balance

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.

NABOSO SURFACE SCIENCE INSOLE UPDATE

In June of this year, I posted on my beta testing experience with NABOSO surface science, small nerve, proprioception stimulating technology (1.).

Recently, I received the consumer version of NABOSO called NABOSO 1.0 shown in the photo below.

NABOSO 1.0 has a tighter grid than the NABOSO beta version I have been testing. The pyramid-like texture is also smaller.

The photo below shows NABOSO 1.o on the left and NABOSO beta on the right. The photo was taken before I trimmed NABOSO 1.0 to fit my shoes. 
Here is the information that came with my pair NABOSO 1.0 insoles.

I use both NABOSO 1.0 and NABOSO beta in my Lems Primal 2 and Xero Prio shoes. I immediately sensed better balance with the tighter grid of NABOSO 1.0. But I found it interesting after going back to NABOSO beta, after a period of time in NABOSO 1.o, that NABOSO beta felt more stimulating. Based on this subjective experience, I think there may be some advantage to switching back and forth between different texture grids. Hence my interest in the new NABOSO 1.5.

NABOSO 1.5 can be pre-ordered now for a reduced price of $30 US at orders@nabosotechnology.com

Disclosure: I do not receive any form of compensation from NABOSO or Dr. Emily Splichal. Nor do I hold any shares or have any financial interest in the company. The sole benefit I derive from NABOSO is to my feet and my balance and the efficiency of my movement.

I will be testing NABOSO insoles in my ski boots this winter in conjunction with toe spreaders starting with NABOSO 1.0. I will report on my experience in a future post.


  1. http://wp.me/p3vZhu-27v

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

 

 

 

 

THE MECHANICS OF BALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE SKI: HEEL/FOREFOOT ROCKER

An essential mechanism to the ability to create a platform under the outside ski to stand and balance on using the same processes used to stand and balance on stable ground, is the Heel to Forefoot Rocker. A slide presentation called Clinical Biomechanics of Gait (1.) by Stephen Robinovitch, Ph.D. (Simon Fraser University – Kin 201) is a good reference for the various aspects of gait.

Slide 19 of the Gait presentation describes the ankle Inversion-Eversion-Inversion sequence of the ankle. The sequence begins with heel strike (HS), followed by forefoot loading (FF), followed by heel off (HO) followed by toe off (TO).

The normal foot is slightly inverted in the swing phase (unloaded) and at heel strike. It is everted through most of the stance phase. The ankle begins to invert in late stance. The kinetic flow of pressure is from the heel to the ball of the foot and big toe. This is what should happen in the transition phase of a turn sequence when a skier begins to transfer more weight to the inside foot and ski from the outside foot and ski. Up until the start of the transition, the skier’s center of mass is behind the inside foot with the majority of pressure under the heel on the transverse center of the foot and ski where is exerts an inversion torque that is tending to rotate the ski into contact with the surface of the snow. The skier maintains the edge angle by applying a countering eversion torque with a combination of external rotation-abduction of the inside leg.

When the skier begins to transfer more weight from the outside ski to the inside ski, the leg releases the countering eversion torque and the ski begins to invert in relation to the surface of the snow.

The presentation on the Clinical Biomechanics of Gait did not include important aspects of the stance phase that occurs in late stance. Nor, did it mention Achilles forefoot load transfer.

The Three Rockers

Slide 23 shows the Three Rockers associated with the gait cycle.

First Rocker – occurs at heel strike. It causes the ankle to plantarflex and rock the forefoot downward about the heel into contact with the ground. The rocker movement is controlled by eccentric dorsiflexor torque.

Second Rocker – shifts the center of pressure from the heel to the forefoot. Eccentric plantarflexor torque controls dorsiflexion of the ankle.

Third Rocker – occurs at heel separation from the ground that occurs in terminal phase of stance.

Slide 13 shows how the knee shifts gears and transitions from flexion in early stance to extension in late stance. In late stance, the Achilles goes into isometric traction. At this point, further dorsiflexion of the ankle passively tensions the plantar ligaments to intiate forefoot load transfer. Load transfer is accentuated when the knee shifts gears and goes into extension moving COM closer to the ball of the foot increasing the length of the lever arm.

Two Phase Second Rocker

Classic descriptions of stance and the associated rockers do not include a lateral-medial forefoot rocker component that occurs across the balls of the feet from the little toe side to the big toe side in conjunction with the heel to forefoot rocker creating what amounts to a Two Phase Second Rocker.

In his comment to my post, OUTSIDE SKI BALANCE BASICS: STEP-BY-STEP (2.), Robert Colborne said:

….… regardless of where the centre of mass is located relative to the centre of pressure in the above-described mechanism, when you go into a stable monopedal stance, as you would when you are in a turn, the ankle is dorsiflexed forward and as this occurs the tibia rotates internally several degrees.

COMMENT: The tibia rotates internally (i.e. into the turn) as a consequence of ankle dorsiflexion. It does not require conscious action by the skier.

This means that the main muscle forces acting across the ankle (the plantarflexors) are no longer acting along the long axis of the foot, but rather partly across it, medially toward the big toe.

So, the beneficial effect of that muscle force is to force the base of the big toe into the ground, and that becomes the centre of the turn (centre of pressure).

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.

The photo below shows a skier in bipedal stance with weight distributed equally between the two feet standing on a plush carpet with foam underlay. Black hash marks show the positions in space of key aspects of the right foot and leg.

The photo below shows the same skier in monopedal stance with all the weight on the right foot. Forefoot loading from the Two Phase Second Rocker has pushed the toes down into the carpet by compressing the underlay.

The video below shows the dynamic action of the Two Phase Second Rocker.

The Two Phase Second Rocker results in a heel to ball of foot diagonal rocker action acting towards the centerline of the body; i.e. diagonally across the long axis of the ski with the load acting inside the shovel.

A primary objective of the Birdcage studies was to validate my hypothetical model of the Two Stage Diagonal (heel – forefoot) Second Rocker in creating a balance platform under the outside ski for a skier to stand and balance on.

The graphic below shows the alignment of the Two Stage Diagonal (heel – forefoot) Second Rocker.

In my next post, I will discuss the Two Stage Diagonal (heel – forefoot) Second Rocker Turntable Effect.


  1. http://www.sfu.ca/~stever/kin201/lecture_outlines/lecture_17_clinical_biomechanics_of_gait.pdf
  2. http://wp.me/p3vZhu-29n

ERROR IN LAST POST ON EVERSION

In my last post, I erroneously stated that the sole turns inward, towards the center of the body, in eversion. I meant to state that the sole turns outward, away from the center of the body, in eversion.

I have revised the paragraph in my post so it reads correctly.

In order for the torso and Center of Mass to stack vertically over the ball of the foot, the sole of the foot must turn outward, away from the center the the body. This is called eversion. It is enabled by the joint that lies below the ankle called the sub-talar joint. The sub-talar joint is tied to the tibia where it acts as a torque converter. When the foot everts or inverts, the sub-talar joint translates this on an approximately 1:1 ratio into internal or external vertical axial rotation of the leg.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

OUTSIDE SKI BALANCE BASICS: STEP-BY-STEP

In view of the positive response to my recent posts and comments I have received, I have decided to take a step-by-step approach to explaining the mechanics and biomechanics of balance on the outside ski.

I am going to start the process by comparing balance on one foot to balance on two feet. I refer to balance on one foot as monopedal stance (one foot) and balance on two feet as bipedal stance (two foot). The graphics are for illustrating general principles only.

The graphic below shows monopedal stance on the left and bipedal stance on the right. Orange hash marks delineate the alignment of major body segments. Black reference lines on the right leg of both figures show the angle of the leg in relation to the ground.

In order to transition from a balanced position in bipedal stance to a balanced position in monopedal stance, either the foot must move towards the L-R center of the torso or the torso must move towards the foot that will become the stance foot, or a combination of the 2 movements must occur. The central issue is the amount of inertia acting on the torso. In skiing, due to the degree of inertia, the new outside foot of a turn is normally guided into position under the torso as the skier or racer approaches the fall line in the top of a turn.

Moving the foot into position under the Centre of Mass so it stacks in line with the ball of the foot usually takes an inward movement (adduction) of the leg from the pelvis of 6 to 7 degrees. In the upper left figure in monopedal stance, the leg is adducted 6.5 degrees and has formed a varus or outward leaning angle with the ground.

If the leg only adducted, then the sole of the foot would end up at an angle of 6.5 degrees with the ground and the figure would end up on the outer edge of the foot; on the little toe side. In order for the torso and Center of Mass to stack vertically over the ball of the foot, the sole of the foot must turn outward, away from the center the the body. This is called eversion. It is enabled by the joint that lies below the ankle called the sub-talar joint. The sub-talar joint is tied to the tibia where it acts as a torque converter. When the foot everts or inverts, the sub-talar joint translates this on an approximately 1:1 ratio into internal or external vertical axial rotation of the leg.

When the foot everts, the subtalar joint rotates the vertical axis of the leg towards the center of the body an equivalent amount; in the subject case, 6.5 degrees.

The combination of eversion/internal vertical axial rotation of the leg is called pronation. If either of these actions is interfered with, or worse, prevented, it is impossible to create the alignment necessary to stack the torso and Center of Mass over the ball of the support foot.

The consistently stated objective of footbeds is either to limit or even prevent pronation. Put another way, the whole idea of footbeds is to make it difficult or even impossible to balance on the outside foot and ski.

If this issue is not crystal clear, please post comments as to what is needed.

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.