Proposed Definition of Low, Medium, High and Fetish Shoes

[polkadot]

LOW HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = less than minus 15 degrees

MEDIUM HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = minus 15 degrees to minus 5 degrees

HIGH HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = minus 5 degrees to plus 5 degrees

FETISH SHOE

shoe angle = more than plus 5 degrees

Details and examples:

http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/shoes/comfy_heels.htm#heel_height

[Dr. Shoe]

It's probably better to come up with a ratio of size to heel height so that no one has to make complicated measurements.. As the foot gets smaller, the angles get steeper, hence a 4" heel in a size 3 looks realy high but not in a size 11. So: Size (UK) 1 >1 Low, 1-2 Med, 2-3 High, <3 fetish 2 >1 Low, 1-2.25 Med, 2.25-3.5 High, <3.5 Fetish 3 >1 Low, 1-2.25 Med, 2.25-3.75 High, <3.75 Fetish 4 >1.25 Low, 1.25-2.5 Med, 2.5-4 High, <4 Fetish 5 >1.25 Low, 1.25-2.75 Med, 2.75-4.25 High, <4.25 Fetish 6 >1.5 Low. 1.5-3 Med, 3-4.5 High, <4.5 Fetish 7 >1.5 Low, 1.5-3.25 Med, 3.25-4.75 High, <4.75 High. 8 >1.75 Low, 1.75-3.5 Med, 3.5-5 High, <5 Fetish 9 >1.75 Low, 1.75-3.75 Med. 3.75-5.25 High, <5.25 Fetish 10 >2 Low, 2-4 Med, 4-5.5 High, <5.5 Fetish 11 >2 Low, 2-4.25 Med, 4.25-5.75 High, <5.75 Fetish 12 >3 Low, 3-4.5 Med. 4.5-6 High, <6 Fetish From this table we see that Peachy in her 6" heels is way into the fetish bracket whereas me in my 5s would be in the high heel bracket. Similarly someone in a size 1 stiletto in 3.75" would be in fetish shoes whereas someone in 12s would only be in a minimum heel height.

[shrimper]

My opinion is that fetish type is not related to heel height. There's a lot that goes into the design of a shoe and its the combination of elements and how it strikes an individual that determines if it is a fetish shoe. There are flat shoes that appeal to my fetish instinct, while boots, platforms and the like although considered by some to be fetishy do nothing at all for me.

[Shafted]

I like your heel height scheme, Dr. Shoe. I vote we adopt it.

[polkadot]

It's probably better to come up with

a ratio of size to heel height so that no one has to

make complicated measurements..

This method, in its pure form, will not work because two shoes

having the same size and the same shoe angle may have

different heel heights. For example, a shoe having flat shank

(http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/shoes/bad_shank.jpg)

has 0.7 inch higher heel than a shoe having curved shank

(http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/shoes/good_shank.jpg)

Your method makes sense as a rough guide if we make two

tables: one table for the flat shanks and the other

table for the curved shanks.

Note that your method is far from simple. To use this

method you have to measure the shoe length, the sole

thickness, the heel height, the shank curvature, then

subtract the sole thickness from the heel height and

find the right table (shank curve, U.S. size, Euro size,

U.K. size, etc.).

[polkadot]

Size (UK)

1 >1 Low, 1-2 Med, 2-3 High, <3 fetish

2 >1 Low, 1-2.25 Med, 2.25-3.5 High, <3.5 Fetish

3 >1 Low, 1-2.25 Med, 2.25-3.75 High, <3.75 Fetish

4 >1.25 Low, 1.25-2.5 Med, 2.5-4 High, <4 Fetish

5 >1.25 Low, 1.25-2.75 Med, 2.75-4.25 High, <4.25 Fetish

6 >1.5 Low. 1.5-3 Med, 3-4.5 High, <4.5 Fetish

7 >1.5 Low, 1.5-3.25 Med, 3.25-4.75 High, <4.75 High.

8 >1.75 Low, 1.75-3.5 Med, 3.5-5 High, <5 Fetish

9 >1.75 Low, 1.75-3.75 Med. 3.75-5.25 High, <5.25 Fetish

10 >2 Low, 2-4 Med, 4-5.5 High, <5.5 Fetish

11 >2 Low, 2-4.25 Med, 4.25-5.75 High, <5.75 Fetish

12 >3 Low, 3-4.5 Med. 4.5-6 High, <6 Fetish

U.K. size 1 equals 22 centimeters.

U.K. size 12 equals 28.8 centimeters.

One would expect that within each category

(e.g., medium heel height) the ratio of heel

height to shoe length would be the same, but

your numbers do not follow this rule; they seem

to be random.

[rubberheel]

Hm...I was never a math genius, and I'm afraid, I'd never figure out whether my shoes were medium, high or fetish. Apart from that, I tend to agree that shoes can be fetish shoes even though they are not all the high. Perhaps the design is more important. (I need a smiley scratching it's head, here).

[hhberlin]

What irks me on the method (although I like the principle) is you're measuring the upper part of the foot. I don't think the top/sole angle is a constant. I think it would make sense to turn the measurement around so a flat foot is the lowest angle and the higher the heel the bigger the angle.

[polkadot]

Hm...I was never a math genius, and I'm afraid, I'd never figure out whether my shoes were medium, high or fetish. Apart from that, I tend to agree that shoes can be fetish shoes even though they are not all the high. Perhaps the design is more important. (I need a smiley scratching it's head, here).

Is "ultra high heel shoe" or "very high heel shoe" better name than "fetish shoe"?

[polkadot]

What irks me on the method (although I like the principle) is you're

measuring the upper part of the foot. I don't think the top/sole angle is a

constant.

No, it is not. Can you imagine more precise way of measuring the angle of the foot? The bottom surface of the foot is a little more straight than its top surface, but it is usually hidden inside the shoe, so it is difficult to measure its angle.

I think it would make sense to turn the measurement around so a flat foot

is the lowest angle and the higher the heel the bigger the angle.

I like this idea.

[Shafted]

What about using the shank angle?

[polkadot]

What about using the shank angle?

I have a pair of high heel shoes that have 1 inch gap between the front/bottom of the shank and the foot.

[BlondeBimbo]

I think the real problem with a definition of high/low.. etc. is that it all depends upon the purpose or use of the definition. For example, if the definition is to measure the physical effects, I suppose the definition would have to be measured in the degree of extension etc. exhibited by the muscles rather than any measure of angle etc. – although of course the angle of the shoe, and the shape caused to the foot would have effects on this. (i.e. a muscle 2" long extended to 3" is a 50% extension etc. - and is independant on any training - 50% may be a streach for some but not for others) Thus for a true measurement, it would not be a practical measure, but instead one only suitable for a research environment. At the other extreme one would just look at heel height, as is the case for most people, who just look at the rear of the heel and declare it high – in which case it’s purely subjective based on the viewer’s own experience. – My neighbour for example almost never wears high heels – for special parties she has been known to get some high (about 2 ½”) heels – in which she is clearly uncomfortable – her reaction to my (about 5”) heels is that they are ultra-high! A simple heel height scale would probably be suitable here. In the mid-range between these two examples would be the people on this site, our view on heel height tends to be based upon the angle the foot makes with the ankle – visual of course. We may then either decide on an angular measurement – taking into account the actual shape of the shoe as well as the simple angle based on heel height vs size or a simpler view based on heel height vs size alone. In either of the above cases, I think we need to define an angle that declares the transition between classifications, and then work out an appropriate height based upon shoe size So as an example, a size 39 ½ is 255 millimetres long (about 10”) and given the fact that only about 80% forms the slope portion (Ballet shoes excepting of course) then a 5” heel would form a 38.7 deg angle - this is under 40 deg – we may call this high - but the same 5” on a size 37 ½ (243 millimetres long) gives 40.8 deg – this is over 40 deg – so shall we call this fetish/ultra high? I think we should use European sizes – since they cannot be confused between UK and US so only one table is required. (Note I have gone for the simple approach on angles here !) BTW – the definition of < is ”less than” and > is “greater than” in mathematical terms. Therefore >2” is low heel - actually means “greater than 2” is low heel”! It does not mean up to - that only comes in a statement like <1” is flat heel> 2” is low heel> - where it’s an abbreviation of <1” is flat heel> <2” is low heel> Just something my maths professor had a big thing about!!!!! :sleeping: BB

[polkadot]

For example, if the definition is to measure the physical effects, I suppose the definition would have to be measured in the degree of extension etc. exhibited by the muscles rather than any measure of angle etc. – although of course the angle of the shoe, and the shape caused to the foot would have effects on this. (i.e. a muscle 2" long extended to 3" is a 50% extension etc. - and is independant on any training - 50% may be a streach for some but not for others)

We cannot use this method when the Achilles tendons are shortened.

In the mid-range between these two examples would be the people on this site, our view on heel height tends to be based upon the angle the foot makes with the ankle – visual of course.

This is the only thing that matters. Bent feet are much more sexy than walking on stilts. :drinking:

We may then either decide on an angular measurement – taking into account the actual shape of the shoe as well as the simple angle based on heel height vs size or a simpler view based on heel height vs size alone.

In either of the above cases, I think we need to define an angle that declares the transition between classifications, and then work out an appropriate height based upon shoe size

So as an example, a size 39 ½ is 255 millimetres long (about 10”) and given the fact that only about 80% forms the slope portion (Ballet shoes excepting of course) then a 5” heel would form a 38.7 deg angle - this is under 40 deg – we may call this high - but the same 5” on a size 37 ½ (243 millimetres long) gives 40.8 deg – this is over 40 deg – so shall we call this fetish/ultra high?

I think we should use European sizes – since they cannot be confused between UK and US so only one table is required.

(Note I have gone for the simple approach on angles here !)

We talked about that already. We would have to include curvature of the shank in this method. Furthermore, we would have to make different tables for European sizes, U.K. sizes, U.S. sizes, etc. This method is too complex.

I believe that the best method would be based on single measurement of an angle.

[polkadot]

Can we wrap up this discussion with a consensus? I propose the following definitions: The figure of merit is the angle between a horizontal line and the most steep, front part of the foot below the ankle. This angle is called the shoe angle. VERY LOW HEEL SHOE shoe angle = less than 60 degrees LOW HEEL SHOE shoe angle = 60 degrees to 75 degrees MEDIUM HEEL SHOE shoe angle = 75 degrees to 85 degrees HIGH HEEL SHOE shoe angle = 85 degrees to 90 degrees VERY HIGH HEEL SHOE shoe angle = more than 90 degrees

[a3]

Hello,

reading the tekst first it didn't make sence to me. But looking to the figure it's explenation makes it better. But it al depence of the shape of the feet. Some persons have a high arch boge of there feet standing flat on a servece (holow feet). How will that cope with your explenation??

When looking to the shoe and than the angle of rising of the shoe from the toe base up to the heel makes more sence to my and better to figer out with to have the shoe on and then takes the angle how far the feet bends.

Beside the lengthe of the feet comes also in de picture, example 4" high heel on small size EU 37 or extra large size EU 44 give a different angle. Looking to the picture from the side of "andrew uk". the rising of the heel gives a bigger angle of the feet going up. say 1" heel comes with 20 degrees and ballet (8" heel) 80 degrees (same size). And the more the toobase gets to the heel then bigger the bending of the feet and less stable the shoe and walking will be (arch of the sole form the heel down). So extra bonus the shoe gets.

It's just a idea looking from another start.

A3

[chris100575]

I like Dr Shoe's proposed scale, it's simple to understand, and ties in with my perception of what counts as "high". For my foot size (UK anything much under 3.5" doesn't feel like a high heel. My favourite height to wear is 4" - 4.5", and 5" upwards I have difficulty walking in. It's all subjective though, some of our members would probably feel my 4" heels were pretty tame. Chris

[BlondeBimbo]

I think the real problem with a definition of high/low.. etc. is that it all depends upon the purpose or use of the definition.

as I said before - why the definition?

If it is to measure the effects on the foot - it will be a measurement probably only possible via x-ray or similar.

Of course this is of no use on a practical level.

If it is to measure how "steep" it looks, either the front angle of the foot to the vertical /horizontal, or the general shape of the foot will work.

Of course this is of no use on a practical level.

If it is as a guide to the purchase of shoes then the heel height in relationship to foot length is a simple guide, which will work.

This is a practical measure useable by anyone once a simple table is made.

(This could be extended to two tables – one for predominantly straight shanks, and one for curved shanks – although measuring two shoes of identical height one having a straight and one a curved shank I find little difference in actual strain in my foot, or on the front angle – though the general shape is improved!)

However one may define anything in any way - but it’s only the practical usable measures that remain in use.

We all know Celsius - but how many of us use Rankine?

So for a consensus I would vote for Dr. Shoe's definition (perhaps tidied up a little and based on Euro measures).

BB

[azraelle]

Dr. Shoe def takes into consideration the varying angles, just doesn't specifically include it. For example, the angle most certainly would go down as the size went up for the same heel height. I vote for his def as well.

[polkadot]

If it is to measure how "steep" it looks, either the front angle of the foot to the vertical /horizontal, or the general shape of the foot will work.

If it is as a guide to the purchase of shoes then the heel height in relationship to foot length is a simple guide, which will work. This is a practical measure useable by anyone once a simple table is made.

(This could be extended to two tables – one for predominantly straight shanks, and one for curved shanks – although measuring two shoes of identical height one having a straight and one a curved shank I find little difference in actual strain in my foot, or on the front angle – though the general shape is improved!)

The main difference is the heel height - it is measured at the back of the heel.

So for a consensus I would vote for Dr. Shoe's definition (perhaps tidied up a little and based on Euro measures).

Dr. Shoe's table is made of random numbers representing random shoe angles. The tables would be useful only if they represented a meaningful geometric property, for example the steepness of the shoe. Once we agree that the steepness/shoe angle is the figure of merit, we can discuss the boundaries between the shoes having different steepness: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. The making of the tables should be the last step because the tables cannot be very precise due to the difficulty of measuring the shank curvature.

[Firefox]

The angle method is the acid test, but I think this can be reduced to a height figure depending on show size. After all sin(angle)=shoe length/heel height so heel height= K (1/sin(angle) ) where K is a constant for any given shoe size. Most people don't understand very well about angles and their relationship to lengths but they can cope reasonably well with measurement of a distance compared to their shoe size. I think a height versus shoe size table will have a more universal appeal. Also Polka was talking about fetish shoes, Dr Shoe was talking across the range of all types, so you'll need to standardise your terms of reference.

[Dr. Shoe]

Can we wrap up this discussion with a consensus?

I propose the following definitions:

The figure of merit is the angle between a horizontal

line and the most steep, front part of the foot below

the ankle. This angle is called the shoe angle.

VERY LOW HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = less than 60 degrees

LOW HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = 60 degrees to 75 degrees

MEDIUM HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = 75 degrees to 85 degrees

HIGH HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = 85 degrees to 90 degrees

VERY HIGH HEEL SHOE

shoe angle = more than 90 degrees

No.

We don't carry protractors around with us whereas you can usually judge a heel height and often the vendor will tell you that as well. Moreover, some people have high insteps giving a higher angle than someone else in the same shoe for the same height. In addition, whether the shank is curved or not the heel height is still going to be the same, a 4" heel is STILL a 4" heel, the angles will be different though! The shoe may be aesthetically different but it is still the same. In my table you simply deduct the platform thickness from the heel height because platforms come into a fetish category all on its own.

In my table I put say, "<2.5"" this means less than 2.5", ie STARTING FROM FLAT.

You could convert the sizes to european, US mens', US ladies, paris points, japanese, chinese, metric measurements or Martian Standard- whatever floats your boat. The table is in UK sizes because it's taken direct from my research when I studied for my degree!

Far from being random, the figures are a linear scale designed so that a larger shoe has to have a higher heel to fall into the next higher category compared to a smaller size which will appear higher. For example, a 4" heel in a size 3 will be fetish but could hardly be called that in size 12 (unless you take 12s and have a fetish for 4" heels).

Someone pointed out that people have fetishes for all sorts of things and this is true. People have a wellington boot fetish and some people are even drawn to flip flops but we were talking about HEEL FETISH.

Come on guys (and gals) let's just keep it simple, the smaller the size the lower the heel to qualify as fetish.

[polkadot]

The angle method is the acid test, but I think this can be reduced to a height figure depending on show size. After all sin(angle)=shoe length/heel height so heel height= K (1/sin(angle) ) where K is a constant for any given shoe size.

Most people don't understand very well about angles and their relationship to lengths but they can cope reasonably well with measurement of a distance compared to their shoe size. I think a height versus shoe size table will have a more universal appeal.

I agree except that according to your formula, the higher the heel, the smaller the angle. hhberlin suggested that it is better to measure the angle between a horizontal line and the foot so that big angles correspond with high heels. I agree with hhberlin. hhberlin and Dr. Shoe do not like using the top/front surface of the foot as one side of the angle. What else could we use? The bottom of the foot? Most shoes cover the bottom of the foot so this part of the body has no impact on how sexy the shoe looks.

Dr. Shoe does not understand fourth grade geometry and difference between "less than symbol" and "greater than symbol," so it is hard to argue with him about geometry. :argue:

Also Polka was talking about fetish shoes, Dr Shoe was talking across the range of all types, so you'll need to standardise your terms of reference.

You suggest that boundaries between high/low heel shoes should be pushed towards the low heel heights. How far should they be pushed?

[Firefox]

I've no real opinion on it. It really depends if your method is designed for fetishists or street wearers.

[Shafted]

Maybe it would be better to use the KISS method (keep it simple, stupid) and use absolute heel heights as measured from the highest point of the heel plumb to the floor. Anything else just seems to create confusion for people.

[hhberlin]

Maybe it would be better to use the KISS method (keep it simple, stupid) and use absolute heel heights as measured from the highest point of the heel plumb to the floor. Anything else just seems to create confusion for people.

No problem for applying this method to a total heel height.

What we were discussing was a method how to get a measurement for

relative heel height.

Things like: 10cm heels, are they low (for a size 44) or high (size 35) ?

Heels I do have measure 11cm (absolute) but I'd categorize them as 4"

heels due to my size 42 being larger than most womens' feet.

[Trolldeg]

[BlondeBimbo]

polkadot

You raised the proposal of definition of shoes, and then opened it out for a consensus; most of the people have indicated a practical measure based upon heel height.

In reading your posts it appears far from accepting the opinions of the many people who have indicated the preference for heel height vs shoe size, the opinions will be accepted only if they agree with your desire to use the front angle measurement.

.........Once we agree that the steepness/shoe angle is the figure of merit, ..............

I described in brief the key method used for medical analysis – which you indicated wouldn’t work – which is a pity since that is what’s used! - For medical/anatomical studies, the measurement is the muscle extension – any shortening of the Achilles tendon is of course irrelevant as in the high heel this, like the Plantar ligaments & fascia are all in a shortened state, it is the upper foot which is extended. Of course simple studies will use the angle of the sagittal plane to the ankle point and the ankle flexion but this ignores the motion in the metatarsals, which is significant in the case of high heel shoes. – Most football players and runners don’t run in high heel shoes so the analysis here uses the simpler case. (At least not on the field or open track!) (Note before anyone corrects me – I know the simple method is borderline for sprinters )

The two problems with using the front angle of the foot are firstly it’s not a simple measurement, and secondly it is not fixed for a given shoe, feet vary in all dimensions, not just length and width, but also in height, so I may wear a pair of heels, and with my low midfoot – the front face may be vertical, someone else of identical size, but with a higher midfoot wearing the same shoes could have a front face a few degrees beyond the vertical.

Others have also indicated this in many of the prior posts.

In practical terms none of the above are useful, measuring the line from the calcaneus to the head of the first metatarsal can only really be done by x-ray or similar, so how else would you determine the sagittal plane? Also I have never seen shoes sold – “this shoe will give a front face of 12 deg, for a 20% midfoot, 10 deg for a 25% midfoot…”

Of course one can go into the nth degree in determining angles taking into account sole thickness, shank thickness, shank curve, point of inflexion, but the major factor has to be the heel height vs shoe size, and for all practical purposes that’s all you need.

Exactly as Dr Shoe suggests!

.. In saying that hhberlin has raised another possibility - which is even simplier!

Take a standard size, say size 39 (size 6 UK, is that 8 ½ US?) – and assume the transitions are as Dr shoe proposed:

<1.5 Low. 1.5-3 Med, 3-4.5 High, >4.5 Ultra high

Then for each size up or down you add or subtract 1/8” - thus for size 41 (UK 7, US 9?) that’s two sizes up so add ¼” and the transition to ultra high becomes 4.75”

For UK and US that’s just the same as an adjustment of 1/8” for each ½ size. – so size UK 5 is two half sizes down, so subtract ¼” and the transition to ultra high becomes 4.25”

So the only info needed is

Size 39/UK6/US8.5 - <1.5 Low. 1.5-3 Med, 3-4.5 High, >4.5 Ultra high

For each size up/down, or each ½ size UK/US – add/subtract 1/8”.

That does KISS!

I know the shank angle changes in extreme cases, however – when does that occur?

The answer is in the ultra-high range anyhow!

Of course, if you wish, use the front angle, call it whatever you like, never the less I will still buy a pair of shoes based on the comfort, heel height, style etc.

I know a pair of 5” shoes will be fine for me all day at work, that they look good (most people consider I wear very high heels), what anyone’s classification is, is fine by me.

The definition depends upon the purpose, if the purpose is to ensure a favourite definition is “official” – it’s as good as any other.

BB

[BlondeBimbo]

..... some people are even drawn to flip flops .....

Nooooo

Get thee behind me Satan - that's just too perverse!!!!!

BB

[flavio]

I agree that keeping things easier is good so everybody can understand. That angle stuff in my opinion is the most inteligent thing because it takes all variables involved in wearing heels and depends of the shoe type, sole thickness, foot shape and size. Otherwise you will never think about angles when choosing your shoe for fetish reasons. Let's keep things simple. In my case I have a large feet (BR 44/45 - US 13) and my 5.5inch heels (14cm) looks like a 4 inch heeled shoes in US sizes 8 or 9. So I think that 2 variables should be considered: - how do you feel when wearing/walking; - how the shoes look when seeing from the sides; - how who is looking to you think about fetish or fashion. Let's forget about angles, sizes x heel height, etc... live it for the manufacturers and wear what you want to and feels good. Heels for all! Flavio.