Footwear science posts

SKI BOOT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

Step 1 of the synergy 5 Step performance Program described in my last post is a Footbed Check using the Novel Pedar insole pressure analysis system.

Step 3 of the program is the Ski Boot Assessment detailed below. As with the 5 Step performance Program, the Ski Boot Assessment protocol and report were intended to serve as a template to base future programs on. The assessment report was intended to provide clients with information on the effects of their ski boots on their performance and/or as a work order for them to take to a boot-fitter to have any necessary issues identified in the report addressed.  Synergy Sports Performance Consultants Ltd. did not sell products or perform boot modifications.

 



My next post will be called FOOTBEDS: THE GOOD, BAD AND THE UGLY.

 

 

 

 

THE MECHANICS OF BALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE SKI: BALANCE PLATFORM MECHANICS

Turntable rotation generated by the powerful internal rotators of the pelvis (the gluteus medius and minimus) in combination with second rocker mechanics can create a platform under the body of the outside ski and foot that a skier can stand and balance on using the same processes to balance on solid ground. The associated mechanics creates a platform under the body of the outside ski by extending  ground reaction force acting along the portion of the inside edge in contact with the snow, out under the body of the ski.

In order to understand the mechanics, we need to start with a profile through the section of the body of the ski, binding and boot sole under the ball of the foot. The graphic below is a schematic representation of a ski with a 70 mm waist and 100 mm shovel and tail with an arbitrary length of 165 mm. The total stack or stand height from the base of the ski to the surface of the boot that supports the foot is 80 mm. The uppermost portion of the schematic shows the shell sidewalls of a 335 boot in relation to the 70 mm width of the stack. A ski with a 70 mm waist will place the center ball of the foot of skiers with US Men’s 10 to 12 feet close to over the inside edge. The heavy black line at the bottom of the stack shows the projection of the sidecut width beyond the waist.The schematic serves as a base on which to overlay a free body diagram showing the forces acting across the interface of the inside edge with the snow. This is where the rubber meets the road.

There are two possible scenarios in terms of the axis on which the center of pressure W of the skier will act. Unless the foot can sufficiently pronate and especially generate impulse second rocker loading, W will lie on the proximate anatomic center of the foot and transverse center of the body of the ski as shown in the graphic below. In this location, W will create a moment arm due to the offset with the GRF Pivot under the inside edge at the waist. The resulting moment of force will externally rotate the ski and foot under load out of the turn while simultaneously rotating the leg externally.The graphic below shows the second scenario where the center of pressure W lies directly over the GRF Pivot under the inside edge. In this position, W will load the inside edge under the ball of the foot and assist edge grip. But in this configuration, rotating the ski onto its inside edge necessitates overcoming the moment of force created by the moment arm resulting from the offset between the GRF Pivot and GRF acting at the limits of the sidecut. This requires a source of torque that acts to rotate the ski into the turn about the pivot acting at the inside edge at the waist of the ski.An obvious source of torque is to use the leg to apply force to the inner aspect of the shaft of the foot; aka knee angulation. But this will not create a platform under the body of the outside ski. Applying a load to the vertical wall of the shell opposite the ball of the foot will apply torque load to center at the GRF pivot as shown in the graphic below. The moment arm is formed by the point at which the Turntable Torque is applied to the boot sidewall (green arrow) to the center of rotation at the GRF Pivot.

 

The torque applied to the vertical sidewall of the boot shell is the Effort. The sidecut of the ski is the resistance. What effect will this have on the body of the ski under the foot? There is a lot more to this subject that I will begin to expand on in my next post.

PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SKI BOOTS

As a segue to my post on Turntable Power and how it cantilevers ground reaction force acting along the running surface of the inside edge of the outside ski, I have decided to post the discussion on the problems with existing ski boots from my US Patent 5,265,350 with associated international patents. The patent was issued on November 30, 1993 (24 years ago) to me as the sole inventor and assigned to MACPOD Enterprises Ltd. (Toronto).

The objective of US Patent 5,265,350 and subsequent patents filed and granted to MACPOD was to identify problems with existing ski boots and offer solutions and a functional criteria for advancing the state-of the art going forward. Some of the problems noted and solutions offered, apply to footwear in general.

The final paragraph raises the issue of the limitations of conventional ski boots in terms of accommodating and enabling biomechanically generated forces such as torque from the mechanical force transfer points of the foot to the structure of the ski boot.

The following material is verbatim from the text of US Patent 5,265,350.


Problems with Existing Ski Boots

Existing footwear (ski boot design) does not provide for the dynamic nature of the architecture of the foot by providing a fit system with dynamic and predictable qualities to substantially match those of the foot and lower leg. 

Although somewhat vaguely stated, a generally accepted theme has arisen over the years, one of indiscriminate envelopment and “overall restraint” applied to the foot and leg within the footwear. The stated position of various authorities skilled in the art of the design and fabrication of footwear for skiing is that the foot functions best when movement about its articulations is substantially prevented or restricted.

To serve this end, inner ski boot liners are usually formed around inanimate lasts or, alternatively, the foot and leg are inserted into an inner liner within the ski boot shell and foam is introduced into a bladder in the liner so as to totally occupy any free space between the foot and leg and the outer ski boot shell. The outer shell of the footwear is closed around this inner envelopment forming an encasement with which to secure and substantially immobilize the foot and leg. This is considered the optimum and, therefore, ideal form of envelopment. The perspective is that the physiologic structures of the foot are inherently weak and thus, unsuited for skiing. Enveloping the foot within an enclosure which makes it more rigid is thought to add the necessary strength with which to suitably adapt it for skiing. The reasoning being, that the foot and leg now having being suitably strengthened, can form a solid connection with the ski while the leg, now made more rigid, can better serve as a lever with which to apply edging force to the ski.

To some degree, the prior art (existing ski boot design) has acknowledged a need for the ankle joint to articulate in flexion. However, the prior art has not differentiated exactly how articulation of the ankle joint might be separated from the object of generalized and indiscriminate envelopment and thus made possible. Therefore, the theme of prior art (existing ski boot design) is inconsistent and lacks continuity.

The only disclosure known of a process wherein the separation of envelopment of the foot from articulation of the ankle joint is contained in U.S. Pat. No. 4,534,122, of which the present applicant is also the inventor. This material discloses a supportive structure (i.e Dorthotic) wherein restrictions to flexion of the ankle joint are essentially removed, support being provided from below the hinge of the ankle joint.

In keeping with the theme of indiscriminate envelopment and overall restraint, the following structures are generally common to all footwear for skiing disclosed by prior art (existing ski boot design):

(a) a continuous counter system which surrounds the foot and provides for the process of envelopment;

(b) an arrangement of pads or padding with which to envelope the foot;

(c) a substantially rigid outer shell which encases the structures employed for envelopment;

(d) an articulation of the ski boot lower outer shell and the cuff or cuffs which envelope the leg of the user, usually accomplished through a common axis or journal;

(e) a structure to brace and support the leg since prior art considers the ankle joint to be inherently weak and in need of support; and

(f) some form of resistance to movement of the cuff (shaft of the ski boot).

The prior art (existing boot design and boot fitting procedures) refers to the importance of a “neutral sub-talar joint”. The sub-talar joint is a joint with rotational capability which underlies and supports the ankle joint. The sub-talar joint is substantially “neutral” in bipedal function. That is to say that the foot is neither rolled inward or rolled outward.

If the foot can be substantially maintained in a neutral position with the arch supported and with a broad area of the inner aspect of the foot well padded, there will exist a good degree of comfort. Such a state of comfort exists because the foot is not able to roll inward (pronate) to a degree where significant mechanical forces can be set up which would allow it to bear against the inner surface of the boot shell. In effect, this means that initiation of the transition from a state of bipedal to a state of monopedal function, is prevented. This transition would normally be precipitated by an attempt to balance on one foot. If the foot is contained in a neutral position, traditional supportive footbeds (arch supports) are quite compatible with the mechanisms and philosophies of the prior art.

Problems arise when the foot is attempting a transition from a state of bipedal stance to monopedal stance. If the transition to monopedal stance or function can be completed without interference from the structures of the ski boot, all is fine and well. However, if the transition is allowed to proceed to a point where the mechanics associated with the monopedal function can establish significant horizontal forces, and the further movement of the foot is blocked before the transition can be completed, the skier will experience pain and discomfort at the points where the inner aspect of the foot bears against the structures of the footwear. This is the situation experienced by a majority of the skiers with prior art footwear. It is at this point where arch supports, if employed, also begin to cause discomfort. It should be noted that it is the normal tendency of the foot to pronate when weight bearing on one foot.

Footbeds (arch supports) may work in conventional boots (which traditionally do not allow natural biomechanics or movement of the foot to occur), but in a boot which accommodates and supports natural leg and foot articulation and function, arch supports can be detrimental.

When the foot attempts to pronate inside the ski boot, it is often the case that the ankle bone will come to bear against the inner surface of the boot shell. When contact of this nature occurs, pain and other related complications usually result. Since the consensus of those skilled in the art of ski boot design and modification is that pronation or the rolling inward of the foot is detrimental, and, thus, undesirable, provision is not made to allow for such movement. Rather, the structure of the footwear is intended to resist or even prevent it.

Thus, the problem with existing footwear arises due to the dynamic nature of the architecture of the foot. When the wearer is standing with the weight equally distributed between left and right feet so that the centre of mass of the wearer is manifesting itself in the centre between the feet, the architecture of the wearer’s foot assumes a specific configuration. As the wearer begins to shift his weight towards one foot so that the other foot bears proportionately less weight, the wearer’s centre of mass moves over the medial aspect of the weighted foot so as to assume a position of balance. In order for this movement of the wearer’s centre of mass to occur, the architecture of the weighted foot must undergo a progressive re-alignment. Existing footwear does not adequately anticipate this re-alignment of the architecture of the foot and thus such footwear inhibits the wearer’s ability to assume a balanced position.

A further problem with existing footwear is the fact that longitudinal relative movement between the foot and the footwear may occur. This happens, for example, when the forefoot/midfoot section of the foot is not adequately restrained under certain conditions, such as when flexion is occurring between the lower leg and the foot. Such longitudinal relative movement contributes to the disruption of biomechanical reference points associated with the dynamics of the ski and, in addition, results in a delay in the transmission of force between the leg and foot and the footwear.

Yet a further problem with existing footwear for skiing, in particular the rear entry type, relates to the obstruction of the leg in forward flexion. A relatively freely flexing gaiter or cuff (i.e. shaft) is necessary in order to permit the posterior muscle groups of the lower leg to modulate external force exerted on the footwear. This requires that the axis of the footwear be allowed to rotate so that small degrees of flexion/extension occur at the foot with the lower leg being relatively passive and that large degrees of flexion/extension occur as coordinated ankle, knee and hip flexion. The construction of the prior art requires flexion/extension to occur primarily at the knee and hip joints which is disadvantageous to the user.

While some types of rear entry boots do disclose gaiters or cuffs which provide a degree of relatively free flexion, there remains numerous problems, the most serious of which is the fact that the device employed to secure the foot of the user exerts, in addition to the downward directed force on the foot, a simultaneous rearward directed force on the leg which acts to resist forward flexion in spite of any free hinging action of the cuff. The result is an interference with the physiologic function of the foot and leg of the user.

Yet another problem resides in buckle or overlap type footwear. In order to provide for entry of the foot of the user and for resistance to flexion, plastic materials are employed for the outer shell which have flexural qualities. This is necessary in order to facilitate the aforementioned requirements. Plastic materials by their very nature tend to resist point loadings by a relaxation of the material at the point where stress is applied. This characteristic creates serious problems for two reasons. First, the teaching of this application is that force must be applied and maintained only to specific areas of the foot and leg of the user while allowing for unrestricted movement of other areas. The application and maintenance of such force by flexible plastic materials in the structures of prior art is necessarily difficult, if it is possible at all.

Second, the plastic materials in relaxing under the application of stress assume a new shape by moving into void areas. Thus, the probability is great that the plastic material will change shape so as to inhabit the very area required for the uninhibited displacement of the structures of the foot and leg. The result of these limitations is interference with the physiologic function of the user.

Top and rear entry footwear for skiing and skating necessarily have interior volumes greater than that required by the wearers foot and leg, particularly in the area over the instep, in order to accommodate entry. This additional volume makes the incorporation of structures designed to provide accurate and consistent support to specific areas necessarily difficult and ineffective. This results in reduced support for the foot and leg.

Another problem with conventional footwear relates to the flexion of the lower leg relative to the foot. It is desirable to provide a degree of resistance to such movement to assist in dampening movement of the mass of the skier relative to the ski resulting from, for example, a velocity change due to terrain changes and to assist the user in transferring energy to the ski. Adjustment of such resistance is desirable in order that the user may compensate for different physical makeup and different operating conditions. In present ski footwear, sources of resistance for such purpose are poorly controlled and often produce resistance curves inappropriate for the operating environment (i.e. temperature) thereby adversely affecting the balance and control of the user and creating a need for additional energy to be expended to provide correction. In many applications, resistance is achieved by deformation of shell structures thereby resulting in reduced support for the user’s foot and leg. If indeed provision is made for adjustment of flex resistance in the instances cited, it is very limited in terms of ability to suitably modify resistance curves.

Torque Transfer and The Turntable Effect

Yet a further problem relates to the efficient transfer of torque from the lower leg and foot to the footwear. When the leg is rotated inwardly relative to the foot by muscular effort, a torsional load is applied to the foot. Present footwear does not adequately provide support or surfaces on and against which the wearer can transfer biomechanically generated forces such as torque to the footwear. Alternatively, the footwear presents sources of resistance which interfere with the movements necessary to initiate such transfer. It is desirable to provide for appropriate movement and such sources of resistance in order to increase the efficiency of this torque transfer and, in so doing, enhance the turning response of the ski. 

In my next post, I will discuss Turntable Power in conjunction with the Over-Centre mechanism.

THE MECHANICS OF BALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE SKI: THE ROCKER/TURNTABLE EFFECT

The Two Phase Second Rocker (Heel to Ball of Foot) described in the previous post is dependent on inertia impulse loading. A good discussion of the basics of inertia and momentum is found in Inertia, Momentum, Impulse and Kinetic Energy (1.)

Limitations of Pressure Insoles used in Skiing

A paper published on May 4, 2017 called Pressure Influence of slope steepness, foot position and turn phase on plantar pressure distribution during giant slalom alpine ski racing by Falda-Buscaiot T, Hintzy F, Rougier P, Lacouture P, Coulmy N. while noting that:

Pressure insoles are a useful measurement system to assess kinetic parameters during posture, gait or dynamic activities in field situations, since they have a minimal influence on the subject’s skill.

acknowledge limitations in pressure insoles:

However, several limitations should be pointed out. The compressive force is underestimated from 21% to 54% compared to a force platform, and this underestimation varies depending on the phase of the turn, the skier’s skill level, the pitch of the slope and the skiing mode.

It has been stated this underestimation originates from a significant part of the force actually being transferred through the ski boot’s cuff. As a result, the CoP trajectory also tends to be underestimated along both the anterior-posterior (A-P) and medial-lateral (M-L) axes compared to force platforms.

Forces transferred through the cuff of a ski boot to the ski can limit or even prevent the inertia impulse loading associated with the Two Phase Second Rocker/Turntable Effect. In addition, forces transferred through the cuff of a ski boot to the ski intercept forces that would otherwise be transferred to a supportive footbed or orthotic.

Rocker Roll Over

In his comment to my post, OUTSIDE SKI BALANCE BASICS: STEP-BY-STEP, Robert Colborne said:

In the absence of this internal rotation movement, the center of pressure remains somewhere in the middle of the forefoot, which is some distance from the medial edge of the ski, where it is needed.

Rock n’ Roll

To show how the Two Phase Second Rocker rocks and then rolls the inside ski onto its inside edge at ski flat during edge change, I constructed a simple simulator. The simulator is hinged so as to tip inward when the Two Phase Second Rocker shifts the center of pressure (COP) from under the heel, on the proximate center of a ski, diagonally, to the ball of the foot.

The red ball in the photo below indicates the center of gravity (COG) of the subject. When COP shifts from the proximate center to the inside edge aspect, the platform will tilt and the point of COP will drop with the COG in an over-center mechanism.


A sideways (medial) translation of the structures of the foot away from the COG will also occur as shown in the graphic below. The black lines indicate the COP center configuration of the foot. The medial translation of the foot imparts rotational inertia on the platform under the foot.

Two Phase Second Rocker: The Movie

The video below shows the Two Phase Second Rocker.

Click on the X on the right side of the lower menu bar of the video to enter full screen.

The graphic below shows to Dual Plane Turntable Effect that initiates whole leg rotation from the pelvis applying multi-plane torque to the ski platform cantilevering reaction force acting along the running edge of the outside ski out under the body of the ski. A combination of over-center mechanics and internal (medial or into the turn) application of rotation of the leg from the pelvis, counters torques resulting from external forces.


  1. http://learn.parallax.com/tutorials/robot/elev-8/understanding-physics-multirotor-flight/inertia-momentum-impulse-and-kinetic
  2. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176975

 

 

 

 

WHO NEEDS FOOTBEDS? NO ONE

There are some who can benefit from footbeds or orthotics and some who do actually need them. But these groups are the rare exception. And they are unlikely to be skiers.

Orthotics. The pros / cons of orthotics in today’s society!

In a recent YouTube video (1.), Podiatrist & Human Movement Specialist, Dr Emily Splichal, explores the concept of orthotics and their role in today’s society. Dr. Splichal doesn’t pull any punches when she says:

“…..I have been through the conventional podiatric school and been fed pretty much the bullshit from podiatry of how every single person needs to be in orthotics, that our foot is not able to support itself without orthotics……if we do not use orthotics our foot is going to completely collapse  and you are going to lose your arch…….”

“……Our foot is designed to support itself. If we actually needed orthotics, we would be born…..we would come out of the womb, with orthotics on our feet.”

Meantime, The Foot Collective  asks (2.) Are you promoting weak feet?

  • Anything you use for artificial support at the feet (footwear with arch support & orthotics) your brain takes into account and accommodates for it.
  • That means if you provide your foot support your brain shuts down the natural arch supporters to reduce un-necessary energy expenditure.
  • Stop using support to help with pronation and understand why your feet pronate in the first place – because they are weak.
  • Strong feet = strong foundation = strong body.

The Real Source of Support for the Arch

Ray McClanahan, D.P.M. offers a perspective on the issue of Arch Support in his post on the CorrectToes blog (3.)

Are Custom Footbeds and Orthotics better than stock insoles?

In his post of August 20, 2017, Custom Foot Orthotics; No Better Than Stock Insoles (4.), Rick Merriam, of Engaging Muscles, explores the issue of orthotics in depth.

Prior to being told that supportive insoles are the way to go, I think it’s safe to say that all of those people didn’t know what they didn’t know.

The erroneous assumption that every skier needs footbeds or orthotics was made at a time when little  was known about the function of the foot and lower limb, especially in late stance. I was one of those who didn’t know what I didn’t know when initially when down the ‘the foot needs to be supported in skiing’ road up until I realized what I didn’t know and took steps to acquire the requisite knowledge.

Footbeds; is anyone checking what they do?

In 2000, I formed a company called Synergy Sports Performance Consultants (5). Synergys’ product was high quality information. One of my partners, UK Podiatrist, Sophie Cox, was trained by Novel of Germany and was one of the few experts in the world at that time on the Pedar system. Synergy did not make and/or sell footbeds or orthotics. Instead, we checked the effect of footbeds on skier performance. We performed a quick footbed check for a minimal fee of $20 using the sophisticated Novel Pedar pressure analysis technology.

Synergy was one of the first companies in the world to use the Novel Pedar pressure analysis system synchronized to video to acquire data on skier performance and analyze the captured data.  The Synergy team with diverse expertise studied the effect of ski boots and custom insoles on skier performance and identified functional issues in the body that needed to be addressed. It was a common finding that custom footbeds were significantly compromising skier performance, especially the ability to create the necessary platform under the foot on which to stand and balance on the outside ski.

Synergy offered a comprehensive 5 Step Performance Program that started with a footbed check. A key component was item 2., the Biomechanical Check.

With increasing recognition of the negative effect of most footwear on the user and criticism of the unproven claims made for footbeds and orthotics coming hard and fast, credibility in skiing is rapidly going downhill. It is time for proponents of custom insoles for ski boots to support their claims with solid evidence, especially evidence supported with data acquired during actual ski maneuvers. The technology to do this has existed since at least the year 2000.


  1. https://youtu.be/CIRf9WHmMXI
  2. http://www.thefootcollective.com
  3. https://www.correcttoes.com/foot-help/articles-studies/arch-support/
  4. http://www.engagingmuscles.com/2017/08/20/custom-foot-orthotics/
  5. DIGITAL SALVATION FOR THE SOLE [BACK TO THE FUTURE] –  http://wp.me/p3vZhu-24g

NABOSO PROPRIOCEPTIVE STIMULATION INSOLES

For several weeks, I have been testing the first-ever small nerve plantar proprioceptive stimulation insole technology called NABOSO, which means “barefoot” in Czech. The surface science technology was invented by Dr. Emily Splichal and is being marketed by her in conjunction with NABOSO yoga mats and floor tiles.

Introducing Naboso Insoles by Naboso Barefoot Technology. Get ready to experience what it truly means to move from the ground up with the first-ever small nerve proprioceptive insole to hit the footwear industry.

The skin on the bottom of the foot contains thousands of (small nerve) proprioceptors, which are sensitive to different stimuli including texture, vibration, skin stretch, deep pressure and light touch. When stimulated these proprioceptors play an important role in how we maintain upright stance, activate our postural muscles and dynamically control impact forces. – Dr. Emily Splichal

http://nabosotechnology.com/about

Dr. Emily Splichal goes on to state:

The skin on the bottom of the foot plays a critical role in balance, posture, motor control and human locomotion. All footwear – including minimal footwear – to some degree blocks the necessary stimulation of these plantar proprioceptors. The result is a delay in the nervous system which can contribute to joint pain, compensations, loss of balance and inefficient movement patterns.

Naboso Insoles are backed by surface science and texture research – and have been shown to not only improve balance but also positively impact gait patterns, ankle proprioception and force production in athletes.

Dr. Splichal stresses that:

This (NABOSO insole) is an insole providing proprioceptive and neuromuscular stimulation – it is not an orthotic providing biomechanical control.

http://nabosotechnology.com/naboso-insoles/

The principle proprioceptive neural activity associated with balance responses occurs across the plantar plane. It is strongest in the 1st MPJ (big toe joint) and big toe.

Dr. Splichal cites studies that found that textured insoles increased the activity of receptors in the plantar surface of the feet with a significant, immediate effect seen in the outcome measures of static (weight bearing) and dynamic (weight symmetry index, strength symmetry) in balance tests  as well as in gait symmetry (single support and swing phases). Thus, the proprioceptive stimulation benefit of textured insoles is carried over into footwear without textured insoles. I have noticed a significant improvement in  plantar proprioceptive sensitivity when barefoot or when my feet are not bearing weight. It is as if my feet have been put to sleep by a local anesthetic which has worn off.

Dr. Splichal’s information on NABOSO states that for the first time ever it is now possible to bring the power of barefoot science and plantar proprioceptive stimulation to all footwear – regardless of support, cushion or heel toe drop.

Assuming a NABOSO is trimmed, if necessary, to fit a shoe, there will be a positive effect on plantar proprioceptive stimulation. But my experience to date has been that the plantar proprioceptive stimulation will be much more pronounced in a minimal, zero drop shoe with adequate width for fascial forefoot tensioning and correct alignment of the big toe. I have experienced the best results with NABOSO in the Xero Prio shoe with the Lems Primal 2 and a Vivobarefoot model, close seconds.

The photo below shows the Xero Prio (blue-grey) with the Lems Primal 2 (black).

Both shoes have thin soles with low resiliency (the material compresses very little). The soles are also very flexible, an important quality. The sole wearing qualities of the Xero are excellent. The Xero Prio has become my all around minimal shoe. I use it for cycling on my mountain bike fit with large flat platform pedals.

The photo below is of the NABOSO insole for my left shoe.

Initially, NABOSO insoles are perceived, but not uncomfortable. After a time, shoes feel strange without them.

Over several weeks, I have done many tests of different shoes and insoles where I compare cushioned, standard insoles to NABOSO and different shoes with and without NABOSO as well as one-on-one comparisons with different shoes on each foot. After an initial walk in period, if I remove a NABOSO insole from one of my Xero Prios, it feels as if sole of the foot with the Xero without the NABOSO is signicantly less sensitive.

The most significant aspect of trying NABOSO insoles in different shoes is that it immediately becomes apparent just how bad some shoes are. The more cushioning, the narrower the fit and the greater the heel to toe elevation of the sole, the worse the shoe feels. For example, when I compared the Xero Prio with zero drop to a Nike Free with a 5 mm drop, I immediately sensed a pronounced negative effect on my posture and muscles of my legs, especially my glutes.

A Game Changer?

Prior to NABOSO, footwear companies could make shoes that have a negative affect on posture, balance and gait because it could be argued that the benefits of protecting the soles of the feet from mechanical damage outweigh any negative effects on balance and increased susceptibility to falls and injury. But the criteria for product liability is that a product must minimize, but not necessarily eliminate, the risk of injury to the consumer. Studies of textured insoles and even thin, low resilency soled footwear have shown dramatic improvements in balance and gait while reducing the risk of falls and potential injury. The inescapable conclusion is that footwear that reduces balance and the efficiency of gait while increasing the risk of falls and potential injury fails to meet this standard. This raises the question, “Will product liability litigation in footwear be the “next shoe to drop?””

NABOSO in  Ski Boots?

I have not yet had an opportunity to test NABOSO ski boots. But 2 racers I am working with are using NABOSO in zero drop minimal shoes. Stay tuned.

 

THE MECHANICS OF BALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE SKI: PRESS AND POINT THE BIG TOE

A widespread perception appears to exist within the skiing community is that the ability to hold a ski on edge by using the leg to exert force against the side of the stiff shaft of a ski boot and staying upright and not falling, equates with good balance. This ingrained perception presents a challenge in terms of communicating how the world’s best skiers create a platform under the body of the outside ski that they can stand and balance on using the same processes that we all use to stand and balance on a hard, flat level surface.

Last ski season, I developed simple cue to help skiers find the right mechanics and biomechanics as the new outside ski goes flat between edge change and then rolls into the turn on its new inside edge.  At ski flat, if a skier has the right stance, they should feel strong pressure under the ball and the big toe. As the skier extends and inclines into the new turn, the outside leg should be rotated into the turn to point the big toe in the direction of the turn. Hence the cue, press and point the big toe.  This pressure under the ball of the foot and big toe should be maintained through the turn phase until it is released by the transfer or weight to the inside (uphill) ski at the start of the transition to the inside. The strong pressure under the ball of the foot and the force that presses the big toe down flat is passively created by a strong stance, not conscious effort.

The Reverse Windlass

The pressure under the big toe is created by what is called the Reverse Windlass Mechanism. This naturally happens in the late phase of stance when walking barefoot. But wearing shoes with raised heels and cushioned insoles makes it impossible for the Reverse Windlass to function. When the Reverse Windlass is lost, it must be re-acquired by being barefoot as much as possible and walking, running and training in zero drop, thin soled minimal shoes. In some cases, people have to learn to walk naturally by rehearsing the action.

There is an excellent YouTube video by Teodoro Vazquez on Blog del Runner  called Windlass Mechanism and Running Biomechanics – https://youtu.be/y_8SrufgmDk. Vazquez describes the 3 phases of the windlass mechanism, Active (Activo), Reverse (Inverso)  and Passive (Pasivo). Although the video is directed at running, the primary concepts have direct application to skiing and ski technique. The reverse windlass is activated by the weight as shown in the graphic below from Vazquez’s YouTube video.
 This tensions the arch of the foot and presses the big toe down.
As the shank angle increases, the soleus muscle goes into isometric contraction and arrests further shank movement. The results in a heel to forefoot rocker action that dramatically increases the down force under the ball of the foot and the big toe. What I call the Spinal Reflex or SR Stance maximizes the down forces.

It is important that when the big toe (aka Hallux) is pressed down flat, the ball of the foot and big toe feel like one. When the big toe is pressed down properly, you should feel your glutes tighten. The leg you are standing on should be straight and the knee pointed straight ahead.

An important muscle in the Reverse Windlass is the Flexor Hallucis Longis or FHL. When the soleus goes into isometric contraction, the FHL is tensioned. This stabilizes the foot and knee by rotating them away from the center line of the body.

Things that prevent the Reverse Windlass

1. A condition called Hallux (big toe) Valgus
2. Narrow shoes and especially shoes with a pointed toe box.
3. Ski boots, especially ski boot liners.
4. Shoes with elevated heels, cushioning and toe spring (toes raised up). Note: A small amount of ramp angle is necessary for the SR Stance.
5. Footbeds and Insoles.
In my next post, I will discuss fixes to enable and/or restore the Reverse Windlass.