Mechanics of the ankle

[Anita C.]

So you're wearing 5" Heels, why aren't you 5" taller? Because of how the ankle works. Your pivot point is foreward of the heel averaging about 2'5". Consequently your ankle won't rise as much as the back of your heel does.

[Bubba136]

There's a very good post on how much taller a person is when they are wearing high heels somewhere on this forum. I'm sure, if you're really interested, a search of the archives would turn it up. Perhaps since so many new members have joined since it was posted, it might be agood idea to repost it.

[new_look]

interesting. I always knew you never got 5' out of a 5' shoe but never really thought about it. What would you say you would gain from say a 5 in heel

[High Surprise]

Very going point Anita - I have never really thought about it.

[J-Nation]

I'd never thought about it either, so while I'm off work poorly sick (cough splutter!) I've just roughly sketched it out for you. I've based it on my foot (UK10) and a 4"/100mm high heel and assumed that the foot bends at the ball of the big toe and the ankle pivots at the sticky-out bit on the side! (shown by the blue cross)

It quite surprised me that it's only half as high at the ankle as the heel

Emma

[Ionic]

Time to dust off your trigonometry and dig out the old sine and cosine tables!!! Actaully the first inch or two of heel will add almost the whole of the extra to your height but the inch going from a 6" to a 7" (if you are a rare person that can bend to this) will add virtually nothing mostly just pushing forwards. /I

[Tom-NL]

Alllow me to point you all to a picture on Jenny's resurrected website, that nicely illustrates this:

There was also a section devoted to this subject on the Italian website "Tacchi a Spillo", but it seems that this site has ceased to exist :-(( . A English translation was once posted on Jenny's discussion forum. It is reproduced below:

"From Tacchi © Morgana. Translation © Craig.

To conclude this page, we will consider one more interesting matter. A lot of people think in fact that a heel of 5 inches will increase one's height by an equal measure. Although it often feels this way, the reality is slightly

different, as shown in the following figure:

Taking as reference the peak of the anklebone (one of the points most useful anatomically for this purpose) we can point out with "A" the height of the bone with respect to the earth, and with "B" the height of the same point without wearing high heels, when our foot rests on the ground in normal manner. Since the peak of the anklebone is a reference point clear of the rotation of the foot, it immediately appears evident that the increase of height (X) is defined by the following relationship: X = A-B Such value doesn't coincide therefore with the height of the heel measured according to the Italian method ("C"), much less the measure of "everything behind" represented by segment "D." By means of a series of empirical measurements, we have found that X = 0.7 C X = 0.6 D In other words, when we wear a heel 4-3/4 inches high, our height grows around 3-3/8 inches if the heel is measured according to the Italian method (segment C), and a little more than 2-7/8 inches if this part of the shoe is measured according to the other conventional method (segment D).

There is nevertheless another interesting detail. Since the axle of the heel and the peak of the anklebone are not on the same vertical line, the problem of the increase of height is reduced to the solution of a right-angled

triangle, with the consequent necessity to introduce trigonometric coefficients. In practice, wearing a heel of 3/4

inches, our height grows nearly an identical value, but, as we increase the height of the heel, the corresponding increase in height is always smaller. To say it another way, when we pass from a heel of 0 inches to a heel of

3/4 inches, our foot it is nearly still horizontal, and therefore the increase in height is comparable with the height of the heel, but when we pass from a heel of 4 inches to a heel of 4-3/4 inches, the factor of increase for the inclination of the foot is found to be negligible, as exactly shown by the following graph.

The diagram shows the relationship between the height of a heel measured according to "everything behind" (in blue), the height measured according to the Italian method (in violet), and finally the effective increase in height, computed according to the considerations discussed here. You will notice that the effective increase in height has the tendency to be confused with the height of the heel for the lowest values, and gradually becomes less noticeable when one moves to the more ambitious styles (the right extreme of the graph corresponds to a heel of 4-3/4 to 5-1/8 inches). In reality, the missed increase in height is not likely so great.

The movement of the center of gravity forces the woman to straighten her shoulders, to lift her head and to extend her spinal column, in particular those actions that allow her to recover at least part of what was lost

through the inclination of the foot. My special thanks to my French friend Roland, for his substantial help in the development of this page."

Any more questions?

[High Surprise]

All this is far too complicated for a dumb blonde like me. All I want to know is are the shoes fashionable? Do they look good? and do they feel good on? Thanks for the hard work never the less.

[Dr. Shoe]

The mathematics is quite complicated and in some quarters the heel is measured by how much the person is taller in the heels than without. Thus: A 2" heel would make the wearer 2" taller (thereabouts) but a 6" heel would only make the wearer 4" or so taller and so would have been called a 4" heel. Some of the higher class manufacturers still do it so you would see a picture of a lovely 4" stiletto with a caption saying that it is a 3" heel!

[PJ]

Here is my interpretation of the Italian web site posted earlier.

The most important thing to remember is that the heel height of the shoe is different from the vertical lift you achieve while wearing those heels. For lower heel heights, this difference is minimal. For higher heel heights, this difference is larger.

When measuring the heel height of the shoe, there are two basic methods. In the diagram above, measurement D represents the American method of measuring along the backside of the heel from the floor up to where the top of the heels meets the bottom of the shoe heel section. And measurement C represents the Italian method of measuring heel height.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When measuring the vertical lift that the shoe achieves, there is more than one method. But I consider the following to be the best.

Imagine looking at a side view of your body. Draw a line from the top of your head down the middle of your side view to the floor. When you are lifted up by high heels, you are actually pivoting around your ankle. Everything stays in line except what is below the ankle. Therefore the ankle is the lowest part of your body that can be used as a reference.

In the diagram above, measurement A represents the height of the ankle bone while wearing heels, and measurement B represents the height of the ankle bone with no shoes.

Using Z to represent the increase in body height, and using a little mathematical computations and measurement, the following formulas apply:

Z = A - B

and Z = 0.7 x C

and Z = 0.6 x D

Therefore, if you have a 6" heel (measured Italian style C), it will increase your height by 4.2".

If you have a 6" heel (measured American style D), it will increase your height by 3.6".

The difference between the heel height and the heel lift increases with heel height because your ankle bone is shifting more horizontally forward as well as vertically upward.

[Heelfan]

Look at it this way: Given that the moment of heel-lift to arch-arc production ratio is in direct logarithmic relationship with the extended apogee plotted at the heel-to-back-of foot point when the heel is raised a maximum given number of centimetres (measured vertically and not up the back of the heel of the shoe), it can be accepted as provable geometry that the sine/cosine extrapolation of that same production ratio is in inverse proportion to the heel-lifting moment when taking account of the increasing forward deflection to decreasing upward deflection measurables whilst also recognising the non-terminal infinity factor "No weight however great and no line however fine ......" fundamental which would add a minor but nonetheless important extra perameter to what is already a complex calculation given the logarithmic (non-linear) basis for accurate computation which would need to be applied to each foot and shoe in question, these equational (or more accurately, sub-equational) precepts being possibly able to be looked upon as the basis for drawing-up a graph-chart for universal offering-up to the heel-wearer's foot-profile, such a measuring aid being infinitely more user-friendly and easily understood than if each case were to be worked-out as a series of numbers and seemingly abstract equations (sorry, sub-equations). I hope this manages to make the concept clearer to High Surprise and other ordinary heel-wearers. Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[Bubba136]

And, a partridge in a pear tree!

[JeffM]

To Heelfan I totally agree with what you have said except the point "arch-arc production ratio is in direct logarithmic relationship" should read sinusoidal and not logarithmic. Just as you have said here "the heel is raised a maximum given number of centimetres (measured vertically and not up the back of the heel of the shoe), it can be accepted as provable geometry that the sine/cosine extrapolation" is in fact just sinusiodal. And in this passage "a complex calculation given the logarithmic (non-linear) basis for accurate computation" Again I think you mean sinusoidal, not logarithmic, still non-linear. Of course this only applies if as you say we take the vertical measurement and compare it with the length of the arch for sinusoidal values. If we were to take the vertical measurement and compare it with the horizontal measurment, ie between the ball and the tip of shoes heel, then we should be talking about the tangental values instead. regards Jeff

[jo]

Umm, I thought that the answer was .... 42.

[Bubba136]

42? ... 42? That's one of Fred's most often asked questions.

(Let me see now,,,,,,,,if the angle of the dangle, plus the ............ ) :rofl:

[Heelfan]

Who's Fred? Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[Bubba136]

Fred is a friend from Jenny's High Heel Chat Room. He's from the UK and has a strong hh fetish. He asks the same questions over and over so we teas him by saying that he has them all numbered and just has to type the number instead of typing the entire question. (He's from the UK, by the way).

[Laurieheels]

Hey, be nice with regard to Fred, the last two times I have seen him in chat, he did not ask the same old questions of me. He's friendly, harmless, and just curious is all. We cannot fault him for that. Besides, it's attention, and who hates that? Not me!

[JeffM]

Besides which it cant be 42, it has to be some where between 0 and 1. Jeff

[Bubba136]

Who said Fred wasn't nice? Fred is a long-time regular at Jenny's chat. His exuberance for women in heels is unflagging, especially when it comes to their impressions of "how do they feel when" questions to a point that several of the female chatters have offered to send him a pair so he can experience the feelings for firsthand.

[allheel]

So much expert analysis! So I thought someone may know the answer to this. A study a few years ago proved less impact from wearing stilettoes than the same high of chunky heels. How I always found that to be so without data to prove it. Even a sort of blade heel not really fine one, seems more cumbersome to walk. May be I'm not a good wearer, as the sharp heel make little contact with the floor and the angle at which it hits the floor is not as important as with a wider heel? Any thoughts on this? Thanks

[Slim]

Yes, spikes are much easer to wear than thick heels. In general nothing much larger than an 1" in diameter. Also 1 1/2" or more of undersling makes a big difference.

[allheel]

Yes I'd agree, the heel contact with ground being too far back is what makes blades and blocks not as comfortable to walk in.

[JeffM]

Its a very interesting question you pose Allheel When you consider the size of a bare heel with a shoe's block heel and then a slim stiletto heel, you would think that the bare heel would be the most difficult to connect to the floor. Obviously it is not but there seems to be some silly logic involved some how. Jeff

[Heelfan]

Bubba, I don't think Allheel is talking about bare heels contacting the floor. He's talking about a set-back heel contacting the ground sooner than an underlslung heel of the same height. Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[JeffM]

Hi Heelfan Have I had a name change or is it that I do not understand what you are saying. It seems to me that you have addressed your comment to answer mine but used another’s name. In any case the originator Allheel said A study a few years ago proved less impact from wearing stilettos than the same high (height?) of chunky heels. No mention of underslung heels only heel height. So if a thicker heel is not as easy to wear then it follows that the broad area of a bare heel will be even worse than a chunky heel. But that is not the case so making for an interesting question. And Slim said Yes, spikes are much easer to wear than thick heels. Ditto the above. Then Allheel agreed that with the heel (blade or block) being further back made it less comfortable to walk in. But what about stilettos that have the heel set back under the back edge of the shoe ie not underslung. Are these not as comfortable as well to walk in? So back to what I said, it is an interesting question. No? Jeff (on behalf of Bubba )

[allheel]

Thanks Heelfan and Jeffm, you interpreted me correctly. Once the set back heel would never have been popular as it tends to make the foot look longer too.

[Heelfan]

Jeff - sorry I called you Bubba - it's my dyslexia - I get everyone's names mixed up - every day I mix up my wife's and daughter's names - it drives them mad! - you'll have to try and forgive me! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[Bubba136]

Heelfan, it's no "biggie" that you confuse him for me. However, heaven forbid that you confuse me for him. :rofl:

[Heelfan]

Can't help it! I mix up everybody! We had a Jean and a Joan and a Jane on my staff - I could never EVER get it right! If it happens again (which it will!) don't get put out, just put it down to silly old absent-minded Heelfan. Cheerfully yours, what did I say my name was? Derrr? Huh?