A recent post on The Foot Collective FaceBook page titled Humans aren’t meant to walk on ramps!, highlighted the problems caused by elevating the heel above the forefoot known in the footwear industry as drop. Like the author of the post, I also wear zero drop shoes like Xero and Lems exclusively  (with NABOSO insoles) and spend all of my time indoors barefoot. Like the author, I too have experienced an immediate, unnatural and a sense of disorientation in terms of a connection with the ground, when I have worn dress shoes and winter boots with moderate drop.

While some amount of boot board ramp angle or zeppa appears to necessary for a strong, tensioned stance (what I refer to as a planted or rooted stance), the amount of zeppa is turning to be much less than I originally thought. It may be less than 1.5 degrees total (zeppa + delta). Assuming zero delta, there appears to be a very narrow range within which zeppa is optimal after which a tipping point is reached in terms of adverse effects on the motor control and balance systems.

It has also become apparent that some racers are tuning ski response by adjusting binding delta. Zeppa and delta each have a different effect on ski response especially edge control and the ability of a skier to resist the forces acting on them in the load phase of a turn. I will discuss issue this in a future post.

Humans aren’t meant to walk on ramps!

Powerful post by TFC Educator @optimize.physiotherapy
Why do most shoes have a heel on them?
This really hit home the other day when I put on my winter boots (because it snows in November in Canada). Being someone who goes barefoot all day at work and at home (and wears zero drop shoes), it was a very unnatural feeling. It really threw my walking off, and I noticed the effects immediately. It changed the way I walked, stood, and made me use different muscles.
Humans are meant to have a flat base. No other animal wears mini ramps on their feet, but we do. The problem is that your body adapts to having a heel on, and it works different from a biomechanical perspective in any given movement pattern (the higher the heel, the worse the effect…but even most casual, running, and gym shoes have heels)

One thing it really does is affect your ankle/foot function. It has a huge effect on ankle ROM and tissue tension around the ankle. The problem is, when you wear a heel all day at work/at the gym/walking around, your tissues adaptively shorten and you don’t require as much ankle ROM. But then you take your shoes off and walk, go up your stairs, squat down to get things around the house etc. This is where people have issues. Not only at the foot/ankle but all the way upstream at other joints

Ankle ROM is incredibly important, and walking on a ramped surface all the time is incredibly unnatural. So do yourself a favour and spend less time in heeled footwear or get rid of it altogether

The Foot Collective is a group of Canadian physical therapists on a mission to help humans reclaim strong, functional and painfree feet through foot health education.

The Foot Collective are empowering people with the knowledge they need protect their feet from the dangers of modern footwear and the guidance to fix their own feet.


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.


When a World Cup racer wins a GS by a commanding margin, it’s a sure sign they’ve crossed the line and the gravity of the situation is significant. But I’m not talking about  breaking any rules. Instead, I’m referring to Hirscher and Shiffrin mobilizing the force of gravity by jumping across the rise line above the gate and/or minimizing pressure while rotating their skis across the rise line towards the gate so the edges of their outside ski progressively engage and lock up as they extend and incline closing the kinetic chain. Knee extension, in combination with ankle extension, uses the momentum of COM in conjunction with the force of gravity to progressively engage and apply force to the outside ski.

Reilly McGlashan has an excellent YouTube analysis of Marcel Hirscher using this technique in the 2017 Alta Badia GS (1.) The technique Hirscher and now Mikaela Shiffrin are using relates directly to the second rocker/internal rotation, impulse loading mechanism I described in a series of posts. The text below is excerpted from a comment I posted on McGlashan’s YouTube video analysis of Hirscher.

Hirscher progressively engages his edges, especially on his outside ski then hooks a tight arc close to the gate to establish his line. Once he has established his line, he no longer needs his outside ski. He gets off it in milliseconds and uses the rebound energy to project forward with only enough pressure on his uphill (new outside) ski to influence his trajectory of inertia so his COM enters the rise line at a low angle of intersection. He gets rebound energy from the loading  of his outside ski and from what amounts to a plyometric release of muscle tension from the biokinetic chain of muscles extending from the balls of his outside foot to his pelvis. The energy is created by the vertical drop from above the gate to below the gate similar to jumping off a box, landing and then making a plyometric rebound. Hirscher is skiing the optimal way and it shows on the clock and leader board.

Replicating the mechanism in a static environment is not possible because there is no inertia. But a device I have designed and constructed enables the mechanism to be rehearsed with the same feeling as in skiing.

The key is loading the forebody of the outside ski with a shovel down position as the leg is rotating the ski into the turn. This sets up the second rocker impulse loading mechanism that tips the ski onto its inside edge. Extending the knee and ankle uses momentum to exert a force on the snow with the ski.

The photo below shows the training mechanism head on. The white horizontal arms represent the sidecut of the ski. The platform under the foot can be adjusted transversely to change the sensitivity. Vertical plates set beside the ball of the foot and on the outer corner and behind the heel transfer turntable rotation torque to the ski created by rotating the leg internally with the glutes. The platform will only tilt under impulse loading if the second rocker can engage. Few skiers can use this mechanism because their ski boots do not accommodate second rocker biomechanics.

The link below is to a video that shows the effect of extending the knee and ankle while moving the hips forward and over the support foot (monopedal function). The stack height and minimum profile width of are FIS 93 mm/63 mm. Rotation in itself will not cause the device to tip onto its inside edge if centre of pressure is on the anatomic centre of the foot (through the centre of the heel and ball of the second toe).

Dr. Emily Splichal’s recent webinar on the Science of Sensory Sequencing and Afferent Stimulation (2.) is relevant to motor control and cognitive development associated with high performance skiing. Pay careful attention to Dr. Splichal’s discussion of the role of mechanoceptors and the fact there are none on the inner (medial) aspect of the arches of the feet which is why footbeds or anything that impinges on the inner arch is a bad thing. I will discuss the implications of Dr. Splichal’s webinar in a future post.

In my next post, I will provide detailed information on the training device.





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.


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

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.



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.