Talk:Arches of the foot

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Merged articles

Apparently someone split the article by moving all its main content to separate articles (Longitudinal arch of the foot‎ and Transverse arch of the foot‎. While this split sort of makes sense, this article without _any_ description of these arches looked weird me me, so I just merged the articles again. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arch styles

The following section was interesting but lacks references so I drop it here for now. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief the real definitions of "average" arches are rather poorly defined and not very clear. Some people have low arches without problems or health matters. Flat-footed people may become affected with problems, but this isn't always the case. Many people are born with their feet having no arch or extremely low arches. High arches - contrary to popular belief - are sometimes beneficial. In fact, some people who have high arches have no significant health issues. But sometimes, high arches may lead to problems. Arch studies, however, sometimes suffer from substandard data and poorly defined information.

Pathology

As above, the following section lacks references so I removed it from the article. I had a look around and apparently this section was originally added to the foot type article and both that article and the section below seem to be largely the work of now blocked sockpuppets. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The height of the arch in the foot determines pronation and foot type.
The arch height of a foot can be determined by a wet test. To take the test, stand normally on a paper bag for about ten seconds after wetting each foot. The resulting imprint will show whether the person has a medium arch, a low arch, or a high arch.
People with a Medium arch have a distinct curve along the inside of the foot with a band slightly less than half the width of the foot connecting the heel and toe. People with medium arch are likely to have a neutral stride, although sometimes even medium arches can have their drawbacks and negative effects. Although sometimes called the "normal" arch, this may appear as a misnomer because nobody has 'normal' arches within their feet. Also, medium arches may sometimes overpronate and lead to physical problems resembling the issues of Pes planus. Other times, however, medium arches might under pronate in the same way high arched feet could under pronate sometimes.
People with a Low arch do not have a distinct curve along the inside of the foot. The imprint taken in a wet test may show nearly the entire foot. People with low arches are more likely to overpronate which can result in injuries. Insufficiently expressed arches are called low or fallen arches. The term flat feet applies to the arch which is sitting on the ground completely. But low arches may not always be the cause of injuries. Lowly arched feet may have an arch but these arches are not really visible or only barely visible to other people. Some low arched feet may be flexible to give an arch, though not visible to many others.
People who have a High arch in the foot may oftentimes but not always show only a very thin band connecting the heel and toe in a wet test. People with high arches are more likely to underpronate although this isn't always the reality. Contrary to usual rhetoric, high arches will not always have drawbacks or negative effects and some high arched feet may be flexible or rigid or hypermobile and show neutral stride without having supination issues. Many people prefer high arches because of various reasoning. Ballet dancers select high arches because of different reasons.

Lack of Arches in pre-humans

The extant skeletal remains of pre-human, ie. Neanderthals feet seem to lack arches, though I have heard it suggested that they had far superior balance and durability than we modern humans - the overall structure of the feet of pre-humans being better on all counts. It's puzzling as to how the arch of the foot evolved from something excellently suited to walking to something that is weaker and lacking somewhat in utility, necessitating the innovation of shoes in antiquity.But then again, almost everything about the musculo-skeletal structure of pre-humans is superior to the inadequete physical design of the modern human body. Proof Reader (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is false. Fully modern arches are present in the Laetoli footprints some 3.7 mya. Ibteesmallz (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note on references

The article was greatly improved today with the addition of the "Function and Evolution of the Arches of the Foot" section. Apparently these two contributors are new to Wikipedia so I tried to help them out by adding reference templates etcetera to this section. Here below are my attempts to list the web links I used to find the information and the digital object identifiers I added to the article:

The {{cite doi}} template is supposed to call a bot that automatically adds all possible kind of information. Sometimes this fails, so the links above can be useful. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon?

This article seems rather jargon heavy. There are a few places where the language seems to just use technical words when it's not necessary; for instance, "Its summit is at the superior articular surface of the talus, and its two extremities or piers, on which it rests in standing, are the tuberosity on the plantar surface of the calcaneus posteriorly and the heads of the first, second, and third metatarsal bones anteriorly." Here, we could change posteriorly and anteriorly to "at the front" and "at the back" without any loss in meaning, and it would make the article a lot less intimidating. Plus, "tuberosity on the plantar surface of the calcaneus" should have an explanation tagged to it, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.16.19 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instep

When the term instep was mentioned I had no idea what it meant. Luckily typing it into Wikipedia says it is an arch on the top of the foot between the toes and ankles.

This made me wonder if it has some relation to the arch on the bottom of the foot, also between the toes and ankles (well, the heel more specifically) described on this page.

For example: if the arch drops or is lost on the bottom, would it drop or be lost on the top. Or vice versa, if the bottom-arch is of a pronounced (excessive) curve if this would also cause a pronounced curve of the top-arch (the instep).

If this was the case it would be useful to mention on this page, as there is currently no mention of the instep. --Ranze (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arches of the foot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]