Limb Lengthening Forum
Limb Lengthening Surgery => Height & Proportions => Topic started by: .. on June 08, 2018, 09:35:56 PM
-
In other words, which bone to lengthen?
I just did my femur mockup and look like a freak whereas the tibia mockup looks good.
-
I think the Tibia mockup will always look better because longer tibias look really good on men whereas longer femurs are better looking for girls
-
In terms of health, longer femurs are better. (There's a study that's been linked elsewhere on this forum that studied people outside these ratios and found correlations between certain late-life issues and longer tibias.)
-
I think the Tibia mockup will always look better because longer tibias look really good on men whereas longer femurs are better looking for girls
It's not just "good". More like the difference between "normal" and "freak".
In terms of health, longer femurs are better. (There's a study that's been linked elsewhere on this forum that studied people outside these ratios and found correlations between certain late-life issues and longer tibias.)
We live shorter with tibia lengthening? Did the study mean people born with long tibias or people who lengthen tibias?
-
It's not just "good". More like the difference between "normal" and "freak".
We live shorter with tibia lengthening? Did the study mean people born with long tibias or people who lengthen tibias?
If someone’s femur and tibia ratio is normal, is something like 6cm in the femur enough to throw them out of the normal range? Or is it just in our head because we are judging ourselves too hard?
-
If someone’s femur and tibia ratio is normal, is something like 6cm in the femur enough to throw them out of the normal range? Or is it just in our head because we are judging ourselves too hard?
No, I'm pretty convinced now that it's the femur one isn't normal.
Here's a quote that I found: "The femur/ tibia percentage ratio from individual to individual normally falls from 52:48 UP to 56:44."
That's 0.92 to 0.78. So 0.7 ratio is not normal when 0.9 is still on the height end of normal range.
-
No, I'm pretty convinced now that it's the femur one isn't normal.
Here's a quote that I found: "The femur/ tibia percentage ratio from individual to individual normally falls from 52:48 UP to 56:44."
That's 0.92 to 0.78. So 0.7 ratio is not normal when 0.9 is still on the height end of normal range.
So what were your (estimated) bone measurements again? Tibias, femurs, and t/f ratio?
-
So what were your (estimated) bone measurements again? Tibias, femurs, and t/f ratio?
About 46 : 37. I measured it manually, so could be not very accurate.
-
I think myloginacct posted a study that showed that the risk of arthiritis is higher if the tibia to femur ratio deviates too high from 0.8. That study suggested that bias should be towards lengthening the femur over the tibia.
-
About 46 : 37. I measured it manually, so could be not very accurate.
Yeah, probably not perfect measurements. I'm assuming 46cm for femurs and 37cm for tibias.
Still, those measurements give you a 0.804 t/f ratio. That's super normal, at least according to that study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26398436). The average deviation is +/- 0.03 from 0.80. Thus, a normal/average T/F ratio, according to the study, is 0.77~0.83.
Going with the quoted "safe figures" in the forums... 5cm on tibias, and 6.5cm on femurs... If you actually did both segments, that'd give you a 0.80 ratio. If you did 5cm+5cm, you'd end up at 0.82. If you did 5cm tibias, 8cm femurs, you'd end up at 0.77. All average according to the study.
On the other hand, if you were lengthening only one segment, you could only lengthen your femurs by... 2cm... to keep within what the study shows as the lower end average for T/F ratio (0.770). For tibias, you could only lengthen them by 1.2cm to keep a normal/average t/f ratio (it'd go up to 0.830). 1.6cm would give you 0.839, the limit at 0.83.
-
I think myloginacct posted a study that showed that the risk of arthiritis is higher if the tibia to femur ratio deviates too high from 0.8. That study suggested that bias should be towards lengthening the femur over the tibia.
Yep:
Increasing tibia length relative to femur length was found to be a significant predictor of ipsilateral hip and knee arthritis. Therefore, we recommend that when performing limb lengthening, surgical planning should lean toward recreating the normal ratio of 0.80. In circumstances where one bone is to be overlengthened relative to the other, bias should be toward overlengthening the femur. This same principle can be applied to limb-reduction surgery, where in certain circumstances, one may choose to preferentially shorten the tibia.
-
Yeah, probably not perfect measurements. I'm assuming 46cm for femurs and 37cm for tibias.
Still, those measurements give you a 0.804 t/f ratio. That's super normal, at least according to that study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26398436). The average deviation is +/- 0.03 from 0.80. Thus, a normal/average T/F ratio, according to the study, is 0.77~0.83.
Going with the quoted "safe figures" in the forums... 5cm on tibias, and 6.5cm on femurs... If you actually did both segments, that'd give you a 0.80 ratio. If you did 5cm+5cm, you'd end up at 0.82. If you did 5cm tibias, 8cm femurs, you'd end up at 0.77. All average according to the study.
On the other hand, if you were lengthening only one segment, you could only lengthen your femurs by... 2cm... to keep within what the study shows as the lower end average for T/F ratio (0.770). For tibias, you could only lengthen them by 1.2cm to keep a normal/average t/f ratio (it'd go up to 0.830). 1.6cm would give you 0.839, the limit at 0.83.
According to this older post: http://www.makemetaller .org/index.php?topic=293.0, it could be up to 52:48. Probably your study just means average range instead of normal range which is difference. For example, a 5'1" man is well below the average height of man of 5'10" but he's not abnormal either because there are many men who are born 5'1". But 4' man is another story.
-
According to this older post: http://www.makemetaller .org/index.php?topic=293.0, it could be up to 52:48. Probably your study just means average range instead of normal range which is difference. For example, a 5'1" man is well below the average height of man of 5'10" but he's not abnormal either because there are many men who are born 5'1". But 4' man is another story.
Your figures use percentage. 52% femurs and 48% tibias, and 56% femurs and 44% tibias.
Starting from your original (83cm) total leg length:
.56*83 = 46.48
.44*83 = 36.52
36.52/46.48 = 0.78.
.52*83 = 43.16
.48*83 = 39.89
39.89/43.16 = 0.92.
This is the supposed natural range your t/f ratios could have been. Indeed, your femurs are on the longer side of the spectrum according to M M T (0.804, closer to 0.78 - or 56% femurs). Whereas the ratio is almost perfect according to the study.
If you increased your height by 5cm (37cm tibias; 46cm femurs): tibias would give you a 0.91 t/f ratio (supposedly normal given the old forums' ratios). 5cm on femurs would give you a 0.72 t/f ratio (deviating from both the M M T post and the study). This almost seems too good for tibias, and anathema to the anecdotal evidence of femoral vs tibial patients posted here.
I'm not calling bs on the ratios from that post because human proportions vary. Black men have shorter trunks, longer legs (specially tibias) and longer forearms compared to white men of the same height. However, one figure is from a study which examined a cadaveric osteological collection, not written by doctors involved in cosmetic LL (JPO), and which evaluated correlation between t/f and osteoarthritis through multiple regression analysis. The other is by a former admin of the previous forum, a place involved in collusion scandals with CLL doctors, specially getting them to do external tibias in places like India. It may be because I don't have an account on the old forums, but I can't find the source for the ranges he posted and termed as the "normal range" of femur:tibia ratios.
The main counterargument you can use against the study is that it comes from the JPO - the Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, which is under the umbrella of POSNA - the Pedriatic Orthopedic Society of North America.
However, the Hamann-Todd osteological collection doesn't seem to even focus towards infant and adolescent bone collections:
http://www.oberlinlibstaff.com/omeka_projects/exhibits/show/ohio-bones/the-hamann-todd-osteological-c
https://www.cmnh.org/phys-anthro/collection-database
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Museum_of_Natural_History
Hamann-Todd Human Osteological Collection
This collection contains more than 3,000 cadaver-derived human skeletons collected by Carl A. Hamann and T. Wingate Todd between 1912 and 1938. Superb documentation makes this the world’s largest documented collection of modern human skeletal remains.
The Hamann-Todd Human Osteological Collection is accessible for legitimate research and study by qualified investigators. Access is free for non-commercial use.
-
Your figures use percentage. 52% femurs and 48% tibias, and 56% femurs and 44% tibias.
Starting from your original (83cm) total leg length:
.56*83 = 46.48
.44*83 = 36.52
36.52/46.48 = 0.78.
.52*83 = 43.16
.48*83 = 39.89
39.89/43.16 = 0.92.
This is the supposed natural range your t/f ratios could have been. Indeed, your femurs are on the longer side of the spectrum according to M M T (0.804, closer to 0.78 - or 56% femurs). Whereas the ratio is almost perfect according to the study.
If you increased your height by 5cm (37cm tibias; 46cm femurs): tibias would give you a 0.91 t/f ratio (supposedly normal given the old forums' ratios). 5cm on femurs would give you a 0.72 t/f ratio (deviating from both the M M T post and the study). This almost seems too good for tibias, and anathema to the anecdotal evidence of femoral vs tibial patients posted here.
I'm not calling bs on the ratios from that post because human proportions vary. Black men have shorter trunks, longer legs (specially tibias) and longer forearms compared to white men of the same height. However, one figure is from a study which examined a cadaveric osteological collection, not written by doctors involved in cosmetic LL (JPO), and which evaluated correlation between t/f and osteoarthritis through multiple regression analysis. The other is by a former admin of the previous forum, a place involved in collusion scandals with CLL doctors, specially getting them to do external tibias in places like India. It may be because I don't have an account on the old forums, but I can't find the source for the ranges he posted and termed as the "normal range" of femur:tibia ratios.
The main counterargument you can use against the study is that it comes from the JPO - the Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, which is under the umbrella of POSNA - the Pedriatic Orthopedic Society of North America.
However, the Hamann-Todd osteological collection doesn't seem to even focus towards infant and adolescent bone collections:
http://www.oberlinlibstaff.com/omeka_projects/exhibits/show/ohio-bones/the-hamann-todd-osteological-c
https://www.cmnh.org/phys-anthro/collection-database
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Museum_of_Natural_History
Yeah, I also thought that with 5cm on tibia, I'd still fall into normal range according to the old forum while it wouldn't be the case with femur lengthening. Eventhough, I was wondering how they came up with that number too. But your study actually mentioned the average and not the normal range.
In the end, based on my mockups, I look more normal with the 5cm tibias.
-
Yeah, I also thought that with 5cm on tibia, I'd still fall into normal range according to the old forum while it wouldn't be the case with femur lengthening. Eventhough, I was wondering how they came up with that number too. But your study actually mentioned the average and not the normal range.
In the end, based on my mockups, I look more normal with the 5cm tibias.
Here's from Paley himself too (https://youtu.be/Iz2ePdIKIPo?t=24m7s). Of course standard deviations still exist.
-
Also, Bruce, if you read this thread again, bear in mind Android said (in his diary) his leg length estimates were totally off. You can only really know your numbers by getting them measured through x-rays.
-
Here's from Paley himself too (https://youtu.be/Iz2ePdIKIPo?t=24m7s). Of course standard deviations still exist.
Also, Bruce, if you read this thread again, bear in mind Android said (in his diary) his leg length estimates were totally off. You can only really know your numbers by getting them measured through x-rays.
Fair enough. My estimation is most likely wrong.
-
Based on the measurements I took of myself, I seem to have a femur to tibia ratio of 0.92. I always had difficultly running, where my calfs would fatigue quite quickly and I need to walk a bit and recover before I can run or jog again. I am now starting to think maybe it's related to my femur/tibia ratio.
-
Mine are probably around 50-50 example tibia is 35 cm and femur is is around 35 cm as well
-
Mine are probably around 50-50 example tibia is 35 cm and femur is is around 35 cm as well
That makes you an excellent candidate for femur lengthening and not just to be taller but for maintaining joint health in the long term. Usually the top range is 0.92, but you're 1, which is unusual. Did you measure yourself or with assistance?
-
That makes you an excellent candidate for femur lengthening and not just to be taller but for maintaining joint health in the long term. Usually the top range is 0.92, but you're 1, which is unusual. Did you measure yourself or with assistance?
I did it twice on my own it was like 35 cm lower leg and 37 cm upper leg so I actually got a friend to help me out he got the 35-35 so I took the measurement I got from him because it’s likely to be more accurate then mine so how much does this actually help me out with LL
-
I did it twice on my own it was like 35 cm lower leg and 37 cm upper leg so I actually got a friend to help me out he got the 35-35 so I took the measurement I got from him because it’s likely to be more accurate then mine so how much does this actually help me out with LL
Tibia
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKFNZF8O1o
Femur
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yVm0o8KG2NU
Is this how you did it? As shown in the above videos.
The concern with LL is you don't want and try to avoid going outside the tibia/ femur ratios of 0.78(long femur) to 0.92(long Tibia) in the interests of preserving joint health. There was study which showed that a tibia/Femur ratio of 0.8 is most optimal for joint health and correlated with less joint pathology. If your measurements are accurate, this means you have a femur to Tibia ratio of 1 or an extremely long tibia, so you can get away by lengthening your femur quite extensively and still be within in the 0.78- .0.92 ratio.
Based on your measurements, you could lengthen your femur by 8cm to total length of 43cm which would put you in the ratio of 0.81.
-
Yea I did it like that plus it also works out to equal my inseam that I have which is another reason I believe it’s accurate
-
Yea I did it like that plus it also works out to equal my inseam that I have which is another reason I believe it’s accurate
When measuring inseam do you extend the measuring tape all the way to the floor or do you stop at your ankles?.
My combined length of femur and tibia is 79cm, but my inseam is 82cm.
-
Overall it goes to 78 all the way if I measure to just my ankles it goes to 70 cm
-
Measuring like the video, I got 40cm tibias and 44cm femurs, my inseam is 80cm and height is 167cm.
That means my ratio is 0.91.
Now, if I length by 7cm, it will be like this
Height: 174cm
Inseam: 87cm
Femur: 51cm -> 0.78
Tibia: 47cm -> 1.06
AND my legs will represent 50% of my total height...
... fffffk! :c
-
Measuring like the video, I got 40cm tibias and 44cm femurs, my inseam is 80cm and height is 167cm.
That means my ratio is 0.91.
Now, if I length by 7cm, it will be like this
Height: 174cm
Inseam: 87cm
Femur: 51cm -> 0.78
Tibia: 47cm -> 1.06
AND my legs will represent 50% of my total height...
... fffffk! :c
Have you tried doing a mock up LL on ms paint?
Maybe you will look better than you think.
-
Have you tried doing a mock up LL on ms paint?
Maybe you will look better than you think.
Not really, there is a pic of me here, from that I believe it's visible that I got long legs.
https://imgur.com/PPdy60J
-
Not really, there is a pic of me here, from that I believe it's visible that I got long legs.
https://imgur.com/PPdy60J
Hard to tell actually from this photo. I would say your torso looks long in this photo not your legs IMO. You need to take a pic from further away, preferably set your phone or camera on a table or tripod mid body height and walk at least 3 metres away in distance from the camera.
Something like this. This is my LL mockup.
https://m.imgur.com/g9zFpSB
-
The concern with LL is you don't want and try to avoid going outside the tibia/ femur ratios of 0.78(long femur) to 0.92(long Tibia) in the interests of preserving joint health.
Where did you get these numbers?
-
Where did you get these numbers?
Aren't these the typical ranges for tibia/ femur ratios in majority of people?
I saw a lecture by Dr. Paley I think, on YouTube where he mentioned these figures and some members here described the same figures too.
-
Aren't these the typical ranges for tibia/ femur ratios in majority of people?
I saw a lecture by Dr. Paley I think, on YouTube where he mentioned these figures and some members here described the same figures too.
Could you link the video? I can't find the confirmation of these stats from reliable sources.
-
Could you link the video? I can't find the confirmation of these stats from reliable sources.
I don't recall the exact video, but hopefully it was this one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz2ePdIKIPo
I have been searching for an academic text which also specifies these figures but at this stage I haven't found one, sorry.
-
my case is also 50; 50 (1.0 T / F)
I have 42cm femur and 42cm warm
my tibia is very long, knee to floor is 55cm (with tennis 58cm) when sitting my knee is higher than the knee of people nomal or equal to people over 6'feet (1.83m),
I think my case to choose only one segment the best choice would be Femur.
would make 7.5cm - 8cm would look F 50cm and T42cm
92 - 100
50 - X ... (50 * 100/92) = x; X = 54%
would be 54; 46 or (0.84T / F)
within the proportion hypothetically I could do 10cm femur and be (52cm femur and 42 tibia)
which would result
94 - 100
52 - X ... (52 * 100/94) = X :: X = 55%
being 55:45 or (0.80 T / F)
would still be normal.
of course I'm disregarding my tendons' ability to stretch 10cm, which would probably be risky and perhaps cause damage to the joints.
could of course do the stretching in both segments for example for femur and tibia 5cm + 5cm or 6cm + 4cm.
but definitely doing Tibia would be a terrible choice for me.
-
my case is also 50; 50 (1.0 T / F)
I have 42cm femur and 42cm warm
my tibia is very long, knee to floor is 55cm (with tennis 58cm) when sitting my knee is higher than the knee of people nomal or equal to people over 6'feet (1.83m),
I think my case to choose only one segment the best choice would be Femur.
would make 7.5cm - 8cm would look F 50cm and T42cm
92 - 100
50 - X ... (50 * 100/92) = x; X = 54%
would be 54; 46 or (0.84T / F)
within the proportion hypothetically I could do 10cm femur and be (52cm femur and 42 tibia)
which would result
94 - 100
52 - X ... (52 * 100/94) = X :: X = 55%
being 55:45 or (0.80 T / F)
would still be normal.
of course I'm disregarding my tendons' ability to stretch 10cm, which would probably be risky and perhaps cause damage to the joints.
could of course do the stretching in both segments for example for femur and tibia 5cm + 5cm or 6cm + 4cm.
but definitely doing Tibia would be a terrible choice for me.
You don't know your actual t/f ratio unless you got it measured through x-rays and with further assistance of the associated medical professionals.
Estimates are just that: estimates. Android's were way off, by his own admission (http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=8993.0) (ctrl + F "36"), for example.
As for me, I currently have near-perfect mechanical axis, very slight valgus deformity (3-4 mm) at the knees. Right femur is around 47 cm, left within 4 mm of that. Right tibia is 36 cm, left is within 2 mm of that. I've tried to measure my own legs before and I was waaaay off, so keep that in mind.
EDIT: This post also applies to the other similar replies this thread got, and that I hadn't seen yet.
-
really can have a small variation maybe 1cm,
but no more than that,
I'm a sculptor, plastic artist.
already made illustration of biological anatomy,
I know the human anatomy, both bone and muscle.
and this peculiarity is observable in my brother and cousins, is a hereditary characteristic, and I have already made measurements in them also hahahah
-
really can have a small variation maybe 1cm,
but no more than that,
I'm a sculptor, plastic artist.
already made illustration of biological anatomy,
I know the human anatomy, both bone and muscle.
and this peculiarity is observable in my brother and cousins, is a hereditary characteristic, and I have already made measurements in them also hahahah
Your total leg length is supposedly 84cm ("1.0 t/f ratio with 42cm femurs"), and you say you are a 178cm man.
Android was 163.2cm, but his total leg length, measured by orthopedic professionals with professional equipment, resulted in a total of 83cm. According to your stats, you only have 1cm over Android's natural legs. However, you are a 178cm (~5'10) man, and Android was a 163.2cm (~5'4) man. That would mean you're 13.8cms (~5.4 inches) taller than pre-LL Android with just feet + torso + neck + head height - with almost identical total leg length. It's hard to believe.
What generally happens is that the vast majority of humans don't know where their femurs actually start, and can't measure them properly without the proper radiographic equipment, software, and expertise.
-
yes yes I know where my femur ends, I can feel it with my fingers pressing hard on the side of the gluteus.
my femur is short, my tibia is big my knee has the same height of friends 1.85m. but the femur is short hahah is an advantage for squats.
Yesterday I was talking to a friend, we were sitting on the seat of the bus and he was able to see the difference in his long femur at least 10cm more than mine, and we have the same height,
his knee was leaning against the front seat and mine had room to spare,
and my sitting height is bigger
The fact is that I have a long torso.
the ratio of my body is legs 47:53 torso
if I do LL 8cm
would be legs 49:51 torso, I think would be well proportional