Q: Ankle injuries snowboarding?

A:

Ankle injuries account for just under one quarter of injuries.  Compared to hard boots, soft boots expose snowboarders to about twice the risk of ankle injury, likely due to their flexibility.  Half of which result in fractures.


Forcing of the ankle into dorsiflexion and inversion is the mechanism of injury, which usually occurs after landing an aerial maneuver that has been over-rotated.



Q: Board Feel; Effective Lateral Torsion; High-back Input; Pre-load?

A:

Overall, stance change is a convenience, not a hindrance.  While the board is unweighted, a rider has the ability to change their stance on the fly.  Said/Given stance change is not unwanted, nor does it take place without input from the rider; with the exception that it will put one in an ideal position when it does move, involuntarily (or more at, intuitively, automatically).  Once turns are initiated, the bindings stay/remain in the desired position.  Pre-load still takes place.  Lateral torsion still takes place. Board feel still exists.  And as for highback input:  Ideal highback position is in alignment with the heel edge.  However, the highback still exists and does not present a disadvantage to edging; in spite of it not being aligned.  Tis the nature of LUMBOS™ innovation.  And you can still butter like the Pilsbury Dough Boy. 



Q: Buttering; Nose & Tail Presses: LUMBOS tm innovation vs traditional?

A:

LUMBOS technology still grants riders this smooth groove, and furthermore improves upon the move.  Simply employ the same technique, however now, when riders exert a load bearing force on one foot, and or then the other, the un-weighted foot is free to follow through and translate a riders intentions into more fluid swishing or swaying motions on slopes.  Meanwhile, the weighted foot finds the most stable attack angle, keeping the other foot in check, moreover, at your service and leisure, not unlike true butter.      



Q: Edging/Edge Angle: LUMBOS tm mechanism vs tradition?

A:

Anyone who’s ever accidently caught an edge (tripped) snowboarding knows, the consequences can be grim, if not unnerving or otherwise annoying, assuming a rigid imposition.  Whereas LUMBOS accessories automatically compensate for such disturbances to a certain degree and yet much greater extent than traditionally available, reacting on the spot to what essentially amounts to ‘shifting’, by absorbing, transferring, and redistributing impact forces most efficiently.


And due to the, albeit raised nature of LUMBOS mechanism, a rider’s leverage is further increased because the ‘edge angle’ is that much higher, resulting in less expenditure of effort when turning.   



Q: Evaluating snowboarding injuries?

A:

In evaluating injuries, it is important to know a rider’s stance and type of equipment used.  To be sure, hiking boots or moon boots should not be used for snowboarding, for they lack stability, which may lead to a higher incidence of injury.



Q: Frequency of injury between beginner and advanced snowboarders?

A:

Beginning snowboarders are injured more frequently than advanced boarders, despite their increased speed and daring dangerous maneuvers like aerial tricks and jumps. 



Q: Head injuries snowboarding?

A:

The back of the head is yet another frequent impact area in snowboarders.  However, the force load here is relatively mild because the buttocks, back, and upper extremities absorb most of the force, the result of which is usually a headache.  But a significant portion of these injuries also lead to abrasions, concussions, and lacerations.  This is especially eminent in backwards falls, when one is mercilessly locked perpendicularly to the board.  Therefore, a helmet is highly recommended.



Q: How does snowboarding differ from skiing?

A:

Snowboarding differs from skiing in many ways.  Whereas skiers use poles for balance, boarders use their arms and hands, much like surfers or skateboarders.  However, snowboarding is nothing like surfing or skateboarding, for can you imagine locking someone to such a device and sending them down a hill or into a half-pipe, let alone a wave…it would guarantee a horrible wipe-out at some insane point.


The most obvious difference between snowboarding and skiing is the fact that boarders ride perpendicular to the long axis of a single board, with both feet laboriously affixed to non-releasable bindings.



Q: How much is a pair of LUMBOS tm inserts?

A:

The expected price point when they become available to the public will be $195.99, shipped anywhere in the world.  Now consider the average cost of snowboarding equipment:  A new board and bindings each range between +/- $150 to $350, while a complete set ranges between +/- $300 to $700, not to mention boots.  Of  ourse cost is less for used items, which are typically only bought once and not usually at the same time, and more for custom items.  Due to the nature of given sports boarding activities, our products and materials are chosen and built to withstand not only extreme conditions, but also designed to tolerate adverse treatment the equipment may be subjected to.  From hot salty marine applications to freezing cold temperatures of half-pipe slapping and thumping, bumps and grinds, one size fits all, providing unprecedented interchangeability, maneuverability, and very long lasting versatility like never before seen or heard of.    Therefore, LUMBOS™ accessory price is well worth the exponential value returned to YOU in the form of perpetual comfort, control, and convenience, quite simply, because the mechanism is always and ever free to spin at a rider’s command.  Does that sound reasonable enough?       



Q: Is board flex impacted by LUMBOS tm devices?

A:

Due to the circular nature of said mechanism, a rider’s force/power transfers more directly to the boards leading edge, a plus, rather than from the center, as traditionally the case.  And although approximately the same diameter of a typical board, flex or torsion is minimally impaired, if not negligibly or nominally so.  For the spinning turret is slightly raised above the board’s surface, not only to prevent marring, but basically to reduce impacting torsional flexibility as much as possible.   



Q: Knee injuries in snowboarders?

A:

Knee injuries, in particular sprains, account for nearly one quarter of all boarding accidents.

And compared to soft boots, hard boots expose snowboarders to about twice the risk of knee injury, likely due to their inherent inflexibility.  Older folks are especially vulnerable, as in other areas.     



Q: Leading cause of snowboarder injury?

A:

To be sure, falling is the leading cause of injury.  Injuries very rarely occur due to equipment failure.



Q: Losing balance while standing: LUMBOS tm mechanism vs traditional?

A:

Our natural tendency is to take a step forward or backward when one loses balance while standing.  And if you are cemented to the ground (in this precarious case a board), it is in our very nature to then twist.  But if mercilessly unable to move foot or feet at all, remember this, a rigid structure is prone to break.  One’s ankles and knees simply and normally can’t/don’t/won’t torque comfortably far enough.  However, LUMBOS™ devices do just that, following through every move.  Not to mention making laying or sitting on the slopes an unprecedented pleasure, because they effortlessly adjust according to one’s anatomical posture or repose.



Q: LUMBOS tm potential benefits?

A:

With the revolutionary advent of LUMBOS™ characteristic universal snowboarding accessory, it could provide riders a pre-emptive pivot response to lengthen response time and reduce or cushion injurious forces.  And give them a chance to save themselves in case of loss of balance.

LUMBOS™ accessory allows users to better control, find, and use various positional options in navigating terrain and in case of falls.

It is postulated that LUMBOS™ addition allows a rider a chance to relocate forces and regain control.  Making the experience more akin to skateboarding and surfing.

LUMBOS™ devices make it easier for beginners and experts to raise themselves from a kneeling, squatting, and sitting position.

LUMBOS™ embodiment all but eliminates fatigue associated with standing, skating, riding chair lifts and tow ropes.  Allowing riders to comfortably navigate lift lines, congested areas, and flat terrain.

LUMBOS™ innovation may reduce injuries common to snowboarders or lessen their effects.  While there have been no studies conducted on the forces and pressures exerted on the body when snowboarding or at injury.  LUMBOS™ manifestation postulates that some of these may be reduced based on the ability of the rider to move from a fixed stance on the fly and only when initiated by the rider themselves.
Empirical data gathered on the slopes reveals that the mechanism cannot and does not rotate without the volition of the rider.  When both feet are planted on the board and gravitational forces are in play spontaneous movement is not observed.



Q: LUMBOS tm technology in mid-air?

A:

Unbounded freedom is what one can expect catching a little or big air using LUMBOS™ devices.  The choice is yours; keep the rear foot stationary while shifting the lead foot back and forth; or keep the lead foot stationary while shifting the rear foot back and forth; or shift both feet back and forth simultaneously.  You maintain complete control and extreme maneuverability at all times, literally able to shift your stance “on the fly”!   



Q: Most frequent snowboarder injury?

A:

Snowboarders suffer injuries most frequently to their upper extremities and ankles, and less frequently in the knees, compared to alpine skiers.  The type of injury depends on a riders’ stance and particular equipment.



Q: Most likely to sustain injuries; snowboarders or skiers?

A:

Although a whopping three-quarters of slope users are skiers, snowboarders are twice as likely to sustain injuries! 

Why is that?  Three guesses, and the first two do not count... 



Q: Most popular snowboarding boots?

A:

“Sorrel-type” soft boots are worn by a large percentage of boarders, for comfort and maneuverability sake, and yet don’t offer much stability.  Whereas hard boots provide greater control and increased ankle support, and yet not much comfort and maneuverability.  Then there are hybrid boots, with a combination of stiff and soft components, the compromise of which balances the advantages of hard and soft boots.

Determining the risk of injury depends on the boot style employed, each of which subject the rest of the body to different stresses.



Q: Ollies: LUMBOS tm devices vs tradition?

A:

LUMBOS™ innovation “Ollie-oops”, and then some!  Via the same load bearing methods employed by skateboarders and surfers, whom control board fluctuations/spins with as little as the unbound soft or hard touch of a heel, foot, or toe.  Only, LUMBOS™ technology supplies supreme horizontal load bearing capabilities to boot.  In other words, even when fully airborne, riders maintain complete control of a board’s axial location and behavior, by means of not only shifting their lofted load bearing force back and forth horizontally, but also up and down vertically.  Much like a skateboarder or surfer holding onto board with hand(s), snowboarders can now securely and surely bounce and bound, twist and turn, salsa and sachet, high or low over terrain parks and “pists” world-wide with true abandon.  



Q: Opinions after trying LUMBOS tm devices?

A:

“Can they be made even more responsive?”  Yes, apparently not enough.  That’s it.  Though a few hot heads, disbelievers, and angry snowboarders have chimed in and grumbled with their negative comments and vibes from the sidelines.  You have to try it for yourself to appreciate the undiluted potential.  But to paraphrase everyone’s initial reactions and surprised reactions afterwards is:  “This is unbelievable!”  The collective consensus being, riders loath going back to the old fashioned, soon to be outmoded, old school of hard knocks way.  The operative word being freedom, for the ultimate goal and result of LUMBOS™ embodiment finally makes snowboarding akin to surfing and skateboarding, as has been the dream all along, now made real.     



Q: Rail grinds: LUMBOS tm mechanism vs tradition?

A:

Typically, when snowboarders lose their balance on a rail, they have little more choice than to disengage or hop off.  Whereas with LUMBOS™ accessories, if a rider loses equilibrium, the unconscious choice to regain composure by shifting one’s feet is spontaneously facilitated.  Just as instinctively as surfers and skateboarders respond. 



Q: References to snowboarding injuries?

A:

Pino EC, Colvile MR.  ‘Snowboard injuries’.  Am J Sports Med 1989; 17:  778-81.

Baldin C, McCory P.  ‘Snowboarding injuries.  An overview’.  Sports Med 1995; 19:  358-64.

Ganong RB, Heneveld EH, Beranek SR, Fry P.  ‘Snowboarding injuries:  a report on 415 patients’.  Physician Sportsmed 1992; 20:  114-21.

Chow TK, Corbett SW, Farstad DJ.  ‘Spectrum of injuries from snowboarding’.  J Trauma 1996; 41:  321-5.

Abu-Laban RB.  ‘Snowboarding injuries:  an analysis and comparison with alpine skiing injuries’.  Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145:  1097-103.

Baldin C, Giddings P, Robinson M.  ‘Australian snowboard injury data base study’.  A four-year prospective study.  Am J Sports Med 1993; 21:  701-4.

Warme WJ, Feagin JA Jr, King P, Lambert KL, Cunningham RR.  ‘Ski injury statistics, 1982 to 1993, Jackson Hole Ski Resort’.  Am J Sports Med 1995; 3:  597-600.

Davidson TM, Laliotis AT.  ‘Snowboarding injuries, a four-year study with comparison with alpine ski injuries’.  West J Med 1996; 164: 231-7.

Prall JA, Winston KR, Brennan R.  ‘Severe snowboarding injures’. 
Injury 1995; 26: 539-42.                                                           

Calle SC, Evans JT.  ‘Snowboarding Trauma’.  J Pediatr Surg 1995; 30:  791-4.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  NEISS:  ‘National Electronic Injury Surveillance System’.  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1997.

Lynch J.  ‘Snow Sports Industry Intelligence Report:  State of the
Industry’.  2003; McLean, VA:  Snow Sports Industries America.

Sacco DE, Sartorelli DH, Vane DW.  ‘Evaluation of alpine skiing and snowboarding injury in a Northeastern state’.  The Journal of Trauma.  1998; 44:  654659.

Shealy JE, Ettlinger CF, Buonomo V.  ‘Epidemiology of snowboarding injuries:  1988-1995’.  In:  Johnson RJ, Mote CD, Ekeland A, eds.  Skiing Trauma and Safety:  Eleventh International Symposium, ASTM STP 1289.  Philadelphia:  American Society for Testing and Materials; 1997.

Von Knoch F, Reckord U, et al.  ‘Fractures of the lateral process of the talus in snowboarders’.  J Bone Joint Surg Br.  2007; 89: 7277.

Yamakawa H, Murase S, et al.  ‘Spinal injuries in snowboarders: Risk of jumping as an integral part of snowboarding’.  The Journal of Trauma.  2001; 50:  11011105.

Chissell HR, Feagan JA et al.  ‘Trends in ski and snowboard injuries’.  Sports Med.  1996; 22:  141145.

Panchmatia JR.  ‘A review of skiing and snowboarding injuries’. 
Cambridge Medicine.  2007; 21:  3132.

Xiang H, Kelleher et al.  ‘Skiing and snowboarding related injuries treated in U.S. emergency department, 2002’.  The Journal of Trauma.  2005; 56:  112118.



Q: Second leading cause of snowboarder injury?

A:

The second leading cause of injury to snowboarders is associated with jumps.  Severe injury requiring referral to a tertiary trauma center is rare, the most common of which entails trees, followed by collisions with others.



Q: Skiing vs Snowboarding?

A:

Clearly, skis have safety release mechanisms in place in case of an accident, unlike snowboards.


Although skiers suffer a much lower incidence of wrist injuries, they are at a higher risk for knee injuries, compared to snowboarders, because the lower-limbs are subjected to greater twisting (torsional) stresses.


Skiers are less prone to spinal injuries than snowboarders, with anterior compression fractures followed by transverse process fractures being most common in boarders.


The bunk part about snowboarding all day in a fixed, rigid, restrictive, static position is that it unduly tightens ligaments, which when subjected to too much pressure can fail.

 

And the kicker, although skiers comprise nearly three quarters of slope users, snowboarders are approximately twice as likely to injure themselves.  Very likely due to the locked assumptions of current/conventional/commercial snowboarding practices.



Q: Snowboard binding systems?

A:

As for binding systems, the plate-type is comprised of a steel and plastic base with heel/toe clips, typically for hard boots, while the soft-type of binding includes a buckle system with a high back giving Achilles tendon support, typically for soft boots.  The latest material developments are much lighter and just about as strong.



Q: Snowboarder injuries on lifts or in line?

A:

A small percentage of injuries occur while a snowboarder is waiting in lift lines or while entering and exiting the lift.  This is because one foot (usually the lead foot) is typically locked in a 45˚ to 90 ˚ angle, which predisposes the boarder to a knee injury due to the resulting torque force on the locked leg if they fall.



Q: Snowboarder injury from jumps?

A:

Among snowboarders, both the variety and relatively high incidence of fractures is postulated to be largely due to jumping, with a tendency of cord injuries located in the cervical area.


Typically, during a jump, the upper body is twisted, subjecting the spine to shear forces if the snowboarder fails to nail the landing.



Q: Snowboarding for first time?

A:

Nearly one quarter of snowboarding injuries happen during a rider’s first experience, which is punctuated by a series of brief rides and subsequent falls.  And nearly half the injuries happen during the first season.  Fortunately, children have a lower center of gravity and more instinctual falling abilities, so the risk to them is not as high as in adults.



Q: Snowboarding injury pattern?

A:

The pattern of snowboarding injuries has changed with the evolution of better boots and bindings.  Currently, less than one third of injuries are to the lower extremities.  And the lead leg is at greatest risk, accounting for approximately three quarters of injuries.



Q: Snowboarding safety equipment?

A:

Although safety equipment measurably reduces the overall incidence of injury by decreasing impact forces, the area(s) proximate to the safety device may actually increase the risk of injury, via the shifting of impact forces through fixed/rigid/static systems. 



Q: Speed: LUMBOS tm manifestation vs traditional?

A:

LUMBOS™ innovation actually provides riders with even more control at high speeds.  Whereas a fixed stance reduces one’s options of slowing down, or checking velocity, forcing one into the potentially uncomfortable position of having to plan an alternate/escape route, fast, by either edging vigorously or carving a large extended turn and then some.  However, in the broadest sense of the word, LUMBOS™ inserts are exquisitely conducive to maneuverability, especially at high speeds, due to the inherent prospect of being able to make several more, shorter and smaller turns than ever before.  An unforeseen bonus. 



Q: Spinal injuries in snowboarders?

A:

Snowboarders are predisposed to spinal injuries because they have a high tendency and vulnerability of falling backwards due to loss of balance, which results in axial loading, carrying the risk of renal and or spleen injury. 


And although rare, abdominal and thoracic injuries can be severe.  Rarer still is morbidity (death). 


Nevertheless, this does not seem to deter avid or die-hard adventure seekers from their quest to have a hell of a lot of fun!



Q: Trend of snowboarding injuries?

A:

Recent reports estimate more than 8 million Americans participate in one of the most physically demanding sports of all, snowboarding each year.  Surprisingly increasing in popularity in spite of injury rates being more than double that of skiers, whom by the way far outnumber boarders four to one.  There is much concern over the rate of injury and fluctuating types of injuries seen from year to year, marked by participants pushing the so-called envelope.  The most prevalent injuries involve ankles, hips, knees, arm and leg ligaments and muscles, tendons, and upper body parts, because they are so heavily relied upon during snowboarding activities.  In an attempt to reduce the risk of injury, U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team sports orthopedist Dr. Kevin Plancher recommends increasing the flexibility of connective tissues via regimented exercises and stretching routines, among other prescribed key conditioning areas. 

 

That was more than ten years ago, and not much has changed in over twenty.

 


“Snowboarding is associated with a unique pattern of injuries, the knowledge of which could influence snowboarder education, accident prevention and equipment design.  Additional research is needed to understand better the types, causes and rates of injury associated with snowboarding.”

[Snowboarding injuries:  Hedges K.  CMAJ.  1992 Apr 1; 146(7):1146-8].

 

 

“Beginners usually injure the upper, while good snowboarders the lower extremities.  The most common injuries are radius fractures, followed by ankle and knee distortions.  In the case of injuries to the lower extremities, the forward leg which is the ‘skating leg’ or ‘standing leg’, is affected more than 80% of the cases.”

[Sportsverletz Sportschaden.  1994 Mar; 8(1):  31-7].

 

“To prevent injuries, it is recommended that snowboard bindings should be modified by the introduction of some sort of release mechanism…”                

[Nord Med.  1996 Jan; 111(1):  7-9].



“The severity of elbow injuries in snowboarding mainly seems to be due to direct mechanical force on the elbow, receiving the full impact of falling down, combined with an outstretched hand and elbow extension, or with an outstretched hand and longitudinal thrust force, to the proximal radius and ulna and distal humorous.” 

[ J Trauma.  1999 Jul; 47(1):  77-81].



“The primary mechanism of injury was through low-velocity falls on hard or icy snow, essentially a loss of balance…” 

[Sportverletz Sportschaden.  1999 Mar; 13(1):  1-7].



“Snowboarders are also known to injure their front ankle more often than their back ankle, presumably because of the asymmetrical rotations of the ankles due to asymmetrical binding adjustment.” 

[ J Appl Biomech.  2005 Nov; 21(4):394-403].



Biomechanical research “indicate that accuracy of kinematic data in the described field experiment was comparable to that found in literature for laboratory experiments.  It may be concluded too that accurate kinematic data collection for skiing and snowboarding can be performed in a field setting and that these results are accurate enough to serve as input data for further analyses. 

[ J Sports Sci.  2010 Oct; 28(12):  1345-53.  doi:  10.1080/02640414.2010.507253]. 



Which was done by the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Dept. of Sports Medicine, Oslo, with a systematic video analysis of World Cup Snowboard Cross cases from 2006 to 2010.  “The primary cause of the injuries was a technical error at take-off resulting in a too high jump and subsequent flat-landing.  The rider was then unable to recover leading to fall at the time of injury.” 

[Br J Sports Med.  2011 Dec; 45(16):1315-22.  doi:  10.1136/bjsports-2011-090527.  Epub 2011 Nov 15]. 

 

And as of last season, 2014, industry leaders continue to opine. 



“Due to the specific position on a snowboard, crashes often result in snowboard-specific injuries.” 

[Unfallchirurg.  2014 Jan; 117(1):  7-12.  doi: 
10.1007/s00113-013-2467-1].



“Studies rarely stratify the snowboarders by skill level, a classification which has profound effect on the riding activities of snowboarders and the resultant injury patterns.”  “The injury patterns across the skill levels are markedly different, and it is imperative that the research directed towards understanding the disparate lower extremity injury pattern of elite-level snowboarders is increased.” 

[Br J Sports Med.  2014 Jan; 48(1):  11-7.  doi: 
10.1136/bjsports-20130093019.  Epub 2013 Nov 26].      

 

In a nutshell…  “Acute fatigue decreased peak force and eccentric function…”

[ J Strength Cond Res.  2014 Jul 15.  Epub ahead of print].



Q: Turns: LUMBOS tm inserts vs traditional?

A:

Front side turns are more or less straight forward, however backside turns are another matter, where kicking out toe side is made all the more labor intensive in a locked stance.  Enter LUMBOS™ devices, which permit riders to make quicker, smaller, and tighter turn radiuses, because as one’s load bearing force is focused on the lead foot, the snowboard itself is able to spin simultaneously under the un-weighted rear foot, much like skateboarding.  Adding yet another option to edging, as in, enabling snowboarders to also glide into turns like a surfer or skier can and does, more easily.  



Q: Upper extremity injuries snowboarding?

A:

Approximately half of all snowboarding injuries are to the upper extremities, with the lead upper arm appearing most vulnerable.  The shoulder accounts for about two thirds of dislocations, one quarter of which are to the elbow.

 

About one quarter of snowboarding injuries and half of all fractures are related to the wrist, not to mention the clavicle and elbow.  It is advised that novice snowboarders keep their hands in a “closed fist” while boarding, to minimize the temptation of falling with an open hand, because the risk of injury is increased with a hyperextended wrist. 



Q: What makes LUMBOS tm embodiment so different?

A:

What differentiates LUMBOS™ technology from anything else in or out there is this; there aren’t arrestors to speak of, it never locks nor is ever fixed in place (other than for securing), and is not rigid or static, per say.  That is, other than by the applied distribution of a rider’s load bearing force, which like a surfer or skateboarder is constantly shifting, depending on will and/or the terrain encountered.  This mechanism is purposefully free to spin any time anywhere, being ever actively responsive, and above all always dynamic.  Pure and simple.



Q: What's next?

A:

To be sure, we have ensured that copies or knock-offs to be a precarious prospect indeed, for danger of infringing on our globally protected intellectual property rights.  And rest assured, our Company is working on developing several more related, novel and unique embodiments which have yet to be seen anywhere on the planet.  So stay tuned!



Q: Why no one else thought of spin, spins, spinning, &/or getting spun on a snowboard or similar before?

A:

Most excellent question!  Chicken, disbelief, irrational fear, stubbornness, you name it.  Frankly, no one has ever dared step out on such a limb, so to speak, well, unbelievably very few have, though not for any significant duration of time, otherwise they would have discovered this totally novel and wholly unobvious, hitherto uncharted and untapped viable characteristic.  Above all, LUMBOS™ accessories are empowering, undeniable proof of concept. 


 
Homepage | Definitions | About us | Contact
Our Products | Our Team | F.A.Q
Press | Privacy | Terms
Videos | Gallery

© 2017 Dry Water Productions Inc.
All rights reserved.