> I quess I didn't quite finish my point.  The problem is the circular 
> definition of Neutral position.  Neutral is neither pronated nor supinated.

>  
> But pronated is on the eversion side of neutral.  Both terms are defined 
> relative to each other.  You could choose a point anywhere within the range

> 
> of motion, except for the extreme ends, and call it neutral and the 
> definition would work.  Now if you choose any point within the STJ range of

> 
> motion and call it neutral you could then rotate the leg into a position 
> and 
> get it to rest there.  I don't think that this observation adds proof to 
> the 
> intrinsic stability of neutral position.

Eric

I understand what you are getting at here. My only comment would be, if we
are looking at inversion/eversion than we should be assessing in the frontal
plane. If we can get the heel as close to this as possible, we may have the
resting angle for the frontal plane. if we rotate the leg into another
position, we then bring into play the other planes of motion.

Trevor



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%