Wow - the Swiss have done it again (i.e. MBT is Swiss also) with another (albeit, not new) shoe concept. Earth shoes
have a similar i.e. negative heel concept. In fact Earth (Danish) has some Swiss connections also.
This "Springboost" shoe range does look interesting. This apparent "DORSI Technology"; not to be confused with Earth's - "Negative Heel Technology" (a lot of technology going round
) seems to work off the concept of heel striking (as seen here
)... from what I can make out.
It doesn't appear that "Springboost" is marketing a running shoe (???).
Anyway, so we have the traditional training shoe with its 12mm heel-forefoot differential (HHD) - hence the foot functioning in a relative plantarflexed position. We have now the "Springboost" range with a negative heel - now with "Dorsiflexion Technology" via the following concept...
Scientific studies have shown that muscle fiber recruitment changes with different degrees of dorsiflexion. We have developed the U-Control Insole System™ - an interchangeable set of insoles that empowers the user to adapt the degree of dorsiflexion to:
- Their anatomic characteristics (flexibility of their joints)
- Their physical condition
- The intensity of training desired to reach objectives faster
Haven't as yet discovered the degree of dorsiflexion used above.
Then we have my position of a plantigrade/zero drop/flat running shoe (although I don't claim this idea as my own
) - come to think about it, maybe I could develop a shoe with... "Plantigrade Technology"
. Being apparently the middle of the road I could be quite successful with it (along with my profound logic behind the "technology").
Just thinking about it, one has to wonder how these above concepts affects the STJ role/function - just to name one varying aspect between these diverse concepts. Does anybody else wonder how/why we can be in a position where there is apparent support for the benefits of such a range i.e. elevated HHD to negative HHD. Is there an optimal answer here or are we to confuse the Central Nervous System on a continual basis.
One could be excused for asking an apparent naughty question - which is more... "NATURAL"
... heel elevated, forefoot elevated... or maybe placed in a position not conflicting with the primordial anatomical design. Anyway, who am I (& for that matter, anybody else... except maybe the Designer of the lower limb) to say what is "natural" in this area. Being "natural" is a rather airy fairy ambiguous term, maybe we should be asking/researching what is more biomechanically efficient for the intended activity or the intended objectives. Or maybe we should just allow the physiology of the foot/lower limb to do the talking here... just accommodate for its protection whilst eliminating the potential for (adverse) influence - just a thought.
Anyhow, all very interesting & something to think about... & further confuse the general public as to what they should be wearing on their feet