the forefoot to rearfoot deformity determination on the same foot.22

   If large errors such as these commonly exist, then the measurement of such “deformities” becomes practically useless when it comes to communicating parameters of foot and lower structure between clinicians. These errors would also prevent the precise design of custom foot orthoses for patients with mechanically-based pathologies of the foot and lower extremity.

   Many researchers further doubt that the subtalar joint neutral position is indeed the ideal position of function for the subtalar joint as Dr. Root and colleagues have suggested.3 In walking gait studies of young, healthy patients, researchers have shown the subtalar joint is pronated relative to the subtalar joint neutral position throughout most of the stance phase of gait. These authors also noted that the more pronated RCSP was more representative of the average subtalar joint rotational position than the NCSP.23,24

   This experimental data is in direct disagreement with Root and co-workers, who suggested that the normal foot is more supinated throughout stance phase, pronating past the subtalar neutral position in early stance phase and then supinating past the neutral position in the latter half of the midstance phase of walking gait.3

   Much of this disagreement and confusion may come from Dr. Root’s definition of “normal” foot and lower extremity morphology. Root’s definition is more of a structural ideal for the human foot and lower extremity as opposed to being an average morphology that is present in a group of asymptomatic, young healthy patients who other researchers define as being “normal.”2,3,23,24

   Another problem with the subtalar joint neutral theory is that there is no scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that one may predict gait function or foot and lower extremity pathology via the determination of subtalar joint neutral position, rearfoot deformity, the forefoot to rearfoot relationship, tibial position or by the first ray range of motion, all of which are measurements that Dr. Root advocated.2 In addition, recent research shows that the idea that two separate midtarsal joint axes, the longitudinal and oblique, coexist together simultaneously is an erroneous assumption.13,25-28

   Furthermore, the idea that the midtarsal joint actually “locks” or has a “locking position” is not mechanically consistent with the known spring-like function of the longitudinal arch of the human foot.29-30 Other problems with Root’s biomechanics theories have been discussed and published previously, and they are still being debated within the international podiatric biomechanics community.31

Recognizing The Pioneering Work Of Root And Colleagues With Foot Orthoses

   The theories of Dr. Root and colleagues attempted to correlate structure to function. While these theories have not been supported by the research to date, this does not mean that we should abandon research that does search for a correlation between structure and function in the human foot and lower extremity.

   With more accurate gait analysis techniques being developed every year, it is quite possible that future research may still support some of the hypotheses of the subtalar joint neutral theory. Additionally, just because the subtalar joint neutral theory may need modification or replacement, this certainly does not indicate that prescription orthoses made with the neutral position casting technique, which Dr. Root and colleagues helped create and develop, do not work extremely well in treating a multitude of mechanically-based pathologies of the foot and lower extremities.4

   In fact, recent scientific research has shown that the foot orthoses that are based largely on the pioneering work of Dr. Root and colleagues produce a significant therapeutic effect for patients with foot and ankle osteoarthritis (OA), knee OA, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia, patellofemoral syndrome, plantar fasciitis, diabetic neuropathic plantar ulcers and metatarsalgia.33-48 These orthoses also reportedly help prevent metatarsal and femoral stress fractures, and may increase the mental health of individuals.49-51

   Researchers have also shown that foot orthoses have significant positive effects on the kinematics and kinetics of the rearfoot, tibia and knee, and on plantar pressures during both walking and running gait.52-68 In addition, the foot orthoses that Dr. Root helped develop improve balance and change the electromyographic patterns of the lower extremity during weightbearing activities.69-74

Final Notes

   In view of all of these facts and in consideration of my role as a podiatric biomechanics educator for the past quarter century, would I say that Root biomechanics are dying? The answer is a definite yes.

   We know for certain that that many of the hypotheses that Dr. Root and his colleagues proposed over the years have not been supported by research evidence and some of these concepts do not adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

   However, and more importantly, should we have any less regard for the accomplishments of Dr. Root just because, as he so often predicted and expected, that his theories from 30 to 40 years ago are now being found to be inaccurate, and may need modification and replacement? The answer to this question is a definite no.

   Without the trailblazing efforts of individuals such as Dr. Root during our early years as a medical discipline, podiatric medicine would simply not be the respected profession that it is today. We owe a great deal to pioneering individuals such as Dr. Root since, even though many of his ideas are rightfully being replaced by more robust scientific theory, his wealth of important contributions to our profession will continue to live on for generations to come.

Dr. Kirby is an Adjunct Associate Professor within the Department of Applied Biomechanics at the California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College in Oakland, Ca. He is in private practice in Sacramento, Ca.


1. Sgarlato TE (ed). A Compendium of Podiatric Biomechanics. California College of Podiatric Medicine, San Francisco, 1971. 2. Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH, Hughes RJ. Biomechanical Examination of the Foot, Volume 1. Clinical Biomechanics Corporation, Los Angeles, 1971. 3. Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH. Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot. Clinical Biomechanics Corp., Los Angeles, CA, 1977. 4. Root ML, Weed JH, Orien WP. Neutral Position Casting Techniques, Clinical Biomechanics Corp., Los Angeles, 1978. 5. Lee WE. Podiatric biomechanics: an historical appraisal and discussion of the Root model as a clinical system of approach in the present context of theoretical uncertainty. Clinics Pod Med Surg 18(4):555-684, 2001. 6. Lee WE. Merton L. Root: An appreciation. The Podiatric Biomechanics Group Focus. 2(2): 32-68, 2003. 7. Root ML. Development of the functional orthosis. Clinics Podiatric Med Surgery 11(2);183-210, 1994. 8. Kirby KA. Methods for determination of positional variations in the subtalar joint axis. JAPMA, 77(5): 228-234, 1987. 9. Kirby KA. Rotational equilibrium across the subtalar joint axis. JAPMA 79(1): 1-14, 1989. 10. Kirby KA. Subtalar joint axis location and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function. JAPMA 91(9):465-488, 2001. 11. McPoil TG, Hunt GC. Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: Present problems and future directions. JOSPT 21(6):381-388, 1995. 12. Fuller EA. Computerized gait evaluation, pp. 179-205 in Valmassy RL (ed.), Clinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremities. Mosby Yearbook, St. Louis, 1996. 13. Kirby KA. Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics II: Precision Intricast Newsletters 1997-2002. Precision Intricast, Inc. Payson, Ariz., 2002. 14. Fuller EA. Reinventing biomechanics. Podiatry Today, 13(7):30-36, December 2000. 15. Nigg BM, Nurse MA. Stefanyshyn DJ. Shoe inserts and orthotics for sports and physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31(7 Suppl):S421-S428, 1999. 16. Nigg BM. The role of impact forces and foot pronation: a new paradigm. Clin J Sports Med 11(1):2-9, 2001. 17. Nurse MA, Nigg BM. Quantifying a relationship between tactile and vibration sensitivity of the human foot with plantar pressure distributions during gait. Clin Biomech 14(9):667-672, 1999. 18. Payne CB, Dananberg HJ. Sagittal plane facilitation of the foot. Australasian J Pod Med. 31:7-11, 1997. 19. Dananberg HJ. Sagittal plane biomechanics. JAPMA 90(1):47-50, 2000. 20. Kirby KA. Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, Arizona, 1997. 21. Payne, C. Should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater? Australasian J Pod Med, 31:73-75, 1997. 22. Chuter V, Payne C, Miller K. Variability of neutral-position casting of the foot. JAPMA, 93(1):1-5, 2003. 23. McPoil T, Cornwall MW. Relationship between neutral subtalar joint position and pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. Foot Ankle Intl 15(3):141-145, 1994. 24. Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB. Rearfoot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. Foot Ankle Intl.17(7):406-412, 1996. 25. Nester CJ, Findlow AH, Bowker P. Scientific approach to the axis of rotation of the midtarsal joint. JAPMA 91(2):68-73, 2001. 26. Nester CJ, Bowker P, Bowden P. Kinematics of the midtarsal joint during standing leg rotation. JAPMA 92(2):77-89, 2002. 27. Nester CJ, Findlow AH. Clinical and experimental models of the midtarsal joint. Proposed terms of reference and associated terminology. JAPMA 96(1):24-31, 2006. 28. Lundgren P, Nester C, Liu A, Arndt A, Jones R, Stacoff A, Wolf P, Lundberg A. Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Posture 28(1):93-100, 2008. 29. Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RMcN. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature, 325: 147-149, 1987. 30. Kirby KA. Midtarsal joint locking: Real or Imaginary?-Part I & II. Precision Intricast Newsletter, Precision Intricast, Payson, Arizona, June & July 2008. 31. Kirby KA. Inaccuracies in podiatric biomechanics dogma – Volumes I, II & III. In: Kirby KA (ed): Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, Arizona, 1997, pp. 7-12. 32. Thompson JA, Jennings MB, Hodge W. Orthotic therapy in the management of osteoarthritis. JAPMA 82(3):136-139, 1992. 33. Rubin R, Menz HB. Use of laterally wedged custom foot orthoses to reduce pain associated with medial knee osteoarthritis: A preliminary investigation. JAPMA 95(4):347-352, 2005. 34. Pham T, et al. Laterally elevated wedged insoles in the treatment of medial knee OA: a two-year prospective randomized controlled study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 12(1): 46-55, 2004. 35. Kerrigan DC, Lelas JL, et al. Effectiveness of a lateral-wedge insole on knee varus torque in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehab 83(7): 889-93, 2002. 36. Powell M, Seid M, Szer IA. Efficacy of custom foot orthotics in improving pain and functional status in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized trial. J Rheum 32(5):943-950, 2005. 37. Chalmers AC, et al. Metatarsalgia and rheumatoid arthritis-a randomized, single blind, sequential trial comparing two types of foot orthoses and supportive shoes. J Rheum 27(7):1643-1647, 2000. 38. Woodburn J, Barker S, Helliwell PS. A randomized controlled trial of foot orthoses in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheum 29(7):1377-1383, 2002. 39. Mejjad O, et al. Foot orthotics decrease pain but do not improve gait in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Joint Bone Spine 71(6):542-545, 2004. 40. Slattery M, Tinley P. The efficacy of functional foot orthoses in the control of pain and ankle joint disintegration in hemophilia. JAPMA, 91(5):240-244, 2001. 41. Eng JJ, Pierrynowski MR. Evaluation of soft foot orthotics in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome. Phys Therapy 73(2):62-70, 1993. 42. Saxena A, Haddad J. The effect of foot orthoses on patellofemoral pain syndrome. JAPMA 93(4):264-271, 2003. 43. Gross MT, Byers JM, Krafft JL, et al. The impact of custom semirigid foot orthotics on pain and disability for individuals with plantar fasciitis. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther 32(4):149-157, 2002. 44. Raspovic A, et al. Effect of customized insoles on vertical plantar pressures in sites of previous neuropathic ulceration in the diabetic foot. Foot 10:133-138, 2000. 45. Lobmann R, et al. Effects of preventative footwear on foot pressure as determined by pedobarography in diabetic patients: a prospective study. Diabet Med 18(4):314-319, 2001. 46. Duffin AC, Kidd R, Chan A, Donaghue KC. High plantar pressure and callus in diabetic adolescents. Incidence and treatment. JAPMA 93(3):214-220, 2003. 47. Postema K, Burm PE, Zande ME, Limbeek J. Primary metatarsalgia: the influence of a custom moulded insole and a rockerbar on plantar pressure. Pros Orth Int 22(1):35-44, 1998. 48. Burns J, Crosbie J, Ouvrier R, Hunt A. Effective orthotic therapy for the painful cavus foot. JAPMA 96(3):205-211, 2006. 49. Simkin A, Leichter I, Giladi M, et al. Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle 10(1):25-29, 1989. 50. Finestone A, Giladi M, Elad H, et al. Prevention of stress fractures using custom biomechanical shoe orthoses. Clin Orth Rel Research 360:182-190, 1999. 51. Kusomoto A, Suzuki T, Yoshida H, Kwon J. Intervention study to improve quality of life and health problems of community-living elderly women in Japan by shoe fitting and custom-made insoles. Gerontology 22:110-118, 2007. 52. Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, James LS. Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am J Sp Med 7(6):328-31, 1979. 53. Fong DTP, Lam MH, Lao MLM, et al. Effect of medial arch-heel support in inserts on reducing ankle eversion: a biomechanical study. J Ortho Surg Res 3:7-13, 2008. 54. Johanson MA, Donatelli R, Wooden MJ, Andrew PD, Cummings GS. Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation. Phys Ther 74(2):149-158, 1994. 55. MacLean C, Davis IM, Hamill J. Influence of a custom foot intervention on lower extremity dynamics in healthy runners. Clin Biomech 21(6):621-630, 2006. 56. MacLean CL, Davis IS, Hamill J. Short and long-term influences of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics. Clin J Sport Med 18(4):338-343, 2008. 57. Nester CJ, Hutchins S, Bowker P. Effect of foot orthoses on rearfoot complex kinematics during walking gait. Foot Ankle Intl 22(2):133-139, 2001. 58. Nester CJ, Van Der Linden ML, Bowker P. Effect of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of normal walking gait. Gait Posture 17(2):180-187, 2003. 59. Smith LS, Clarke TE, Hamill CL, Santopietro F. The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. JAPMA 76(4):227-232, 1986. 60. Mundermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, Stefanyshyn DJ. Foot orthoses affect lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during running. Clin Biomech 18(3):254-262, 2003. 61. Nawoczenski DA, Cook TM, Saltzman CL. The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther 21(6):317-327, 1995. 62. Williams DS, McClay-Davis I, Baitch SP. Effect of inverted orthoses on lower extremity mechanics in runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 35(12):2060-2068, 2003. 63. Woodburn J, Helliwell PS, Barker S. Changes in 3D joint kinematics support the continuous use of orthoses in the management of painful rearfoot deformity in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheum 30(11):2356-2364, 2003. 64. Stackhouse CL, Davis IM, Hamill J. Orthotic intervention in forefoot and rearfoot strike running patterns. Clin Biomech 19(1):64-70, 2004. 65. Nigg BM, Stergiou P, Cole G, et al. Effect of shoe inserts on kinematics, center of pressure, and leg joint moments during running. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc 35(2):314-319, 2003. 66. Hodge MC, Bach TM, Carter GM. Orthotic management of plantar pressure ad pain in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Biom 14(8):567-575, 1999. 67. Li CY, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of foot pressure and loading force during gait in RA patients with and without foot orthoses. Kurume Med J 47(3):211-217, 2000. 68. Scherer PR, Sanders J, Eldredge DE, Duffy SJ, Lee RY. Effect of functional foot orthoses on first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion in stance and gait. JAPMA 96(6):474-281, 2006. 69. Guskiewicz KM, Perrin DH. Effects of orthotics on postural sway following inversion ankle sprain. J Orthop Sp Phys Ther 23(5):326-331, 1996. 70. Hertel J, Denegar CR, Buckley WE, Sharkey NA, Stokes WL. Effect of rearfoot orthotics on postural control in healthy subjects. J Sport Rehabil 10:36-47, 2001. 71. Rome K, Brown CL. Randomized clinical trial into the impact of rigid foot orthoses on balance parameters in excessively pronated feet. Clin Rehab 18(6):624-630, 2004. 72. Tomaro J, Burdett RG. The effects of foot orthotics on the EMG activity of selected leg muscles during gait. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther 18(4):532-536, 1993. 73. Nawoczenski DA, Ludewig PM. Electromyographic effects of foot orthotics on selected lower extremity muscles during running. Arch Phys Med Rehab 80(5):540-544, 1999. 74. Mundermann A, Wakeling JM, Nigg BM, Humble RN, Stefanyshyn DJ. Foot orthoses affect frequency components of muscle activity in the lower extremity. Gait Posture 23(3):295-302, 2006.

Kevin A. Kirby, DPM



Dear Dr. Kirby, Excellent article. I'm currently working with a different model of foot and ankle function with good success. This article confirms to me that what I've been seeing actually could be valid. Are you aware of studies comparing foot deformities such as bunions, plantar fasciities, hammer toes, etc in developing countries versus our own? I'd appreciate any help pointing me in the right direction. Thank you, Rick Olderman

Hi Kevin! I read your article with great enthusiasm. It brought back many memories of CCPM! Great article! I don't practice anymore but in previous years of practice, I followed Root's theories and frankly, they served me well. I don't think it is so much that the biomechanical theories were all wrong, I believe he had to start from somewhere — an anchor or reference point from which to venture out in the biomechanic study of the human foot — although we did call it "biomagic" for a reason. :) As far as the neutral position being ideal, I found that to be quite correct. I just bet the studies that refute it did not take into account the vulnerability of the cuboid bone displacement or the talonavicular slight misalignments and the butterfly effect they cause across the foot. When one adjusts the cuboid, the locking of the MTJOA with the STJ in the locked position is still very much present. I am sure Dr. Root wanted us to progress beyond what he knew but the human foot has not evolved that much in the last 10,000 years. I believe the emphasis should be shifted from chasing degrees to more realistic, practical observations of MTJOA locking or not locking with loading of the lateral forefoot, or the apparent varus in the rearfoot observable by a visual gait analysis. I recall a biomechanics seminar years ago that showed an elaborate setup with a person walking endlessly on a treadmill while a salesman touted NASA-like engineering that was utilized to evaluate the person's gait, degree by degree, only then to go to the next module where we studied the foot using a high school protractor! The difference in the price for the equipment was also laughable: $700/month forever to lease or 25 cents for a protractor at K-Mart. I am glad you are still doing the good work and I look forward to hearing for of your successes. Best of luck, friend. Zarir
Back to Top