Thread: Heel raises for ladies: good or bad?

A friend of mine spoke to a racing coach in Canada who often put heel raises in the boots of female skiiers to bring their centre of gravity forward. I am, apparently, fairly typical of a lot of women who have a tendency to be in the back seat particularly when challenged. I'm sure the fact that I have very flexible ankles doesn't help (a lot of passive dorsiflexion for those who know the lingo). I'm tempted to try it but I wouldn't mind some opinions from some of you. Have any of you tried it or know any body else who has? Any problems?

Thanks in advance,

Mrs R

from the various things I've read, most women benefit from it, but some don't, due to some having a body type more akin to a man's. Try it.

My body type is definitely not like a man's (unless he has rather large man boobs and a big butt) so I'll give it a try?

Any idea what sort of thickness of raise people have tried?

Dorsiflexion is sexy.

There, I said it.

Yeah, but that's passive, dorsiflexion, phUnk.

Now, active dorsiflexion, well......need I say more?

To me the two main benefits of using a heel lift are to open the ankle joint up for those lacking dorsiflexion (not you) or to lift the calf muscle up and out a bit of the back of the boot. Both are common situations for woman and the low insert of a woman's calf can cause the muscle (especially those sexy well developed ones) to push the woman forward in the boot. This will result in having to drop the hip back to compensate.

Other options ( ofter preferable) are making sure the boot has a low cuff as with most woman's and junior boots and sometimes cutting down the boot cuff on the shell and/or heating it and flaring it back. Also making sure you're in a snug fitting boot as boot that's too big also means the cuff comes up higher and exacerbates the problem.

One other common situation for woman with small feet is the ramp angle of the binding pitching them foward and again pushing the lower leg forward forcing the hip to drop back to compensate. Putting a lift under the toe of the binding or using a flat binding can help this a lot.

The heel lift is worth a go since you can always haul it out easy if it doesn't work. The other solutions may be more permanent though.

One other thought, with excessive dorsi flexion it often a benefit to use a stiffer boot. This can control the flexion and again keep the stance taller and the hip more centred.

PM if you have any more questions about it.

I tried them once for a while - but they just make me pitch too far forward - it actually made my skiing worse. They did make my old boots fit better but they messed up my stance in the process. I was better off taking them out and cranking down the buckles more. And then much better off getting new boots that fit my ankles/heels tighter so I didn't have to mess with the fit by adding heel lifts.

Originally Posted by L7

To me the two main benefits of using a heel lift are to open the ankle joint up for those lacking dorsiflexion (not you) or to lift the calf muscle up and out a bit of the back of the boot. Both are common situations for woman and the low insert of a woman's calf can cause the muscle (especially those sexy well developed ones) to push the woman forward in the boot. This will result in having to drop the hip back to compensate.

Other options ( ofter preferable) are making sure the boot has a low cuff as with most woman's and junior boots and sometimes cutting down the boot cuff on the shell and/or heating it and flaring it back. Also making sure you're in a snug fitting boot as boot that's too big also means the cuff comes up higher and exacerbates the problem.

One other common situation for woman with small feet is the ramp angle of the binding pitching them foward and again pushing the lower leg forward forcing the hip to drop back to compensate. Putting a lift under the toe of the binding or using a flat binding can help this a lot.

The heel lift is worth a go since you can always haul it out easy if it doesn't work. The other solutions may be more permanent though.

One other thought, with excessive dorsi flexion it often a benefit to use a stiffer boot. This can control the flexion and again keep the stance taller and the hip more centred.

PM if you have any more questions about it.

so you're talking about a negative ramp angle? I was of the understanding that most women benefit from the opposite, as Mrs. Roo is talking about. I've heard a lot about female racers using ramps under their binding heel pieces to compensate for a (typical) woman's lower center of gravity (relative to a man's). Also, if you look at the Dynastar women's skis, they come with a built in 1.5 degree ramp where the binding heels mount.

So I would think that Mrs. Roo might benefit from a ramp angle on her bindings, but that a heel lift in her boot might create other problems, if they fit well already.

What I'm talking about is the lower leg being pushed too far forward. I'm not talking about a negative ramp angle but levelling the binding ramp angle that is there. I'm aware of what dynastar is doing and think it is assbackwards for most woman. The ramp angle can adversely affect a small foot as that 8 - 12+ mm can translate to quite an angle on a short boot sole length. I have never heard of building more heel lift for woman's racing. The hips over the feet is the easiest position to adjust centre of gravity from but that is hard to maintain when compensating for a lower leg pushed forward.

Ramp angle inside the boot as mrs roo is talking about has an opposite effect when it lifts a bulky calf out of the boot again keeping a lower leg from being pushed too far forward.

Ramp angle inside the boot and under the boot have very different effects.

Originally Posted by L7

What I'm talking about is the lower leg being pushed too far forward. I'm not talking about a negative ramp angle but levelling the binding ramp angle that is there. I'm aware of what dynastar is doing and think it is assbackwards for most woman. The ramp angle can adversely affect a small foot as that 8 - 12+ mm can translate to quite an angle on a short boot sole length. I have never heard of building more heel lift for woman's racing. The hips over the feet is the easiest position to adjust centre of gravity from but that is hard to maintain when compensating for a lower leg pushed forward.

Ramp angle inside the boot as mrs roo is talking about has an opposite effect when it lifts a bulky calf out of the boot again keeping a lower leg from being pushed too far forward.

Ramp angle inside the boot and under the boot have very different effects.

I see. So why is that women tend to fall backwards more than men? How iwould you correct this?

Originally Posted by Darkside

I see. So why is that women tend to fall backwards more than men? How iwould you correct this?

in simplest terms, it's the junk in the trunk

bootie size has a bit to do with it, but the real science part of it is the "Q angle" - most women, who are hippy/have curves, rather than straight, athletic style bodies tend to have the worst backward weight issues. (many of the top female skiers tend to have straighter bodies)

the Q angle is essentially how the femur comes down in a "V" from the hip bones, like this:

hips--> ___
femur--> \ /
tibia--> || (but imagine them lined up)

Check out more about the Qangle in Jeannie Thoren's theory - pretty much one of the few experts on differences in women's skiing. you'll find tips on forward binding mounting, heel lifts & canting. gotta start with small adjustments to find the right amount.

if you could ever make it to one of her clinics, it's killer.

Thank you every body for your help. I'll read everything through carefully, including that great link, and try a few things out.

Cheers!

Hey Mrs Roo,

There was actually a bit about this in one of our great british ski mags ( ) just recently, and that advised on the theory that skiguide mentions.

If I can find the exact issue I'll let you know. But the thing that stood out for me about the whole q angle thing was the way for many women it meant that the natural centre of gravity IS actually more on the heels than on the toes - somewhat the opposite of guys.

Originally Posted by jonski

But the thing that stood out for me about the whole q angle thing was the way for many women it meant that the natural centre of gravity IS actually more on the heels than on the toes - somewhat the opposite of guys.

Cheers, mate!

The Q angle has a lot to do with differeces in hip alignment (I'm a physio, you think I'd have worked this out before but in my defence, I don't specialise in sports injuries).

We do have a couple of Brit mags (the ones worth having) and I don't remember seeing anything but if you can remember the name and issue I may be able to get an archived copy. I may have a look in some sports injury journals as well to see if there has been any research.

Originally Posted by Darkside

I see. So why is that women tend to fall backwards more than men? How iwould you correct this?

`

I missed this question before. Woman do not automatically fall backwards but probably many to tend to that. I just don't like the blanket statements as they are misleading.

There can be many reasons for falling back and a big one is likely psycological. Many woman who ski balanced and well will lean back on steeps or when the speed gets past their comfort zone. This imbalance will often lead to a fall and that fall will be likely backwards. It's basic fight or flight reponses and men will do it too but likely more woman will be prone to 'flight response.'

As mentioned above many woman are pushed forward in the lower leg due to binding ramp angles/small boot sole length and calf muscles pushing lower leg forward. Both of these force the hip to be dropped back to compensate and now the centre of mass is behind the feet. This also creates a flexed position that will create smaller joint angles at the knee may be close to the effective range of motion in terms of strength. Again setting up a fall backwards. Many woman also have poor ankle dorsi flexion which can also cause the centre of mass to get well behind the feet while absorbing terrain or energy from a turn.

These are tendancies woman have but I don't see it as being particular to their physiology but more their physiology in combo with inappropriate equipment.

Originally Posted by Mrs Roo

Cheers, mate!

The Q angle has a lot to do with differeces in hip alignment (I'm a physio, you think I'd have worked this out before but in my defence, I don't specialise in sports injuries).

If it's possible to reignite this discussion, I'm curious to have Q angle explained. Not what it is as I'm familiar with that but more where it comes from. Does a certain hip structure create Q angle or does something further down the biomechanical chain cause the hip structure that leads to Q angle. ie: how does moderate to serious pronation and/or foot abduction effect muscle development in gait that may lead to Q angle. Not every woman with a wide hip structure has excessive Q angle.

The other thing with Jeanne Thorens take on Q angle is what I see as her blanket statements regarding it and things like heel lifts. I've been to a seminar of hers some years back and found her quite single minded. A friend with a masters in Kinseology, a level 3 coach in Canada and several years as training coordinator for the Canadian ski team told me woman have 4 indentifiable hip structures and one of them is very much like a man's. The gist of the conversation was why mount woman's skis different unless you are going to do it for the 4 different types. It is more indvidual than that and also often stems from what goes on with the boots/bindings and messing with the mounting point is simply a bandaid on what may be a gushing wound.

I'm not saying things like Q angle and mounting points aren't valid but just saying they don't apply to all women.