Here are my current photos, want to get 7-8 cm, femur or tibia?

Currently 173CM, 140 LB, 27 years old.
My inseams are 78 cm, 45% of my overall height.
Really short arms, 170cm wingspan.

Looking to go to 180-181cm, i.e. 7-8 cm.
I'd like to go with Guichet or Paley, saving up money to do this in a year or two. yolo

Should I try to get all 7-8cm on internal femur? assuming that it is doable, would it be too out of proportion?

Also would my arms be tooooo short? 180cm height 170cm wingspan

http://imgur.com/XfRXPKC
http://imgur.com/gn0hRgv
Thanks!

Imho 8cm could be troublesome since you have quite long legs(at least they look long on the pictures or mb i have weird perspective since i have 42% ratio lol).

Make some mockups and see if you will be satisfied.
Here is a good tutorial: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=89.0

Btw out of pure curiosity what's your sitting height?

7-8 cm is too long for you as you already have quite long legs for your torso and arms. I'd stick to max 4 cm on femurs

Quote from: Antonio on August 13, 2016, 08:29:40 AM7-8 cm is too long for you as you already have quite long legs for your torso and arms. I'd stick to max 4 cm on femurs

Yeah, I agree. You might get away with 5cm on your femurs. Don't touch your tibias. they look pretty close to the same length as your femurs already

I also think you should do 2 inches.
You won't look like a T-Rex with 3, it's very hard to look like a T-Rex or a significantly disproportionate person and I think people exaggerate proportions here a bit...but 2 inches if you want to look very normal and do LL.
You should also definitely do femurs, and on femurs you have to do internals. So the question is, is that much money, time and pain worth getting from 5'8-5'10?

had you tibia lengthening?

So this is the weird thing, I went back and measured my sitting height, which was 93 cm, doesn't this mean I actually have really short legs?

So I did some research on ideal leg length/body proportions etc, and it turns out that in the ideal person, your height should be 1.618 times longer than the distance from your navel to your feet. (golden ratio)

According to this ratio the distance from my navel to feet should be 107cm, but mine were only 100cm. 7cm too short.

I think it could be a problem with the camera? (iphone 6plus), I tried a variety of different angles but the legs do appear long. Maybe its an illusion?

I guess the only way to figure this out is to actually measure my femur/tibia right? Can I do this without a X-ray?

thanks again for all the warmhearted and thoughtful replies guys

I am 176 cm and my navel height is 101-102, and my sitting height is almost 92 cm, so navel height is a weird thing.

Quote from: maximuskoncept on August 13, 2016, 04:13:24 PMSo this is the weird thing, I went back and measured my sitting height, which was 93 cm, doesn't this mean I actually have really short legs?

Hmm im 166cm and i have around 91cm sitting height.

Seriously make a best quality photo you can and make mockups.

get 5 to 1m78. decent average height. No worry about complications either.