Leaderboard

I've been trying to think of a way to demonstrate/illustrate the difference in walking between a traditional heel, and a set back heel, and haven't come up with a solution. Ahhh! Eureka! It's not the angle, (as "Heels" suggests), because the 'angle of approach' is determined by the wearer. How far you (any of us) step forward when we walk is determined by our natural gait. True a heel will change that, but on like-for-like shoe heights, our step length will be all but uniform. (I'm sure). So lets agree the (leg+ankle+foot) approach angle is the same, for any given shoe height. Both styles of heels shoes land on the heel, followed by the foot. What is the difference? The length of the radius! (Length of the shoe.) Which in turn gives us the length of the arc travelled by the toe to sit on the floor. The greater the arc, the more work (harder) it is for the ankle to cope. [For example, the landing angle on a size 5 shoe might be 30 degrees. Some person same shoe style but a size 10, when the show lands at 30 degrees still, the toe of the size 10 has to travel further because the arc is longer.] Alternatively, (turning this concept on its head a bit), the shoe approach angle - governed by our physical capabilities, will have the shoe angle of descent being quite similar if not same. BUT the shoe with a set back heel will touch the floor first because the longer shoe must land first before the shorter shoe. (The inclined heel allowing the heel to come down at an ever-so-slightly less acute angle. this might be 50 degrees with a traditional heel, but 45 degrees with a set back heel). The "felt" difference in the two styles could be as much as ⅜ of an inch with this 5 inch model. What I'm suggesting is the set-back heel, not only looks higher, but in striding forward it feels higher too? Add to that "felt" additional height (as it can only be 'felt' since both heel types are actually the same height), the increase in the arc length required to land the toe on the shoe with the set back heel, and the difficulty in walking in the newer style heel is compounded. So conclusion to the "theory" .... A set-back heel will land earlier than a traditional heel. (Looked at in profile the heel will seem a tad lower on landing.) A set-back heel demands a longer arc to land the toe of the shoe. I'll try to demonstrate this in some photo's over the weekend. Having re-read the text, I'm now having third thoughts. Why? In the text above, I added (when re-reading), the example of the size 5 vs size 10 shoe. It's the part that is shown in grey rather than black. I used it, intending to indicate the length of the shoe matters. But does it matter? To an ankle - the rotating bit that has to accommodate the heel-to-toe landing operation - it understands only angles, not length. I suppose that overall there must be some difference (affect) somewhere, because that longer arc needs time to happen. I'm tired. It's 2 a.m. I'll have to 'over think' this again, perhaps over the weekend when I've done some photo's. As an aide-memoire to myself ..... Ankle is a hinge. (Ball of foot is a hinge.) High heels are levers or hinges? Set back heel is worse lever? Set back heel increases leg length directly, but traditional heel removes some of that disadvantage Does the suggested 5 degree change/advantage of a traditional heel, affect/change the toe landing arc significantly enough to greatly improve the shoe "walkability"? Inclined heel would have been developed during the time when a stiletto heel was at its most popular. Surely the makers knew a thing or two about the benefits to the owner. Who would want to buy a shoe that was difficult to walk in? Back in the day, the wearer might be wearing this style of shoe all day.....