How obvious is it you've done LL (femurs only)?

Member

Posts: 144

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Jan 13, 2024, 7:05 pm

#1

Say you're a man with a normal tibia/femur ratio and a wingspan longer than your height (or at least not shorter), you do LL on the femurs, you add 5-8 cm (probably 6-7 cm if I did it), and everything goes well. How obvious would it be to people afterwards that you did it? Would your knees look noticeably lower? If you hypothetically were a public figure of some kind (I'm not, but assuming worse-case scenario) and there were a lot of full-body photos of you online, would people be able to tell or speculate? What about going to the beach or wearing shorts? Is it something you have to take subtle steps to hide or worry about for the rest of your life, or do your legs normal?

If it's noticeable, would doing quadrilateral LL (with the 2 lengthenings spaced apart for safety) be worth it to make sure you have completely normal leg proportions and you never have to worry about them looking weird, or is the increased risk and effort of doing a second lengthening on the tibias not worth the improved aesthetics?

Like (0)

J

jbfjbj4

Member

Posts: 264

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Jan 13, 2024, 7:31 pm

#2

You're not a public figure, you never will be, and they'll never be millions of people looking at your full body pics online. Whether you can or cannot go to the beach afterwards is nothing compared to the advantages of being 3 inches taller. These are tiny issues of no significance whatsoever.

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 454

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Jan 13, 2024, 8:03 pm

#3

Quote from: jbfjbj4 on January 13, 2024, 07:31:22 PMYou're not a public figure, you never will be, and they'll never be millions of people looking at your full body pics online. Whether you can or cannot go to the beach afterwards is nothing compared to the advantages of being 3 inches taller. These are tiny issues of no significance whatsoever.

Alright. But how obvious is it, for say 6-7 cm? How much does the knee move down the leg visually?

Like (0)

D

DonBones

Member

Posts: 338

Joined: Apr 2018

Posted on Jan 13, 2024, 9:00 pm

#4

Quote from: Kintaeryos on January 13, 2024, 08:03:47 PMAlright. But how obvious is it, for say 6-7 cm? How much does the knee move down the leg visually?

To a competent observer even 2 inches are visible. I know because I've done it. That said, most observers aren't competent, they don't know about leg lengthening, nor do people care about it.

A much bigger give away will be your altered biomechanics, the crutches, weird gait...now that is hard to miss even for someone who isn't looking at you very closely. Therefore make sure not to overlengthen and keep up with exercises.

Like (0)

M

markr09

Member

Posts: 380

Joined: Jul 2023

Posted on Jan 14, 2024, 10:19 am

#5

It also depends on your proportions in the first place. The current accepted normal ratio at minimum of tibia:femurs is .78. That's just considering the leg bones, there's also the torso. If you're someone with short femurs and a long torso, then LL on femurs won't be as noticeable. I personally have short af femurs, still longer than tibias ofc, but it's one reason why my calves look huge even with moderate bodybuilding. But it's also one reason why a lot of shorts don't look good on me because my knees are quite high so a lot of they tend to go below the knees even the ones that are supposed to be actually short. They're just meant for ppl with long femurs. It's one reason why I'm also opting for femur LL.

If you're someone with normal ratio, then I'd say it"ll definitely be quite noticeable but not really to an extent most ppl would care enough to notice. Most ppl can't even differentiate soft higher heights to hard shorter ones. Unless you're buck nked then it shouldn't be an issue much.

Quad LL may help with tibia to femur ratio but you're still stuck with how long your torso is. If anything it might look worse if you try to maximize it. Since you'll have real long af looking legs if you have a short torso. I'd say keep it reasonable if you want it less noticeable not on extreme top lengths of both.

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 125

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Jan 14, 2024, 2:57 pm

#6

Quote from: markr09 on January 14, 2024, 10:19:32 AMIt also depends on your proportions in the first place. The current accepted normal ratio at minimum of tibia:femurs is .78. That's just considering the leg bones, there's also the torso. If you're someone with short femurs and a long torso, then LL on femurs won't be as noticeable. I personally have short af femurs, still longer than tibias ofc, but it's one reason why my calves look huge even with moderate bodybuilding. But it's also one reason why a lot of shorts don't look good on me because my knees are quite high so a lot of they tend to go below the knees even the ones that are supposed to be actually short. They're just meant for ppl with long femurs. It's one reason why I'm also opting for femur LL.

If you're someone with normal ratio, then I'd say it"ll definitely be quite noticeable but not really to an extent most ppl would care enough to notice. Most ppl can't even differentiate soft higher heights to hard shorter ones. Unless you're buck nked then it shouldn't be an issue much.

Quad LL may help with tibia to femur ratio but you're still stuck with how long your torso is. If anything it might look worse if you try to maximize it. Since you'll have real long af looking legs if you have a short torso. I'd say keep it reasonable if you want it less noticeable not on extreme top lengths of both.

Do you think doing the same increase (7 cm) split into two segments, like 3.5 cm tibias and 3.5 cm femurs or whatever they have to be to maintain my pre-LL tibia/femur ratio, is worth it if money is no issue, or is the increased risk, effort and long-term effects from doing quad LL not worth if I still plan on doing 7 cm? That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

Edit Post

Quote from: markr09 on January 14, 2024, 10:19:32 AMIt also depends on your proportions in the first place. The current accepted normal ratio at minimum of tibia:femurs is .78. That's just considering the leg bones, there's also the torso. If you're someone with short femurs and a long torso, then LL on femurs won't be as noticeable. I personally have short af femurs, still longer than tibias ofc, but it's one reason why my calves look huge even with moderate bodybuilding. But it's also one reason why a lot of shorts don't look good on me because my knees are quite high so a lot of they tend to go below the knees even the ones that are supposed to be actually short. They're just meant for ppl with long femurs. It's one reason why I'm also opting for femur LL.

If you're someone with normal ratio, then I'd say it"ll definitely be quite noticeable but not really to an extent most ppl would care enough to notice. Most ppl can't even differentiate soft higher heights to hard shorter ones. Unless you're buck nked then it shouldn't be an issue much.

Quad LL may help with tibia to femur ratio but you're still stuck with how long your torso is. If anything it might look worse if you try to maximize it. Since you'll have real long af looking legs if you have a short torso. I'd say keep it reasonable if you want it less noticeable not on extreme top lengths of both.

Do you think doing the same increase (7 cm) split into two segments, like 3.5 cm tibias and 3.5 cm femurs or whatever they have to be to maintain my pre-LL tibia/femur ratio, is worth it if money is no issue, or is the increased risk, effort and long-term effects from doing quad LL not worth if I still plan on doing 7 cm? That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

Like (0)

B

babygirl

Member

Posts: 229

Joined: Dec 2023

Posted on Jan 14, 2024, 3:31 pm

#7

Quote from: Kintaeryos on January 14, 2024, 02:57:09 PMDo you think doing the same increase (7 cm) split into two segments, like 3.5 cm tibias and 3.5 cm femurs or whatever they have to be to maintain my pre-LL tibia/femur ratio, is worth it if money is no issue, or is the increased risk, effort and long-term effects from doing quad LL not worth if I still plan on doing 7 cm? That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

You're mistaken, maintaining the ratio for a 7cm increase is 4cm femur, 3cm tibia.

The easy way to calculate is just deciding how much to lengthen the femur and then put the tibia at 80% of that length.
So if you wanna lengthen 10cm femur, tibia will be 8cm. Or if 5 femur, then tibia 4cm...and so on.

Like (0)

M

markr09

Member

Posts: 443

Joined: Jul 2023

Posted on Jan 17, 2024, 12:09 am

#8

So I just want to say, multiple times I've sat next to people who are 5'8 to 5'11, and yes it just varies a lot. My co-worker who I sat with in a couch during a meeting, we were sitting rather straight because of course, meeting with bosses. I noticed we had the same or rather very close seating heights and similar tibia/lower leg height as well, the only huge noticeable difference is our femurs, his is noticably 3 inches or more longer. And this isn't the first time I've seen this sat next to a taller person, so I'm confident enough atleast for my femurs that when lengthened it will still look fine proportionally speaking.

Quote from: Kintaeryos on January 14, 2024, 02:57:09 PMDo you think doing the same increase (7 cm) split into two segments, like 3.5 cm tibias and 3.5 cm femurs or whatever they have to be to maintain my pre-LL tibia/femur ratio, is worth it if money is no issue, or is the increased risk, effort and long-term effects from doing quad LL not worth if I still plan on doing 7 cm? That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

The calc is wrong but in regards to trying to maintain your pre LL ratio, imo no it's not worth atleast in terms for both duration and risk. Also no sane LL'er would even opt for just 3.5cm on a segment when planning two LL. It's not worth the time nor effort.

Quote That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

Precisely, at minimum you want atleast 5cm for both segments. Remember you're wasting almost 2 years of your life just for a single pair of LL and for 3.5cm? That's not worth at all. You wasted 4 years just to recover from 7cm lengthening.

IMO again is just do one segment first and see where it goes from there. Personally I think I'm fine with 5'9. My ideal goal is 5'10ish but honestly that's only if I want to also risk both time and money and seeing it now, probably hard no.

Edit Post

So I just want to say, multiple times I've sat next to people who are 5'8 to 5'11, and yes it just varies a lot. My co-worker who I sat with in a couch during a meeting, we were sitting rather straight because of course, meeting with bosses. I noticed we had the same or rather very close seating heights and similar tibia/lower leg height as well, the only huge noticeable difference is our femurs, his is noticably 3 inches or more longer. And this isn't the first time I've seen this sat next to a taller person, so I'm confident enough atleast for my femurs that when lengthened it will still look fine proportionally speaking.

Quote from: Kintaeryos on January 14, 2024, 02:57:09 PMDo you think doing the same increase (7 cm) split into two segments, like 3.5 cm tibias and 3.5 cm femurs or whatever they have to be to maintain my pre-LL tibia/femur ratio, is worth it if money is no issue, or is the increased risk, effort and long-term effects from doing quad LL not worth if I still plan on doing 7 cm? That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

The calc is wrong but in regards to trying to maintain your pre LL ratio, imo no it's not worth atleast in terms for both duration and risk. Also no sane LL'er would even opt for just 3.5cm on a segment when planning two LL. It's not worth the time nor effort.

Quote That the only logical reason why someone would do quad LL is if they want more than 8 cm and doing it purely for aesthetics doesn't make sense?

Precisely, at minimum you want atleast 5cm for both segments. Remember you're wasting almost 2 years of your life just for a single pair of LL and for 3.5cm? That's not worth at all. You wasted 4 years just to recover from 7cm lengthening.

IMO again is just do one segment first and see where it goes from there. Personally I think I'm fine with 5'9. My ideal goal is 5'10ish but honestly that's only if I want to also risk both time and money and seeing it now, probably hard no.

Like (0)

T

tallmen

Member

Posts: 81

Joined: Jan 2021

Posted on Jan 17, 2024, 12:11 am

#9

No one can tell. My tall friends didn't even notice. People don't notice you as much as you think. Only people who are around same height as you will notice.

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 59

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Jan 17, 2024, 7:28 am

#10

Quote from: overandover on January 17, 2024, 12:11:58 AMNo one can tell. My tall friends didn't even notice. People don't notice you as much as you think. Only people who are around same height as you will notice.

I don't mean the height gain necessarily, but how the legs look after.

Like (0)

How obvious is it you've done LL (femurs only)?

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics