mlroseplant

Chiropractic techniques are specifically designed to manipulate your bones back into proper alignment. Now that I have a neutral position to start from, I find it much easier to keep my body in proper alignment for yoga poses, particularly those involving outstretched legs. As far as pain management, there really wasn't any real pain to begin with, so the difference is subtle (to me, anyway). My doctor told me that I am fairly unusual in that I showed up at his office before I was completely incapacitated in some way. I wish I had a picture of that x-ray to show!

I really haven't felt like writing lately, but I suppose I should report on my visit to the chiropractor. I decided to seek medical care because I've been having a slight amount of trouble with my left knee off and on for years. I have always suspected it was not really a knee problem, but what do I know? As it turns out, I was at least partially correct. My hips are way out of alignment, which causes my spine to take a wonky turn (it's really quite dramatic on the x-ray, even to a layman), which then affects the rest of me, including my knees. After two weeks of therapy, I must say I can definitely tell a difference in my yoga practice, and I think that I walk much better in heels than before. Knee still hurts a little though. I'm not expecting miracles. It will take a while. The good doctor advised me against wearing high heels (twice), which I suppose he feels obligated to do, but we did not talk about it in great detail. If he brings it up again, I suppose I will have to tell him off a bit, but he hasn't mentioned it for a while. I'm not complaining, though. He's a super nice guy, and really seems to know his stuff.

Nope, never had a guy ask, but it seems unlikely that it would even be possible as I have the smallest feet by far of any guy I know. I have recounted a story at least once elsewhere on this site where a drunk girl wanted to try my shoes and could not even stand up straight. And then on the other hand there's my long time shoe buddy, who doesn't even bother to ask anymore when she spies a pair of mine she's never seen before. Of course, she's 3 sizes smaller than me, but still manages to look better in my shoes than I do.

Ain't no question that things has changed in the last decade. I've been publicly heeling for 7 years, and I haven't gotten any grief by the general public for several years now. Of course, I live in a small town, and perhaps everyone is just used to me now.

Yeah. . . in fact I have noticed this on certain shoes. It doesn't tend to happen if everything is built really rigid, but I have noticed this, particularly when walking slightly downhill. I have some set back heels that are quite comfortable and easy to walk in, but they are all thicker, more rigid heels. I just hadn't put 2 and 2 together yet. Another problem I noticed with set back heels is that you have to be even more careful walking down stairs (which I suck at anyway), because it's a lot easier to catch your heel on the end of the step when stepping down to the next step. My shoe buddy is a big Nine West gal, and she almost always wore their pumps to work. When it came time to replace shoes that were worn out beyond any practical repair, this was the closest thing we could find to what she really wanted: Not entirely satisfactory, but close enough even with that somewhat awkward looking set back heel. It's all that's available. I have begun noticing that she's wearing heels less and less often lately. Mere coincidence?

The subject of my musings today is aftermarket shoe padding, particularly at the ball of the foot. I have long stopped using inserts in an attempt to make a shoe be more cushioned. I do use them quite a bit, but they are for fitment purposes only. Some people swear by them for comfort, but I have never found them to make a nickel's worth of difference, comfort-wise. To explain it another way for the sake of clarity, by "comfort" I mean using them to relieve pressure at the ball of the foot, thereby making them more comfortable to wear for longer periods of time. Certainly, the way I use them, they do in fact increase comfort by taking up the slop in a shoe that is not perfectly sized or shaped for my foot. Some of my most comfortable, wear-them-all-day, go-on-a-walking-tour-of-Downtown-Chicago-in-them shoes have no padding whatsoever. The insole of the shoe is just bare hard wood. Conversely, some of my shoes that have quite a bit of built-in padding, and some that have built-in padding to which I've added an insert for fitment, are considerably less comfortable on the old balls of the feet. I don't have any truly uncomfortable shoes, I won't deal with them, but on the continuum of relatively comfortable high heels, there seems to be no correlation between how much padding there is at the ball of the foot and how comfortable they are to wear in real life. By the way, I only like one brand of inserts, and that is Foot Petals Tip Toes ball of foot cushions. They also make other cushions, but I use the ball of foot cushions the most by far, again for fitment purposes, not for actual cushioning. I absolutely hate gel anything, can't stand that squishy feeling, and they often make my feet sweat more than they already do on their own. I am curious to know what other people's experiences are with foot cushions as it relates to comfort or fitment.

Naturally, there are always exceptions to the rule, and in fact, my best shoe buddy is such an exception, but for an unexpected reason. If memory serves, she has very few platforms, and those that are are very small platforms, but she doesn't like to wear anything over 4 inches in her size 5 1/2, and preferably somewhere around 3 1/2 - 3 3/4 inches. The reason she doesn't like to go any higher than that is not because she can't walk in them, it is because once the shoes get that steep, her calf muscles lump up in a way that she finds unattractive. The funny thing is, body builders and fitness chicks try to achieve this look on purpose, but she doesn't like it, so she intentionally limits her heel height. I will give you this about single soles: If you happen to step on a rock or stick or some other small object, the sideways force that your ankle experiences is far less violent than if you were wearing platforms.

I am always on the prowl for another Candie's style mule. I've never actually owned a pair of true Candie's, but name brand doesn't really matter to me. I would post a picture, but I haven't yet discovered the perfect wooden heeled mule. I suppose it would be something like the Candie's pictures above, but with thinner, differently shaped heels.

I'm still very confused about the "cheating" thing. I understand the concept perfectly well, but why on earth does it matter? Is it also "cheating" if you're size 13 and claim to wear 5 inch heels all day, every day without platform? Who cares? I've never, ever met a woman who can tell me exactly the height of her heels she happens to be wearing at the moment, much less the platform height, and she doesn't care about those numbers, unless there is a specific reason to. That is a guy thing.

I have the same response as several others. I don't work in an office. I have enough edumacation to work in an office, I just choose not to. Therefore, I don't even have the option of wearing heels to work for practical and safety reasons.

Me neither. He's not the only one. I get up at 4 a.m. most days.

I tend to refer to any backless shoe as a mule, but I think that the more correct definition is that it ought to be closed toe. Just to avoid any confusion, I refer to what might be more properly called a "slide" as an "open toed mule." I do have a few pairs of backless shoes that you "slide" into, but most of them must be wiggled into, because it's kind of critical that they are pretty snug so you don't lose one accidentally whilst you are walking. So I suppose we could call them "wiggles?" No, that reminds me too much of that silly group of Australian men who had that children's show once upon a time. To further muddy the waters, where do open backed clogs fit into this picture? Much like pornography, I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it. Having said that, I do own several pairs of mules that look kind of cloggy. Or would that be clogs that look rather mule-y?

That whole ensemble is just a disaster! I don't know where to begin, but I think I will begin with pants whose waistband comes up practically to his nipples. Who thinks this looks attractive? Speaking of nipples, are those badly misaligned pasties, or are they electrode pads for an AED? Not even the shoes save anything. Oddly shaped heels and those witch toes. All of this combined with his posture and expression on his face equals a look I hope I never come within 40 feet of. I wonder what my little Asian gals think of him now that he (and they) are all grown up? I suppose I should ask them.

@subtle, I am simply curious--what is your personal definition of the difference between a mule and a slide? I see you used both terms to describe what I see as the same style of shoe. I have a special interest because more than half of my collection consists of backless shoes of one sort or another, and I have my own personal terminology that I use, whether it's technically "correct" or not.

I have quite a number of platforms, but they are largely limited to 1" or less. I kind of like wearing 5 inch heels with only a 4 inch rise, but I draw the line at wearing a 6" heel with a 2" platform. Somewhere in that range, the whole feel of the shoe just becomes clunky and strange looking, especially if the wearer has very slim legs and ankles. As far as "cheating," what exactly are we cheating on, unless it's bragging rights, who can walk in the steepest heels for the longest period of time? I think that's a male thing, I don't think women pay attention to the exact height of the heel and/or steepness in the way that we do.