On 5 Mar 2004 12:06:39 -0800,
[email protected] (Chris J) wrote:
>Interesting, because this is counter to what I was expecting to hear. Wouldn't
>the pelvis tilt downward on the "short leg" side and upward on the "long leg"
>side, resulting in the tightening of the ITB in the *long* leg? That's what I
>would have thought anyway.
Being that way all the time the slight over stretch is not a problem, much like
a cheerleader can do the splits but doesn't have any trouble when not doing the
splits. Being slightly under stretched, on the other hand, is like a regular
person trying to do the splits.
>Also, after posting my question, I found these two articles:
>
http://www.drkiper.com/LegLength.asp and on the same web site,
>
http://www.drkiper.com/itbs.asp
>
>If what they say is true, wouldn the increased pronation of the ankle in the
>long leg tend to stress the ITBS (in the long leg)?
Possible, but these are lesser irritations compared to a big enough pelvic
tilt. The source I gave didn't give any specific length difference though, it
is likely that a small enough difference isn't much of a problem.
>BTW, I found the picture at the bottom of
>
http://www.drkiper.com/LegLength.asp interesting, as this is the same pattern
>that I see forming on the back of my heels. But unforunately it doesn't say
>which shoe corresponds to the short leg...
Easy enough for a second person to determine, lay flat on your back with
another person at your feet, they can turn your feet outward slightly, pressing
your heels together, and should be able to spot which leg is longer without any
trouble, unless the difference is incredibly small.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human
mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft