Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

'Dorsi Technology' Running Shoes (?Toning shoes)

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Craig Payne, Jul 18, 2012.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    What do you think?

  2. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    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 :rolleyes:) 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...
    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" :rolleyes:. 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" :eek:... 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 :empathy:.

  3. Achilles tenon injury, here they come.

    Regarding heel elevated, forefoot elevated, natural etc. A three word question: variation in terrain?

    Say we have a shoe which due to the heel height differential plantarflexes the foot by 5 degrees and then we walk / run up a 5 degree incline? etc.
  4. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    "Variation in terrain" - this is true Simon (or do you prefer to be called Dr Spooner?... or Spooner... or Spoony). Anyway, it's all relative... because if we take this logic further (to use your example)... "the heel height differential plantarflexes the foot by 5 degrees and then we walk / run" down "a 5 degree incline" the shoe then exacerbates the plantarflexion condition further to potentially to end ROM... compensation kicks in & we then have the potential for other problems (stressors/forces). However, the majority of the time we humans are functioning on a relatively level surface, hence the nature of the base of the footwear will be influencing the body posture the majority of the time... same principles would also apply to those orthotics we sometimes prescribe as well (i.e. influences by the variation in terrain [saggital & frontal plane]/nature of base of shoe).

    This I feel is yet another reason for flat/zero HHD to be now seriously considered across the board. Fat chance I know for women’s fashion shoes - but hey, what can you do... :butcher: the heels?.
Similar Threads - 'Dorsi Technology' Running
  1. KBruce

Share This Page