Log in Register
Home Forums Members Calculator Research CME
MEDICAL DISCLAIMER: The information provided on OrthoLength Pro is for educational purposes only and does not substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a qualified orthopedic surgeon.
← Back to Height & Proportions

If you have femur tibia ratio of 0.8, which one is better to be 0.7 or 0.9?

.
..
Verified Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Oct 2015
Posted on Jun 8, 2018, 9:35 pm
#1
In other words, which bone to lengthen?

I just did my femur mockup and look like a freak whereas the tibia mockup looks good.
Like (0)
J
Johnson1111
Verified Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Apr 2018
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 6:45 am
#2
I think the Tibia mockup will always look better because longer tibias look really good on men whereas longer femurs are better looking for girls
Like (0)
F
FormerKidd
Verified Member
Posts: 285
Joined: Jan 2018
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 4:26 pm
#3
In terms of health, longer femurs are better.  (There's a study that's been linked elsewhere on this forum that studied people outside these ratios and found correlations between certain late-life issues and longer tibias.)
Like (0)
.
..
Verified Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Oct 2015
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 6:01 pm
#4
Quote from: Johnson1111 on June 14, 2018, 06:45:26 AMI think the Tibia mockup will always look better because longer tibias look really good on men whereas longer femurs are better looking for girls

It's not just "good". More like the difference between "normal" and "freak".

Quote from: FormerKidd on June 14, 2018, 04:26:48 PMIn terms of health, longer femurs are better.  (There's a study that's been linked elsewhere on this forum that studied people outside these ratios and found correlations between certain late-life issues and longer tibias.)

We live shorter with tibia lengthening? Did the study mean people born with long tibias or people who lengthen tibias?
Like (0)
J
Johnson1111
Verified Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Apr 2018
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 6:26 pm
#5
Quote from: Bruce Wayne on June 14, 2018, 06:01:46 PMIt's not just "good". More like the difference between "normal" and "freak".

We live shorter with tibia lengthening? Did the study mean people born with long tibias or people who lengthen tibias?

If someone’s femur and tibia ratio is normal, is something like 6cm in the femur enough to throw them out of the normal range? Or is it just in our head because we are judging ourselves too hard?
Like (0)
.
..
Verified Member
Posts: 450
Joined: Oct 2015
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 7:07 pm
#6
Quote from: Johnson1111 on June 14, 2018, 06:26:07 PMIf someone’s femur and tibia ratio is normal, is something like 6cm in the femur enough to throw them out of the normal range? Or is it just in our head because we are judging ourselves too hard?

No, I'm pretty convinced now that it's the femur one isn't normal.

Here's a quote that I found: "The femur/ tibia percentage ratio from individual to individual normally falls from 52:48 UP to 56:44."

That's 0.92 to 0.78. So 0.7 ratio is not normal when 0.9 is still on the height end of normal range.
Like (0)
M
myloginacc
Verified Member
Posts: 476
Joined: May 2018
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 9:12 pm
#7
Quote from: Bruce Wayne on June 14, 2018, 07:07:48 PMNo, I'm pretty convinced now that it's the femur one isn't normal.

Here's a quote that I found: "The femur/ tibia percentage ratio from individual to individual normally falls from 52:48 UP to 56:44."

That's 0.92 to 0.78. So 0.7 ratio is not normal when 0.9 is still on the height end of normal range.

So what were your (estimated) bone measurements again? Tibias, femurs, and t/f ratio?
Like (0)
.
..
Verified Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Oct 2015
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 9:30 pm
#8
Quote from: myloginacc on June 14, 2018, 09:12:44 PMSo what were your (estimated) bone measurements again? Tibias, femurs, and t/f ratio?

About 46 : 37. I measured it manually, so could be not very accurate.
Like (0)
P
Purushrottam
Verified Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sep 2017
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 11:35 pm
#9
I think myloginacct posted a study that showed that the risk of arthiritis is higher if the tibia to femur ratio deviates too high from 0.8. That study suggested that bias should be towards lengthening the femur over the tibia.
Like (0)
M
myloginacc
Verified Member
Posts: 254
Joined: May 2018
Posted on Jun 14, 2018, 11:59 pm
#10
Quote from: Bruce Wayne on June 14, 2018, 09:30:49 PMAbout 46 : 37. I measured it manually, so could be not very accurate.

Yeah, probably not perfect measurements. I'm assuming 46cm for femurs and 37cm for tibias.

Still, those measurements give you a 0.804 t/f ratio. That's super normal, at least according to that study. The average deviation is +/- 0.03 from 0.80. Thus, a normal/average T/F ratio, according to the study, is 0.77~0.83.

Going with the quoted "safe figures" in the forums... 5cm on tibias, and 6.5cm on femurs... If you actually did both segments, that'd give you a 0.80 ratio. If you did 5cm+5cm, you'd end up at 0.82. If you did 5cm tibias, 8cm femurs, you'd end up at 0.77. All average according to the study.

On the other hand, if you were lengthening only one segment, you could only lengthen your femurs by... 2cm... to keep within what the study shows as the lower end average for T/F ratio (0.770). For tibias, you could only lengthen them by 1.2cm to keep a normal/average t/f ratio (it'd go up to 0.830). 1.6cm would give you 0.839, the limit at 0.83.
Like (0)

You must be logged in to post a reply.

Related Topics

Statistics
  • Total Posts 121,559
  • Members 4,073
  • Online Users 34
Upcoming Webinars