Topic: Long legs, where do you draw the line? (Read 62795 times)

Uppland · « **on:** April 17, 2015, 01:13:23 AM »

As always I obsess over my (potential) proportions and I find that there is a fine line between a tall handsome build with long legs and a weird awkward one. My legs can handle about 6-8CM of extra height (plus 3CM shoes) before that line is crossed and awkwardness ensues.

My "true" inseam is about 46% and with an increase of 7CM it would rise to a bit over 48%, which is quite long.

Combined with my small frame I look something like this:

Except, you know, not asian.

What are your thoughts?

How much more leg length can your proportions handle?

Should I lengthen less or go for my goal of 7-8CM whilst risking looking strange?

Ghostfish · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2015, 01:23:31 AM »

Hi Uppland

I don't see any problem in that guy. Actually, I will be so happy if I am that tall.
I haven't seen your photo but think you will be totally fine with 7 cm increase, unless you have too short arm or/and too short tibia, if you do 7 cm femur, which are kind of my problems.
So go for it, if you can afford time and money!

ReadRothbard · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2015, 05:35:13 AM »

A leg length of anything over 48% of my total height is a no-no.

Taller · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2015, 09:15:39 AM »

I'd be ecstatic to be 7CM taller with those proportions!

Uppland · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:16:05 AM »

Quote from: ReadRothbard on April 17, 2015, 05:35:13 AM

A leg length of anything over 48% of my total height is a no-no.

Yes, seems like that would be the max ratio.

@Taller and Ghostfish.

Really?

I'll post another picture to clarify.

Alittletooshort · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2015, 11:19:19 AM »

It doesn't look bad in my opinion, your arms will be the problem I guess.

endomorphisme · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2015, 12:19:36 PM »

i think the guy looks decent
But why not sticking with 5 cm, if you really think going beyond 6 cm will alter you proportions, plus all the risks that will exponentially increase, don't do more than 5 cm

Uppland · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2015, 01:09:29 PM »

Quote from: Alittletooshort on April 17, 2015, 11:19:19 AM

It doesn't look bad in my opinion, your arms will be the problem I guess.

Believe it or not they're not as big of a deal as I thought they would be. They can appear stumpy if you really look for it but surprisingly enough they look very normal most of the time.

Quote from: endomorphisme on April 17, 2015, 12:19:36 PM

i think the guy looks decent
But why not sticking with 5 cm, if you really think going beyond 6 cm will alter you proportions, plus all the risks that will exponentially increase, don't do more than 5 cm

For the same reason you won't stick with just being 183CM I guess.

endomorphisme · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2015, 01:22:33 PM »

Quote from: Uppland on April 17, 2015, 01:09:29 PM

Believe it or not they're not as big of a deal as I thought they would be. They can appear stumpy if you really look for it but surprisingly enough they look very normal most of the time.

For the same reason you won't stick with just being 183CM I guess.

it's not my fault if i am 5 cm taller than you

Alittletooshort · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2015, 01:32:14 PM »

Quote from: Uppland on April 17, 2015, 01:09:29 PM

Believe it or not they're not as big of a deal as I thought they would be.

If your arms can handle it, than go for it. This guy looks pretty aesthetic in my opinion, long legged but not akwardly long.

NewHeights · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:06:54 PM »

Quote from: endomorphisme on April 17, 2015, 01:22:33 PM

it's not my fault if i am 5 cm taller than you

It's not very nice to talk down on someone who's shorter than you, especially because you have height neurosis yourself, and even more because you are on a forum full of people with height neurosis.

Hope that comment to Uppland made you feel better about yourself Mr 6 footer. Once you are are 6' 2" than you can look down on 97% of people and feel really good about yourself friend
: )

Btw Uppland, I know this means nothing to you, but I think you are already a great height. I would love to have an extra 2-3 CMs of height and be your height. No need for me to be 188CM, or even 183CM. Just extra wasted space.

Uppland · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:43:45 PM »

Quote from: endomorphisme on April 17, 2015, 01:22:33 PM

it's not my fault if i am 5 cm taller than you

I'm merely commenting that neither of us want to settle for 183CM, so we are of one mind here.

Although I wouldn't consider the surgery had I grown another 5CM naturally, but if I'm doing it I would like to gain as much as I can under the circumstances.

Quote from: Alittletooshort on April 17, 2015, 01:32:14 PM

If your arms can handle it, than go for it. This guy looks pretty aesthetic in my opinion, long legged but not akwardly long.

Yes well, I look like that while wearing my pants kind of low, maybe my legs aren't quite that long but you get the point.

Alittletooshort · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:46:33 PM »

Uppland, If I was you I'd set my goal for 6cm's and check the proportions after this length has been accieved. After 6cm's you'd be at a very respectable height of 185. Later you could still decide to get the last 1-2cm's.
At least this would be my approach to this, I have the same starting height so our situation is quit comparable.

Uppland · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Alittletooshort on April 17, 2015, 03:46:33 PM

Uppland, If I was you I'd set my goal for 6cm's and check the proportions after this length has been accieved. After 6cm's you'd be at a very respectable height of 185. Later you could still decide to get the last 1-2cm's.
At least this would be my approach to this, I have the same starting height so our situation is quit comparable.

Exellent, although my dream height is 187 as that is my dads height.

I suppose we all make concessions however.

NewHeights · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2015, 12:00:37 AM »

Here's a proportion pic I found that is interesting. Notice how the second tallest guy has the shortest torso, and also short arms compared to the guy all the way on the left, and the shortest guy (all the way on the left, but it's close) has a pretty long torso

w1988 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2015, 12:10:05 AM »

Quote from: NewHeights on April 18, 2015, 12:00:37 AM

Here's a proportion pic I found that is interesting. Notice how the second tallest guy has the shortest torso, and also short arms compared to the guy all the way on the left, and the shortest guy (all the way on the left, but it's close) has a pretty long torso

It could be just the picture: angle, height, tilt, distortion, etc. I've taken many group pictures like that and I can say that I wouldn't be surprised if the tallest guy in that pic turned out to not be the tallest, or the guy on the left was actually the 2nd tallest. Also the torso thing you mentioned could be down to how low/high they are wearing their bottoms.

You can only compare when you have isolated pictures of each of them 1 by 1 taken exactly in the same way with tape cross (or tape measurements) for reference.

If you think that a guy has slightly odd proportions then he probably looks fine. If you think that a guy as clearly fked up proportions then he's probably slightly disproportioned.

NewHeights · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2015, 12:21:13 AM »

Quote from: w1988 on April 18, 2015, 12:10:05 AM

It could be just the picture: angle, height, tilt, distortion, etc. I've taken many group pictures like that and I can say that I wouldn't be surprised if the tallest guy in that pic turned out to not be the tallest, or the guy on the left was actually the 2nd tallest. Also the torso thing you mentioned could be down to how low/high they are wearing their bottoms.

You can only compare when you have isolated pictures of each of them 1 by 1 taken exactly in the same way with tape cross (or tape measurements) for reference.

If you think that a guy has slightly odd proportions then he probably looks fine. If you think that a guy as clearly fked up proportions then he's probably slightly disproportioned.

You're right, it can be deceiving, but nonetheless, I think this pic is very interesting for multiple reasons. Assuming the proportions are not an illusion... 1 and 4 who are the shortest, have much longer arms than 2 and 3 who are noticeably taller, something else I noticed.

This pic is a huge mashup of different proportions, but if it's an illusion, than I just wasted everyone's time, sorry.

Ghostfish · « **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2015, 06:02:25 AM »

Hi Uppland

My boss is 6 feet and his inseam is probably at least 34 inch or maybe even 36. One day, I sat next to him in the chair. I felt so terrible because his legs are so way much longer than mine. Even compared to other guys whose height is about 6 feet, his legs are obviously longer than them. But, I think he looks great. So my conclusion about height is that long legs with a normal torso is better than long torso with short legs. I don't even bother thinking about arms. I just want to have longer legs.

Taller · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2015, 01:55:03 PM »

If one has to choose, is it better to have very, very long tibiae and normal femurs or very, very long femurs and normal tibiae? Both of these are very average for me right now, and I'm only going to do LL once, so I am trying to figure out which segment to make disproportionate.

Uppland · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2015, 02:36:12 PM »

Quote from: Taller on April 18, 2015, 01:55:03 PM

If one has to choose, is it better to have very, very long tibiae and normal femurs or very, very long femurs and normal tibiae? Both of these are very average for me right now, and I'm only going to do LL once, so I am trying to figure out which segment to make disproportionate.

I personally think femur is preferable both in forma and in function

crimsontide · « **Reply #20 on:** April 18, 2015, 03:09:34 PM »

long tibias are much more attractive

also gives the illusion of being even taller than you really are.. function wise, doubt it matters much

Alittletooshort · « **Reply #21 on:** April 18, 2015, 03:52:42 PM »

Long tibias look way better than long femurs imo, function wise long femurs seem to be advantegous in comparison to long tibiae.
Did anyone ever do both segments, but therefore less in each one? Like 4cm's femur and 3,2 tibiae? This way you could still keep the 0,8 ratio and have rather proportional legs as well. At least more proportionale than doing the same amount on one segment.

theuprising · « **Reply #22 on:** April 18, 2015, 10:49:01 PM »

Having seen many LL before and after pictures longer tibias look better than having longer femurs however having longer femurs increase your stride length, tibias shorten it. Extreme lengthening's never look good on either section.

Melan_sprint · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:11:29 AM »

Quote from: Uppland on April 18, 2015, 02:36:12 PM

I personally think femur is preferable both in forma and in function

Yes longer femur is definitely superior to longer tibias especially when you have minor lifts inside, IMO, example:

Taller · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2015, 05:33:06 PM »

11CM on femurs:

Before:

And after:

I haven't formed a concrete opinion on the matter, but I think tibial LL generally looks better until 6CM and, for lengths greater than that, femoral LL looks better and more natural.

Here's another 11CM pic. It's not too bad in my opinion:

Here's the only proportionally nice case of 10CM on tibae that I've seen (strugglinghard):

Overdozer · « **Reply #25 on:** April 19, 2015, 05:39:07 PM »

Nice pics. 11 cm is an overkill in just one segment, but I can't say he looks bad.

crimsontide · « **Reply #26 on:** April 19, 2015, 05:41:50 PM »

his femues make his tibias look very short... not a nice aesthetic look..

longer tibias relative to femurs gives the illusion of added height

Melan_sprint · « **Reply #27 on:** April 19, 2015, 05:54:03 PM »

THUS MINOR SHOELIFTS!!!!

goodlucktomylegs · « **Reply #28 on:** April 19, 2015, 07:55:03 PM »

Quote from: Taller on April 19, 2015, 05:33:06 PM

11CM on femurs:

Before:

And after:

I haven't formed a concrete opinion on the matter, but I think tibial LL generally looks better until 6CM and, for lengths greater than that, femoral LL looks better and more natural.

Here's another 11CM pic. It's not too bad in my opinion:

Here's the only proportionally nice case of 10CM on tibae that I've seen (strugglinghard):

Who was his surgeon?
Where is the source of this information?
How about his recovèry?
I thinnk, he looks nice
But my plan is only 6 cm femur 4cm tibia

endomorphisme · « **Reply #29 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:07:21 PM »

he doesn't look nice at all in the last photo

Alittletooshort · « **Reply #30 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:32:35 PM »

7or8 cm's would have been better imo. The last one looks bad the others are ok, besides the fact that his arms look too short for me. Most ppl who don't think about proportions woudln't notice his short arms though.

Limb Lengthening Forum

Author Topic: Long legs, where do you draw the line? (Read 62795 times)