MEDICAL DISCLAIMER: The information provided on OrthoLength Pro is for educational purposes only and does not substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a qualified orthopedic surgeon.
Posted on Feb 27, 2015, 7:31 pm
#21

Quote from: Taller on February 27, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
on general principles that children continuously underfed would grow
into underdeveloped adults. . .with normal or nearly normal size head, moderately retarded trunk and
relatively short legs.’ Reviewing the literature available at the time (pre-1950), Leitch found that
improved nutrition during infancy and childhood did result in a greater increase in LL than in total
height or weight.

Quote
Frisancho et al. [107] emphasize the
environmental effects in a study that finds that leg length of Mexican-Americans aged 2–17 years old
is significantly associated with socioeconomic status of their families. In that study, individuals from
better-off families have significantly longer legs, but equal trunk length, when compared with boys and
girls from poorer families.


Quote
Dangour [115] reports similar findings for two tribes of Amerindian
children living in Guyana. The tribes are both of low socioeconomic status, but differ markedly in the
quality of their living conditions. Children in the tribe with better living conditions are taller than their
age-mates in the other tribe. The difference in stature is due almost entirely to differences in leg length,
as there are no significant differences in sitting height between the tribes.

Quote
The values indicate that about 60% of the increase in stature is due
to longer legs. Consequently, the taller Maya-Americans have a significantly lower average sitting height
ratio than do the Maya in Guatemala.


Quote
Overall, mean stature is greater for the centre group than the slum group, but relative leg
length as measured by the sitting height ratio does not differ.(NHANES II),

all slum girls,all slum boys,  show relatively shorter legs.



and finally. drum role.......a medical study link showing crotch at half the height for an adult human of 25 years of age [/b]as an average.

Quote
Figure 6. Changes in body proportion during human growth after birth. Ages for each
profile are, from left to right, newborn, 2 years, 6 years, 12 years, 25 years. The hair style
and shading of the cartoon silhouettes are for artistic purposes and is not meant to imply
any ethnic, eco-geographical, or “racial” phenotypic characteristics of the human species
[provided courtesy of Dr. J. V. Basmajian].




the bottom line is simple. if your short your going to have short legs, and it is probably from under nutrition. almost all of the population suffers from malnutrition. the body preserves sitting height first when you suffer from malnutrition. your sitting height remains unaffected and your leg length becomes crap. that's how it works!

as you become taller from LL you become closer to the golden ratio. this is because when you stunted your growth from under nutrition your body preserved your sitting height with the nutrients it had and took your height from your legs( this is genetic programing). it did not do this to people who were not malnutritioned and became taller compared to average.

every single person suffers from malnutrition to different degrees.

this is why people who are short can get a lot of LL compared to people who are tall(and still stay in proportion), it is because your body decided to steal your height from your legs specifically!  that's how genetics work! that's what the medical studies state.

the problem with this world is that everyone has an opinion and no one reads.


so... if your SHR is smaller (eg 0.48) you look richer and more noble? makes sense.. I have always seen some short or average height guys who have such long torso compared to legs, it looks ugly!

im 94 cm from mid-crotch to head, and so I must be 85 cm from mid-crotch to legs. don't see how another 2-3 cm would mess things much?... even if there is some minor measurement error.. so final ratio should be about: 94 cm mid-crotch to head, and 88 cm from mid-crotch to legs.. haha I guess I am Asian so I have more leeway in terms of this ratio...

anyway I do not care about proportions aside from my short arms.. and even then I am not so concerned.. its since joining this forum I I am more concerned but not to the extent I would RESEARCH about it.. haha. Do tall guys usually have longer legs in relation to torso?

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 27, 2015, 9:24 pm
#22

Quote from: ItsMyLife on February 27, 2015, 07:24:49 PMPre-op: 90/174 = 0.52
Now Im 90 cm/179 cm = 0.50
final ratio: 90 cm/182 cm = 0.49

so I guess im fine? what is the lower limit? 0.48??


It's supposed to be your inseam divided by height. For example my inseam is abut 80-82CM which is 45-46% of my total height. If I add 7CM it will be between 47 and 48% of my height which is acceptable to me but barely. If your glucosamine/yoga routine works maybe I can gain an extra 2CM and be 187-88CM with a better ratio...

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 28, 2015, 12:39 am
#23

Quote from: Uppland on February 27, 2015, 09:24:55 PMIt's supposed to be your inseam divided by height. For example my inseam is abut 80-82CM which is 45-46% of my total height. If I add 7CM it will be between 47 and 48% of my height which is acceptable to me but barely. If your glucosamine/yoga routine works maybe I can gain an extra 2CM and be 187-88CM with a better ratio...


so SHR is inseam/height?

And 48 percent is the limits of attractiveness?

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 28, 2015, 12:56 am
#24

Quote from: ItsMyLife on February 28, 2015, 12:39:51 AMso SHR is inseam/height?

And 48 percent is the limits of attractiveness?


The way I understood it is that you divide your inseam with your total height. I read that some doctor recommended staying below 50% of your height -that is your inseam should be less than 50% of your total height.

Obvioussly 49 and 48% will look more or less weird as well considering 50% is the alleged maximum.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 28, 2015, 7:49 am
#25

Quote from: Uppland on February 28, 2015, 12:56:27 AMThe way I understood it is that you divide your inseam with your total height. I read that some doctor recommended staying below 50% of your height -that is your inseam should be less than 50% of your total height.

Obvioussly 49 and 48% will look more or less weird as well considering 50% is the alleged maximum.


But my inseam is only about 80-85 cm.
0.80/1.79 =45%
0.85/1.79 = 47%

So I am 45-47% if we have measurement error.
Means I have short legs???

My post surgery ratios:
About 0.88/1.82= 48.3%

Is the best ratio 50%??

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 28, 2015, 4:27 pm
#26

45% is average and 50% inseam is the absolute most you should have. As far as I understood it at least.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 28, 2015, 7:03 pm
#27

Quote from: Uppland on February 28, 2015, 04:27:02 PM45% is average and 50% inseam is the absolute most you should have. As far as I understood it at least.


Ah. Thanks bro. So, 47-48% is considered more-or-less close to the upper limit, and very leggy?

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 28, 2015, 7:12 pm
#28

Quote from: ItsMyLife on February 28, 2015, 07:03:38 PMAh. Thanks bro. So, 47-48% is considered more-or-less close to the upper limit, and very leggy?


Something like that, but obviously everyone is different.

Like (0)

You must be logged in to post a reply.

Related Topics