Going from 6" to 6'3-6'4" with quadrilateral lenghtening

Member

Posts: 499

Joined: Jan 2020

Posted on Dec 20, 2023, 8:55 pm

#91

Quote from: Body Builder on December 19, 2023, 11:56:18 PMNowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.

My height goal i 6'3", which is pretty close to an ideal male height in the western world. I mention the range 6'2-6'4" just to point out that all the heights between 190 cm - 193 cm are being considered, since they all fall into the ideal range of male height, at least in my own opinion. My height goal is not to reach 193 cm or above, but somewhere around 190-192 cm, i.e. somewhere between 6'3 feet and 6'4 feet, but under 6'4 feet. For example, reaching 188-189 cm would not be enough for me. Since I am already +180 cm, the next milestone is 190 cm and above. I would not be satisfied with lengthening only my femurs, since that would leave me in the 180 cm-somewhere height range, considering the max amounts that I am planning to lenghthen each segment (5,75 cm for the femur, for example), and therefore not allow me to reach 190 cm (barefoot night height). I myself care about my height. I don't put much emphasis on what other people think. I am adjusting my height for myself only and for my self-image. The rest I consider as just a bonus.

Edit Post

Quote from: Body Builder on December 19, 2023, 11:56:18 PMNowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.

My height goal i 6'3", which is pretty close to an ideal male height in the western world. I mention the range 6'2-6'4" just to point out that all the heights between 190 cm - 193 cm are being considered, since they all fall into the ideal range of male height, at least in my own opinion. My height goal is not to reach 193 cm or above, but somewhere around 190-192 cm, i.e. somewhere between 6'3 feet and 6'4 feet, but under 6'4 feet. For example, reaching 188-189 cm would not be enough for me. Since I am already +180 cm, the next milestone is 190 cm and above. I would not be satisfied with lengthening only my femurs, since that would leave me in the 180 cm-somewhere height range, considering the max amounts that I am planning to lenghthen each segment (5,75 cm for the femur, for example), and therefore not allow me to reach 190 cm (barefoot night height). I myself care about my height. I don't put much emphasis on what other people think. I am adjusting my height for myself only and for my self-image. The rest I consider as just a bonus.

Like (0)

S

Sky is the Limit

Member

Posts: 316

Joined: Jan 2020

Posted on Dec 20, 2023, 9:20 pm

#92

Quote from: NailedLegs on December 16, 2023, 07:13:58 AMWhile 11.5cm is "a lot", it's not "crazy"--quadrilateral, not single segment. Unless you consider all LL to be crazy, which many think it is. 7cm femur, 4.5cm tibia is within the safe range.

Congratulations on the bimax surgery and braces. That will without a doubt do FAR MORE for you than LL ever will. How is your hairline? If you're a Norwood 3+, do a hair transplant before LL. I'm being brutally honest with you on what will have the highest ROI.

My recommendation? Get LL after bimax. Why? Because you may change your mind. You may get bimax, get great results and a general quality of life increase that you're looking for professionally and romantically, and realize it's not your height holding you back.

My hairline is fine. As I have mentioned later on in this thread, the reason I am adjusting my height is for myself only and for my self-image.

Thanks for your advice regarding bimax. I have to be in braces for quite a while before my bimax-surgery though, so the operation will not be until somewhere around two years from now, which means there is quite some time for me to wait. If I had the money and the perfect time window for LL before my bimax, I would go for the quadrilateral lengthening just to be done with it once and for all.

Like (0)

B

Body Builder

Member

Posts: 226

Joined: Feb 2017

Posted on Dec 20, 2023, 11:23 pm

#93

Quote from: Kintaeryos on December 20, 2023, 04:51:28 PMYou're still not addressing the biomechanics point or the fact that lengthening the tibias by 2-3 cm and the femurs by 4-5 cm should in principle be safer than lengthening only the femurs by 7-8 cm. What are your arguments? What are you basing your claims on? And OK maybe you think OP doesn't need LL cause he already has a decent height, but I have similar questions and I'm a much lower height (and I also want about 7-8 cm lengthening) so that doesn't apply to me. Pretend I'm the one who asked.

The biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).

If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.

Like (0)

B

Body Builder

Member

Posts: 95

Joined: Feb 2017

Posted on Dec 20, 2023, 11:23 pm

#94

Quote from: Kintaeryos on December 20, 2023, 04:51:28 PMYou're still not addressing the biomechanics point or the fact that lengthening the tibias by 2-3 cm and the femurs by 4-5 cm should in principle be safer than lengthening only the femurs by 7-8 cm. What are your arguments? What are you basing your claims on? And OK maybe you think OP doesn't need LL cause he already has a decent height, but I have similar questions and I'm a much lower height (and I also want about 7-8 cm lengthening) so that doesn't apply to me. Pretend I'm the one who asked.

The biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).

If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 233

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 12:06 am

#95

Quote from: Body Builder on December 20, 2023, 11:23:23 PMany segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL

OK, I'll take that, thanks for your perspective.

Like (0)

T

TheDream

Member

Posts: 447

Joined: Apr 2021

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 2:10 pm

#96

Quote from: Body Builder on December 20, 2023, 11:23:23 PMThe biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).

If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.

This is true.

The only counter argument would be the change in tibia to femur ratio which we know from research has a mean of 0.80 in humans with a standard deviation of 0.02 (i.e. it’s VERY rare to be even slightly off this ratio). Then some people have hypothesized that going away from this ratio by doing one segment of LL could lead to problems like joint degeneration and arthritis.

But then the question is would doing both segments LL to keep the 0.80 tibia to femur ratio actually do more good than bad? Or would the impact of the second surgery actually be more risky and cause more problems than simply having a different tibia to femur ratio.

I think this is an important and central question to LL that unfortunately we dont really have a clear answer to.

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 420

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 2:27 pm

#97

Quote from: TheDream on December 21, 2023, 02:10:47 PMThis is true.

The only counter argument would be the change in tibia to femur ratio which we know from research has a mean of 0.80 in humans with a standard deviation of 0.02 (i.e. it’s VERY rare to be even slightly off this ratio). Then some people have hypothesized that going away from this ratio by doing one segment of LL could lead to problems like joint degeneration and arthritis.

But then the question is would doing both segments LL to keep the 0.80 tibia to femur ratio actually do more good than bad? Or would the impact of the second surgery actually be more risky and cause more problems than simply having a different tibia to femur ratio.

I think this is an important and central question to LL that unfortunately we dont really have a clear answer to.

Exactly, this is what Sky is the Limit and I are trying to find out. Are the increased risks and stress on the body from doing LL on both segments to keep the tibia/femur ratio 0.8 worse than doing single LL but deviating from the tibia/femur ratio? Is doing double LL worse than having a non-typical tibia/femur ratio? Sounds like something Cyborg4Life could research and ask doctors for his channel. Most LL doctors should be able to answer it.

Edit: as luck would have it, Cyborg4Life just posted that he'll be doing an interview with Dr. Paley about Precise Max including a Q&A with questions by us. Perfect, I'll submit this one.

Like (0)

L

LG1816

Member

Posts: 20

Joined: Mar 2022

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 3:18 pm

#98

This is why these sorts of conversations just go around in circles. If the researchers can't come to any firm conclusions about the Tib/Fib ratio in relation to the development of arthritis, we certainly can't. No one here is in any position to weigh up the cost-benefit here, and no surgeon has enough data to concretely say one way or another.

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 298

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 4:12 pm

#99

Quote from: LG1816 on December 21, 2023, 03:18:40 PMThis is why these sorts of conversations just go around in circles. If the researchers can't come to any firm conclusions about the Tib/Fib ratio in relation to the development of arthritis, we certainly can't. No one here is in any position to weigh up the cost-benefit here, and no surgeon has enough data to concretely say one way or another.

Yeah, maybe Dr. Paley will have something to say about it. I just submitted these two questions for Cyborg's Q&A with him:

"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia-to-femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia-to-femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia-to-femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia-to-femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 4.5 cm for the femurs and 2.5 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."

"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would only be 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."

Edit Post

Quote from: LG1816 on December 21, 2023, 03:18:40 PMThis is why these sorts of conversations just go around in circles. If the researchers can't come to any firm conclusions about the Tib/Fib ratio in relation to the development of arthritis, we certainly can't. No one here is in any position to weigh up the cost-benefit here, and no surgeon has enough data to concretely say one way or another.

Yeah, maybe Dr. Paley will have something to say about it. I just submitted these two questions for Cyborg's Q&A with him:

"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia-to-femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia-to-femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia-to-femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia-to-femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 4.5 cm for the femurs and 2.5 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."

"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would only be 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."

Like (0)

F

finertoga

Member

Posts: 230

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Dec 22, 2023, 1:41 am

#100

I mean the man did say he’s from a Nordic country. If he’s from the Netherlands where average is like 6’0 for all ages and 6’1” for the younger gen, I can see where he’s coming from. This would be the equivalent of a 5’8”-5’9” guy getting CLL, which is on the upper end of the patient spectrum. So I think he’s reasonable in wanting to get this done (if he is from Netherlands or similar). If you guys see photos of the Dutch or read anecdotes by people they say there’s a ton of people in the 6’3”-6’5” range. I’ve even read about a 6’2” guy who visited the country and said for the first time he felt somewhat short.

Sky is the Limit what country are you from?

Like (0)

Going from 6" to 6'3-6'4" with quadrilateral lenghtening

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics