Do YOU have long/average/short legs?

Edit Post

Do YOU have long/average/short legs?
Ok, so statistically:

An average leg has an inseam that represents 45% of the height.

You measure inseam, bit stading, with no socks, or shoes, and measure from your crotch to the floor. (nr 5 in the pic)


I'm 177.5cm in height.
my inseam is 81 cm.

You calculate it by going:

inseam (cm)
___________ x 100
height (cm)


mine works out to 45%


Which sounds about right, as my legs appear average.
What's yours?

P.S. This post is borrowed from an asian female fashion forum  .  Keep in mind that females have longer legs compared to their torso's!

Edit Post

45-48% is in the norm, everything under or over is short/long
So if i went ahead and lengthened my legs by 2x 3.25cm, my inseam would be 87.5cm divided by 184cm = 47%

Edit Post

Mine is 44% (31"/79cm) so plenty of place for LL 
Will be 47% after lengthening 5 on femurs + 4cm on tibs.

Edit Post

In those pics it doesn't look like the line goes all the way up to the crotch, or "taint" (the skin between the penis and the butt).

I can't reconcile that my inseam is 31.25" at 5'8, when my x-ray measurements show my legs were shorter than Apotheosis, who was 5'7 and had a decent sitting height. I also am pretty skinny, and have a 94 cm sitting height.

I mean I have pure scientific evidence that my legs are on the below average side, they are equal to a guy who was 5'6 on old forum . Meaning I would have to be 6' to have his pre-LL ratios (assuming 4 inches of leg growth for every 2 inches of torso growth).

I don't know where these people are measuring to, there is no standard "crotch" location it seems. It's too variable.

Edit Post

Quote from: SpiderProwler on June 23, 2014, 03:04:21 PMIn those pics it doesn't look like the line goes all the way up to the crotch, or "taint" (the skin between the penis and the butt).

I can't reconcile that my inseam is 31.25" at 5'8, when my x-ray measurements show my legs were shorter than Apotheosis, who was 5'7 and had a decent sitting height. I also am pretty skinny, and have a 94 cm sitting height.

I mean I have pure scientific evidence that my legs are on the below average side, they are equal to a guy who was 5'6 on old forum . Meaning I would have to be 6' to have his pre-LL ratios (assuming 4 inches of leg growth for every 2 inches of torso growth).

I don't know where these people are measuring to, there is no standard "crotch" location it seems. It's too variable.

Well, It seemed fitting for them.

Edit Post

No, no, no!  Start measuring from the floor!  Pfff, chix and tools!
But she can measure my inseam anytime! 

Edit Post

680, what do you get measuring up to your hip bone/iliac crest?

Edit Post

Quote from: SpiderProwler on June 23, 2014, 04:00:17 PM680, what do you get measuring up to your hip bone/iliac crest?

Well, basically from the top of my pants to the floor 101cm. Not sure i can locate precisely

Edit Post

Hmm, well from the top of my pants (hip bone) to the floor is 37 inches, or 94 cm. And it's not like I have long tibias or something, my tibia/femur ratio was right about average according to x-rays. I doubt my heels are long either. I'm really not getting this floor to crotch business. Whatever.

Edit Post

Btw, How much do you plan on lengthening ?
Here is how i see it, You can have length or good proportions but not both. Even if you have shorter legs and great sitting height, there will always be something to ruin our proportions. There is more to proportions than legs/torso (arm span,shoulder width,hand size,feet size,head size... and more)
You could probably go up to 6'0" but you need to sacrifice some proportions to do it, IMO there is a threshold but then again i am not a doctor.
Whats you'r arm span btw ?