We took 5 measurements: shoe size (UK), foot length, longest toe length, width (at widest part) and height (measured at the junction with the leg).
Length was most correlated with shoe size (r=0.949, n=7) followed by toe length (r=0.787) and foot height (r=0.410). My second toe is longer than my big toe - while freakish, I'm told it means that I'm good in bed. An interesting negative correlation exists between toe length and foot width (r=-0.429) - can anyone explain this?? Time for a grant proposal...
The graph below shows the relationship between shoe size and foot length. The regression line shows several interesting points;
- An increase of 1 shoe size affords you an extra centimetre in length (or 0.944 cm to be precise),
- One might hypothesise that since the two females plot below the regression line, that ladies' sizes are slightly smaller than mens'. This may be a ploy by cobblers to help them to feel better about their humongous, gargantuan feet,
- Ian's shoes are too big for him. He needs to drop down a size. Failing that (and bearing in mind the hypothesis presented above), he could just wear girls' shoes.

Figure 1. The relationship between shoe size (UK) and foot length (cm) measured from heal to toe with a standard transparent shatterproof ruler. The best-fit regression line y=0.944x-15.94 is displayed along with 95 % confidence intervals.
No comments:
Post a Comment