15/09/2024
More on heels.
This is a David Landreville- On the Vertical image and it perfectly illustrates the difference between what I would call ‘False’ heel height and ‘True’ heel height.
In both the top and bottom images, the space between the weight bearing surface of the heels (blue) and the hair line (green) is very similar so literally speaking, the ‘heel height’ measurable in cms from ground to hairline is much the same. You might argue that as the ‘angles are correct’ all is well with both images.
However, there are two very significant differences from the perspective of foot health:
1) In the first image, at the start of the rehab process, the hair line (green) has a noticeable ’W’ shape, this is a clear indication that the soft tissues within the back of the foot have been lost and the foot is essentially collapsing in on itself. The second image shows the same foot after two years of correct trimming, at which point the hairline (green) is almost completely straight in shape, this tells us that the soft tissues have been restored and are once again supporting the back of the foot.
2) In the first image, the surface of the frog (red) is quite literally touching the hairline (green) at what is supposed to be the frogs deepest point. The surface of the frog (red) is also way below the weight bearing surface of the heels (blue) meaning it cannot receive any ground stimulation. The second image shows that after two years of correct trimming, the surface of the frog (red) is now far closer to the weight bearing surface of the heels (blue) than it is to the hairline (green) meaning frog depth is significantly increased and ground stimulation is consistent.
Essentially after two years of rehab, the overall height in the back of the foot is no longer coming from the length of hoof horn but rather the depth in the soft tissue. This foot is now able to function correctly and support the whole limb.
