Henry Cavill again

IDK what's important: lengthen the lowest amount per segment (4 cm in tibia, 5 cm in femurs) to appear as natural or push the limits and lengthen the highest safest limits per segment (6 cm in tibia, 8 cm in femurs).

Obviously, with the first option, it's not only remaining much more proportionate, but also is easier to achieve without major complications, thus rehab will be smoother and quick.

With the second option, you're pushing the limits for your body for that additional 5 cm total gain from both segments. In the end you gain more height but appear more leggy and proportions might look weird nked. Also, rehab will be much longer and complications might drag you down a lot.

Another option is something like 4.5 cm in tibia and 6.5 cm femurs for 12 cm total gain. That additional 3 cm (compared to 4 cm tibia and 5 cm femur option) means a lot when you're below 180 cm. With this option you're still in the relatively safe ranges for both segments and rehab will be more or less smooth.

In the end what do you suggest for someone who is 5'5 and is going to lengthen both segments consecutively? 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm in femurs is the lowest one should when doing both segments IMO. How much would you push above those figures? Would you go all in for solid 5'10 total height? Or would you prefer 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm femurs or 4.5 cm tibia and 6.5 cm femurs route for safety and better proportions?

I don't know how you think Henry Cavill had LL but it's obvious he didn't. The guy has top tier genetics in a lot of categories and his proportions still look fine even with those variations in proportions. I'm one of the people who also thinks proportions matter, but I'm also one of the people who know there are still deviations from the average. This is very visible from people who are just taller, just literally look at a lot of basketball players like Svi Mykhailuk who has visibly shorter wingspan, and also the opposite side of the spectrum like Kevin Durant.

For taller people, those proportions look less weird because, for one thing, they naturally grew into it and everything else that followed. The other is that, studies did show that in most cases, in terms of aesthetics, what mattered the most was total Leg:Body ratio, where males going slightly above the average .50~.52 was deemed attractive, and as long as it's not excessively over that average it will look good, followed by the height:wingspan ratio, and the tibia:femur ratio as being the least important.

But why is there that discussion about the tibias to femurs? Well because if we're just strictly speaking about the legs, the tibias being long is attractive, but in terms of total proportions, just having long legs is already attractive. But this is also where wingspan that goes in the middle matter, if your arms look short af and doesn't even reach comfortably to your pants pockets with a slight bend, then you just fked up and overlengthened, because that is unnatural and rarely people have that unless you have an actual defect.

Quote from: AnotherLLer on May 08, 2024, 11:25:02 AMIn the end what do you suggest for someone who is 5'5 and is going to lengthen both segments consecutively? 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm in femurs is the lowest one should when doing both segments IMO. How much would you push above those figures? Would you go all in for solid 5'10 total height? Or would you prefer 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm femurs or 4.5 cm tibia and 6.5 cm femurs route for safety and better proportions?

Unless you're really into tibias, and if you don't already have long femurs. You can just plainly start off with femurs  if you think you're going two surgeries anyways. At the very least once you reach 5~6cm with them and still think you have height dysphoria, you can decide after that if you still want to max out just femur, or be done and go for a second surgery, or just plainly max out on both. Otherwise go the other way around if you already have a very low tibia:femur ratio.

Personally I already have long tibias, even approx mock-ups and measurements show if I lengthen tibias to even slighly above 2 inches, it would seem it would go way over 1 and would be longer than my femurs. And for mobility and plausible joint issues, that's not ideal plus having tibias longer than femurs IS unnatural, and is actually shown possible links to early arthrtitis. Tibias should always be naturally shorter than femurs, just at times it will have a high tibia:femur ratio. That's why I prefer going femurs first over tibias.

At the end, as long as you don't have excessively well over or below averages for proportions, rarely people will notice. People who already have those naturally get away with it because every other ratios they have would have followed and we know there are more to proportions in the body than just things relating to legs and height.

You will still be able to put your hands in the pocket the same way you put it before the lengthening. No matter how much you lengthen, you'll still be able to put the hands in the pockets. That doesn't mean anything because in the end what matters is arm length to upper body length ratio and arm length to leg length ratio.

Arm length to upper body ratio doesn't change after LL but arm length to leg length ratio changes and the more you lengthen, the more you deviate from natural range and end up looking weird, especially nked.

If one has  ty arm length to upper body ratios i.e. Artem Lobov tier arms where it's clearly visible that arms are relatively short compared to torso then he will look weird after any amount of lengthening.

But, if one has relatively normal arm length to upper body proportions and doesn't look like t-rex then one can get away with 3.5-4.5 inches in total lengthening and still look decent, especially if he had shorter legs compared to upper body pre-surgeries.

So, unless one looks like a t-rex, he can get away with lengthenings up to 4.5 inches and still look normal. The shorter your legs are compared to upper body pre lengthening, the better the outcome as legs to upper body ratios are much more important than wingspan (unless disproportional arms to upper body).

Check out these pics of him:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nintchdbpict000263160892.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/88/8f/f9/888ff9f7f146d03c85cb20d8441523b0.jpg

His arms look suspiciously short. Not only his forearms are short but also his humerus is short too for someone standing at 6 feet tall. I'm not even mentioning his baby hands anymore.

His femurs look very long which makes him look like Betz patient who did 10-12 cm in his femurs.

I've made some meticulous calculations on the picture where he stands with a man in a blue suit who is just 3 cm shorter than him and found out the following:

The man on his left has a hairline of about 8 pixels lower than Henry's. It's about 3 cm difference in height. But, the difference between their knuckles is 28 pixels. Assuming 8 pixels = 3 cm which is their height difference, 28 / 8 = 3.5. 3.5 x 3 cm = 10.5 cm. Now, we have to subtract that 8 pixel height advantage Henry has over that guy and the difference between their knuckles becomes 20 pixels. 20 / 8 = 2.5. 2.5 x 3 cm = 7.5 cm difference between their knuckles if they stood at the same height.

Now, if Henry is 184 cm tall, that guy is 181 cm tall and has 7.5 cm longer arms at knuckle level. Since Henry has baby hands, I'm sure he has at least 1-1.5 cm shorter middle finger than that guy so he has about 8.5-9 cm shorter arms at middle finger level. 9 cm x 2 = 18 cm armspan difference. Assuming that guy has the same armspan as his height, it means that Henry has 181 - 18 = 162 cm armspan. Now, I think that the guy who stands besides him has about 2 inches longer armspan at 185-186 cm. 186 - 18 = 168 cm for Henry's armspan. Maybe add 2 cm from broader shoulders and it should be about 169-170 cm long.

Either he lengthened his femurs for about 10-12 cm or he's just a freak. His arm length disregarding his hand length is very short for someone who stands at 184 cm tall. It's ok for 5'6 guys at most. Their arm length difference is as dramatic as the famous pic of Dr. Mahboubian and 5'3 bald guy who lengthened 6 inches and has about 10-11 cm shorter arms than Dr. Mahboubian at the same height.

Another interesting metrics:

From ground to middle finger / total height ratio is dramatically higher for Henry.

The ratio is 0.4033 for the guy in blue suit but Henry has a ratio of 0.4489. Mine is 0.3939. The lower the ratio, the more arm length relative to total height. As you can see, my ratio is closer to the ratio that blue suited man has. That means that his armspan should be relatively closer to his height of 181 cm since my armspan is 166-167 cm at 165 cm since I have a lower ratio from ground to middle finger / total height.

0.4033 vs 0.4489 is a significant difference and means that Henry has very short arms and armspan in general.

If I multiply my height of 165 cm to 0.3939 it equals exactly 65 cm which is the distance from floor to middle finger.

If we multiply Henry's height of 184 cm to 0.4489 it equals 82.5 cm and that's the distance from ground to his middle finger.

Now, subtract 82.5 from 184 and we get 101.5 cm which is his length from middle finger to top of his head. Assuming the distance from his acromion bone to top of his head should be at least 30 cm, we get 101.5 - 30 = 71.5 cm from acromion bone to his middle finger which is his total arm length including hands and fingers. Mine is 72 cm from acromion bone to middle finger at 165 cm tall. It's insane.

So, his armspan should be closer to 166-167 cm since I have very broad shoulders and he can't have advantage from shoulder length, maybe just 1 cm and not more.

It's crazy for someone at 184 cm height to have an arm length of about 71-72 cm long which is normal for 5'5 guys. Either he was about 5'5-5'6 and did 7 inches LL or he was born with short arms.

He was born this way. Stop being obsessed with this guy, pls.
And I find it unbelievable that you keep posting about a celebrity who allegedly did LL and don’t say anything of a celebrity who factually did LL.

Nothing to speculate upon this case, huh?

I have nothing against Henry, it's just interesting to calculate his proportions since people on here speculated he had short arms relative to his height long ago.

I don't know which celebrity who did LL you're talking about and it's irrelevant here as we're talking about Henry's proportions.

Now, it's more likely that he was born that way because his arms are disproportional to his torso which is not the case for me. His humerus is very short relative to his torso and that's why. If I do 7 inches LL to become Henry's height, I will look much better nked since my humerus will be proportional to my torso.

Now, Henry has the same arm length as mine at 71.5 cm (I have 72 cm). The distance from ground to his middle finger is 82.5 cm while mine is 65 cm. That means he has 18 cm longer legs than me. It's crazy. 165 + 18 = 183 cm so 1 cm is from neck maybe. My trunk is the same length as his.

Now, I'm not going to lengthen 18 cm because one it's crazy and two it's dangerous but I'm going to lengthen about 8-10 cm in total (55% femurs and 45% tibia).

I've calculated Rob Paul's arm length from acromion bone down to radius bone bump and it's about 57.2 cm. Mine is 54 cm. He stands at 173.2 cm and I stand at 165 cm. If I lengthen 8 cm to become his height, I will have 3.2 cm shorter arms (disregarding hand length) and it won't be as noticeable as 8-10 cm difference Henry has over someone his height.

I don't want to look like that 5'3 bald guy who did 6 inches and has about 11 cm shorter arm length compared to Dr. Mahboubian. It's very noticeable when you stand besides someone who was born as that height you're post LL.

Now, that 5'3 bald guy had even shorter arms for his original height and his wingspan was already -3 or -4 inches shorter at 150-153 cm range. He gained 6 inches and now he stands at 175 cm with 150-153 cm wingspan and that's why Dr. Mahboubian has 11 cm longer arms, in total 22 cm longer wingspan than him. It's unacceptable aesthetically. Maybe maximum 3 inches over wingspan is ok and that's why I'm going to lengthen 9 cm max to become 174 cm and have 166-167 cm armspan. That's the limit IMO. I will have 3.5 cm shorter arm compared to someone who is naturally 174 cm like Rob Paul. That's more or less fine but anything above 4 cm arm length difference is starting to look suspicious.

Ideally, one should have an arm length from acromion bone to middle finger of about height / 2.3. In my case it's very close to that (165 cm / 2.3 = 71.74 cm and mine is 72 cm).

For Henry's height, he should have 184 / 2.3 = 80 cm arm length. He has about 8-9 cm shorter arms, thus 16-18 cm shorter wingspan compared to other men at his height. So, his wingspan is anywhere between 166-168 cm.

Now, if he was Rob Paul's height and had the exact same arm length as he does now, he wouldn't look that suspicious but would he be considered as attractive and desireable as he is at 184 cm? That's the question. IMO it's better for him to be 184 cm tall with 5'5 guy's arms rather than be 173 cm tall with 5'5 guy's arms. Height trumps proportions in his case but anything above 0.51 leg length to height ratio will start to look uncanny so while arm length is more or less irrelevant of man's attractiveness (Henry proves that), leg length to total height ratio is so one has to be aware not to cross the red lines and exceed the limits when lengthening his legs. Femur + tibia bones as calculated on x-rays should be about 0.50-0.51 of total body height.