Going out of proportion

Edit Post

Hey guys,

I just recently had my legs x-rayed. Kind of measured the lenght of my femur and tibia. Of course, my orthopedic surgeon will do that professionally for me as well, but I thought I gave it a shot.
Tibia: 35,5
Femur: 39,5
=> 75 cm leg lenght
Height: 162
Wingspan would be ok.
Now this situation is quite tricky, because I wanted to lenght about 7,5 cm. So this would put me out of the range of the infamous 56:44 and max. 48% - rule. So thats why I wanted to ask you guys, if any of you belligarantly lenghtened out of proportions on your femurs and what experiences you made with it?

Edit Post

I think the benefits of going from 162 cm to 170 cm are worth slightly longer legs than proportionally ideal, which few people would likely be able to spot and even fewer would mention.

Edit Post

Quote from: KiloKAHN on January 27, 2016, 09:52:23 PMI think the benefits of going from 162 cm to 170 cm are worth slightly longer legs than proportionally ideal, which few people would likely be able to spot and even fewer would mention.

Bump

Edit Post

Quote from: KiloKAHN on January 27, 2016, 09:52:23 PMI think the benefits of going from 162 cm to 170 cm are worth slightly longer legs than proportionally ideal, which few people would likely be able to spot and even fewer would mention.

This is the primary reason why I support the anti-proportion movement. If you're very short and your life sucks, height trumps proportions.

Dudes who want to lengthen 2-3cm or something, you crazies.

Edit Post

Quote from: PatientZero on January 27, 2016, 10:28:01 PMThis is the primary reason why I support the anti-proportion movement. If you're very short and your life sucks, height trumps proportions.

Dudes who want to lengthen 2-3cm or something, you crazies.

Shorter LL patients (under 170cm) don't have the luxury to be as proportion conscious as taller patients (175cm+). They want the height no matter what cost.
To OP, if you don't care about athletics then do it, if athletic ability is important aim around 6cm.

Edit Post

Quote from: theuprising on January 27, 2016, 10:54:03 PMShorter LL patients (under 170cm) don't have the luxury to be as proportion conscious as taller patients (175cm+). They want the height no matter what cost.
To OP, if you don't care about athletics then do it, if athletic ability is important aim around 6cm.

Totally off topic.. But I see it everywhere. What is, "OP"?

Edit Post

OP refers to the opening post or opening poster. ex. "OP is an  ."

Edit Post

Quote from: Deads on January 28, 2016, 12:38:29 AMTotally off topic.. But I see it everywhere. What is, "OP"?

Totally Off Topic, but how have you never been to 4chan or Reddit?

Edit Post

Quote from: theuprising on January 27, 2016, 10:54:03 PMTo OP, if you don't care about athletics then do it, if athletic ability is important aim around 6cm.

I would like to add to this and say that it is also of great importance to go with a good doctor, because when complications come up(knock on wood), only a good doctor will treat you properly or offer the "right" advice.

Don't try and be too cheap when it comes to getting your legs operated.  Better to save as much money as you can with two healthy legs(lets say 1 year), rather than rush into LL with a shyte doctor and spend the next 5 years trying to recover

Edit Post

I'm only a cm taller than you and I plan on doing both segments some times in the next ten years. I dont see an issue unless you do more than 7cm or so. Our bones being smaller (usually) than guys at 170cm, means our bones can take less lengthening than theirs. So if you try 8cm or more there'll be a huge possibility of encountering complications.
If you care about basic athleticism like bending over to pickup stuff off the ground without pains and basic exercise BUT height is imperative then i suggest you do both segments at a reasonable amount of 6cm each or so.