AnotherLLr, how much time it takes for precise 2 to allow you to walk normally after lenghtening 5 or 6 cm? i hope is less than 3 or 4 months for each
Quote from: AnotherLLer on August 04, 2024, 01:14:58 PMNo, man, 25 cm is too much, even 20 cm is too much. 16 cm is enough if one is so desperate to squeeze off every cm possible with 2 surgeries (10 cm LON femur and 6 cm LON or external only tibia).
25 cm will not only screw leg-to-arm ratio but also leg-to-torso ratio to a comical degree. Every woman will get turned off immediately once you take off your clothes and reveal your freakish body proportions.
I agree that when doing double LL at a starting height of at least 5'5 (lowest normal male height) it makes sense to lengthen the upper safe limit (6 inches) in order to become above average height. Strong 180 cm barefoot is low end of tall height (noticeable above average in the west) but nothing special indeed. At least it's not considered average height even if it's marginally higher than average and barely qualifies as a tall height.
Given that I'm hovering between 165-167 cm throughout the day, I need to lengthen 15 cm in order to break that average height barrier and become a bit taller than average. My wingspan is 174-176 cm range (depending how much I stretch). I know that it won't look perfect after 15 cm of double LL but it won't be t-rex level either. My arm length is 73 cm from acromion to middle finger and that's with a 17.5 cm hands which is very small so if I had at least 20 cm hand length my arm length would have been 75.5 cm. Average arm length for 180 cm white man is about 78 cm long so I will have 5 cm shorter arms which is noticeable but not detrimental either.
If I lengthen 10-12 cm, I will stand at exactly average height at 175-177 cm range which is not a failo but is not enough to appear tall with 4 cm Air Maxes for example. At a strong 180 cm another 2, 2.5 cm boost from shoes is enough to appear visibly taller than the average male, especially with long legs from double LL of 15 cm.
Unfortunately, some guys have a really bad starting proportions for such a huge amount of lengthening, i.e. small torso, narrow shoulders, small skull, short and frail arms...
Meck looks tall after he gained muscles in his legs, although his arms are a bit short proportionally for his new height and his long legs. It's miles better than his old height of 163-164 cm indeed, but 16 cm is something that only a few could accomplish with 2 surgeries and is a dangerous goal. At least 14 cm is realistic with 8 cm femur and 6 cm tibia and it's enough IMO.
I have, from a totally not-scientific measurement determined by standing against a wall, a wingspan of 172cm, and a post-LL height of 180cm.
Now whether that looks freakish or not is a matter of opinion but what isn't a matter of opinion is the much increased online dating matches and the more frequent amount of sex. I also think the average person in a non-romantic sense treats me with more respect, although that isn't quantifiable like the first thing is.
Two women in the past year mentioned that I had long legs, but it wasn't said in a negative sense, and both of them still slept with me (they mentioned it in the room after taking them home so it was pretty much a sure thing anyway, but I mean, getting nked didn't cause a rejection). No one has ever mentioned anything outside although of course people aren't usually going to disrespect strangers to their face.
As I say, even if perhaps, some were turned off, it is vastly outweighed by the number who prefer the extra height.
Quote from: jbfjbj4 on August 05, 2024, 01:19:57 PMI have, from a totally not-scientific measurement determined by standing against a wall, a wingspan of 172cm, and a post-LL height of 180cm.
Now whether that looks freakish or not is a matter of opinion but what isn't a matter of opinion is the much increased online dating matches and the more frequent amount of sex. I also think the average person in a non-romantic sense treats me with more respect, although that isn't quantifiable like the first thing is.
Two women in the past year mentioned that I had long legs, but it wasn't said in a negative sense, and both of them still slept with me (they mentioned it in the room after taking them home so it was pretty much a sure thing anyway, but I mean, getting nked didn't cause a rejection). No one has ever mentioned anything outside although of course people aren't usually going to disrespect strangers to their face.
As I say, even if perhaps, some were turned off, it is vastly outweighed by the number who prefer the extra height.
You lengthened 9 cm on your femurs which is still acceptable limit and depending on your tibia length it might not look too bad when nked. The guy above is asking for 25 cm total LL from 4 surgeries which will definitely look comical and I hope you agree with that.
Getting more matches at 180 cm versus at 171 cm is indeed logical result and it was worth it in your case to get to that height. I start at a very bad height of 165 cm, thus, in order to get rid of a height failo I need to lengthen at least 13 cm to stand at a strong 178 cm, which is doable with 2 LL if one pushes really hard.
I just measured my legs from ground to the base of the penis and it's 79 cm long. Since at night my sternum height is 136 cm, it means that my torso is 57 cm from the base of the penis to sternum. This legs is ideal for someone who is 157 cm tall. 57 x 1.618 = 92.3 cm so I need about 13.3 cm more leg length to have an ideal leg-to-torso ratio. My arms will look a bit short, but it won't look freakish level.
I am more concerned about my short leg-to-torso ratio rather than my short height to be honest. Yeah, below 173 cm is brutal but having short legs with huge torso at 165 cm is more brutal as it makes you look even shorter than you are. And, since my torso is not only long but also very wide, it makes me look squarish with this short legs and disproportion is very apparent between lower and upper body segments.
13-15 cm of double LL will make me look much better than I look now. You mention that some girls said to you that your legs are longish in a good way but I have the opposite experience: one girl recently explicitly told me that I have short legs. She mentioned it due to my short stride when walking. That's why I need full 8 cm femur lengthening as my stride is really short due to short and stumpy femurs. 5 cm is enough for tibia since I don't want to suffer from ballerina foot long-term.
Quote from: AnotherLLer on August 05, 2024, 01:52:03 PMYou lengthened 9 cm on your femurs which is still acceptable limit and depending on your tibia length it might not look too bad when nked. The guy above is asking for 25 cm total LL from 4 surgeries which will definitely look comical and I hope you agree with that.
Getting more matches at 180 cm versus at 171 cm is indeed logical result and it was worth it in your case to get to that height. I start at a very bad height of 165 cm, thus, in order to get rid of a height failo I need to lengthen at least 13 cm to stand at a strong 178 cm, which is doable with 2 LL if one pushes really hard.
I just measured my legs from ground to the base of the penis and it's 79 cm long. Since at night my sternum height is 136 cm, it means that my torso is 57 cm from the base of the penis to sternum. This legs is ideal for someone who is 157 cm tall. 57 x 1.618 = 92.3 cm so I need about 13.3 cm more leg length to have an ideal leg-to-torso ratio. My arms will look a bit short, but it won't look freakish level.
I am more concerned about my short leg-to-torso ratio rather than my short height to be honest. Yeah, below 173 cm is brutal but having short legs with huge torso at 165 cm is more brutal as it makes you look even shorter than you are. And, since my torso is not only long but also very wide, it makes me look squarish with this short legs and disproportion is very apparent between lower and upper body segments.
13-15 cm of double LL will make me look much better than I look now. You mention that some girls said to you that your legs are longish in a good way but I have the opposite experience: one girl recently explicitly told me that I have short legs. She mentioned it due to my short stride when walking. That's why I need full 8 cm femur lengthening as my stride is really short due to short and stumpy femurs. 5 cm is enough for tibia since I don't want to suffer from ballerina foot long-term.
If you've got short legs relative to your overall height then you don't need to stress over this - just go for the max amount you can, especially starting at 165cm.
I had about the 'normal' legs for my height (i.e. they were pretty close to 50% of my height pre-LL), so I have long legs now for sure relative to my torso. It's noticable, especially if you were looking for it, but the good thing is most people aren't 'looking for it', and even if they were some girls who cared about proportions there's certainly a lot more that care that you're 171cm.
It's really just a matter of what you can afford to prioritise. At 171 I could get away with one LL, but really needed to shoot for the maximum amount to get into that 'safe' height zone. 5cm would probably have looked better proportions-wise, but 0cm would have looked even better for proportions by that logic. If I was 178cm already and for some reason decided to do the surgery, I'd have just gone for 7cm absolute maximum because the tradeoffs wouldn't be worth it beyond that.
Being realistic, at 165cm, you'd going to have to shoot for maximum height gain, as that's going to be the best for your overall life enjoyment. Proportion discussions are really only for those who are already tall - if you're 16x or god forbid 15x, the most +EV move is just to max the height at the detriment of everything else so long as basic functionality isn't impaired (but if you can't play amateur sports again or do heavy squats, that's gonna be a price you'll have to pay, by functionality I mainly mean walking and that's it).
25cm is too much as that'll almost certainly cause functionality problems. They won't even do that in Turkey though so it's a moot discussion. If someone wanted to get say, 16cm (let's say 9cm femur and 7cm tibia, which is about the max you can realistically get aside from some very extreme outliers), that'd still be worth it even with really bad proportions if they were low 160s or below in height.
Basically, I think proportion discussions can start once you reach about 5ft 10/178cm. Before that, every cm is too important no matter what it does to your wingspan ratios or anything else.
Quote from: jbfjbj4 on August 05, 2024, 03:10:03 PMIf you've got short legs relative to your overall height then you don't need to stress over this - just go for the max amount you can, especially starting at 165cm.
I had about the 'normal' legs for my height (i.e. they were pretty close to 50% of my height pre-LL), so I have long legs now for sure relative to my torso. It's noticable, especially if you were looking for it, but the good thing is most people aren't 'looking for it', and even if they were some girls who cared about proportions there's certainly a lot more that care that you're 171cm.
It's really just a matter of what you can afford to prioritise. At 171 I could get away with one LL, but really needed to shoot for the maximum amount to get into that 'safe' height zone. 5cm would probably have looked better proportions-wise, but 0cm would have looked even better for proportions by that logic. If I was 178cm already and for some reason decided to do the surgery, I'd have just gone for 7cm absolute maximum because the tradeoffs wouldn't be worth it beyond that.
Being realistic, at 165cm, you'd going to have to shoot for maximum height gain, as that's going to be the best for your overall life enjoyment. Proportion discussions are really only for those who are already tall - if you're 16x or god forbid 15x, the most +EV move is just to max the height at the detriment of everything else so long as basic functionality isn't impaired (but if you can't play amateur sports again or do heavy squats, that's gonna be a price you'll have to pay, by functionality I mainly mean walking and that's it).
25cm is too much as that'll almost certainly cause functionality problems. They won't even do that in Turkey though so it's a moot discussion. If someone wanted to get say, 16cm (let's say 9cm femur and 7cm tibia, which is about the max you can realistically get aside from some very extreme outliers), that'd still be worth it even with really bad proportions if they were low 160s or below in height.
Basically, I think proportion discussions can start once you reach about 5ft 10/178cm. Before that, every cm is too important no matter what it does to your wingspan ratios or anything else.
Yeah, I agree that being at least 178 cm after single or double LL (depending on need) is important to no longer feel small.
One thing is aiming for a maximum amount per segment but the other thing is to come out functional from it in the end. Recovery is very important and that's why anyone should have realistic goals and expectations and not become obsessive about fixed numbers to reach.
I would gladly lengthen 9 cm on my femur and 6 cm on my tibia if it was easy, but I'm fine with 7.5 cm on femur and 5.5 cm on tibia as 13 cm total is already enough to stand at a "no longer disadvantaged" height of 178 cm tall. I know that it's nothing to brag about being 178 cm but some dudes are 182-183 cm with short legs and I'd rather be 178 cm with long legs to be honest. At that height and with long legs, you no longer give manlet vibes unless you have severely short torso and arms.
I can always wear 4 or even 5 cm shoes to gain that 1 inch height advantage to other men in order to appear visibly above average height if needed. At that point having a good body becomes more important than being x amount of height taller. At least you don't have to compensate like crazy at 178 cm which is relieving. Guys from 165-175 cm tend to compensate very hard which is obvious immediately to anyone and looks cringe in most cases.
................
I'm in a similar situation and I agree with you. Unfortunately in my case I have long legs, a small torso to begin with, while being 165 cm. When I got my x-rays and could get a view of what i would like after 6,5 cm femur lengthening, I knew myself enough to know that I wouldn't feel satisfied. Not only with propertions but also when it came to the height. I was actually measured barefoot to 164,5 so on a good day I would be 171 cm since I got adviced to max do 6,5 cm, which is still very short in Denmark, where men is on average 181 cm. And this is not accounting in the extra added risk, because of renauds syndrome, duck ass and small bones. When the surgeon literally tells you that he isn't sure and is on the fence whether the nail is going to fit inside of you, your best bet is to let it be.
But if one day I become rich and has like 130.000 dollars to spend, I would do both segments and lengthening around 10 cm.
Quote from: DanishViking on August 06, 2024, 10:03:00 AMI'm in a similar situation and I agree with you. Unfortunately in my case I have long legs, a small torso to begin with, while being 165 cm. When I got my x-rays and could get a view of what i would like after 6,5 cm femur lengthening, I knew myself enough to know that I wouldn't feel satisfied. Not only with propertions but also when it came to the height. I was actually measured barefoot to 164,5 so on a good day I would be 171 cm since I got adviced to max do 6,5 cm, which is still very short in Denmark, where men is on average 181 cm. And this is not accounting in the extra added risk, because of renauds syndrome, duck ass and small bones. When the surgeon literally tells you that he isn't sure and is on the fence whether the nail is going to fit inside of you, your best bet is to let it be.
But if one day I become rich and has like 130.000 dollars to spend, I would do both segments and lengthening around 10 cm.
If you already have longish legs at 165 cm relative to torso and you've got problems fitting the nails inside the bone canal, it makes sense to just to 4 cm pure external on tibia (in order not to get abnormally long legs as you've already got long legs to begin with). You'll stand at 169 cm and will have pretty long legs, which is good thing to have if you're below 6 feet.
At 169 cm, you can relocate from Denmark to other parts of Europe, i.e. in Spain or Portugal where average male height is about 173 cm. At least you can have decent life there at 169 cm tall if you compensate in other areas of yourself. Or you can move to SEA at 169 cm and live much happier life, although 169 cm is enough in Spain or Portugal IMO if you have decent qualities at your disposal.
4 cm on tibia won't look that bad, yes, the femur to tibia ratio will still be altered and you won't look the best nked, but at least you can ditch the lifts and wear normal shoes no longer worrying appearing too short.
That might not be a bad idea. Feeling normal in Denmark is out of reach for sure haha. just can't find any qualified doctors that do externals only? Can you recommend any?
I remember seeing a study that showed, that only lengthening the tibia, with give you a lot higher risk of arthritis tho :/
Yes, it's not good to screw the 0.80 tibia to femur ratio to a significant degree but 4 cm tibia won't be that much unless your tibia is already longish relative to femur.
You can get pure external tibia in Russia as there are many doctors specializing in Ilizarov method and it's very cheap at around $5-10k on average. You'll need about 2 months to distract 4 cm and 6-8 months in total in frames to consolidate.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
