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

Edit Post

In other words, which bone to lengthen?

I just did my femur mockup and look like a freak whereas the tibia mockup looks good.

Edit Post

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?

Edit Post

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.

Edit Post

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.

Edit Post

Quote from: myloginacc on June 14, 2018, 11:59:22 PMYeah, 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.

According to this older post: http://www.makemetaller .org/index.php?topic=293.0, it could be up to 52:48. Probably your study just means average range instead of normal range which is difference. For example, a 5'1" man is well below the average height of man of 5'10" but he's not abnormal either because there are many men who are born 5'1". But 4' man is another story.

Edit Post

Quote from: myloginacc on June 15, 2018, 12:34:01 PMYour figures use percentage. 52% femurs and 48% tibias, and 56% femurs and 44% tibias.

Starting from your original (83cm) total leg length:

.56*83 = 46.48
.44*83 = 36.52

36.52/46.48 = 0.78.

.52*83 = 43.16
.48*83 = 39.89

39.89/43.16 = 0.92.

This is the supposed natural range your t/f ratios could have been. Indeed, your femurs are on the longer side of the spectrum according to M M T (0.804, closer to 0.78 - or 56% femurs). Whereas the ratio is almost perfect according to the study.

If you increased your height by 5cm (37cm tibias; 46cm femurs): tibias would give you a 0.91 t/f ratio (supposedly normal given the old forums' ratios). 5cm on femurs would give you a 0.72 t/f ratio (deviating from both the M M T post and the study). This almost seems too good for tibias, and anathema to the anecdotal evidence of femoral vs tibial patients posted here.

I'm not calling bs on the ratios from that post because human proportions vary. Black men have shorter trunks, longer legs (specially tibias) and longer forearms compared to white men of the same height. However, one figure is from a study which examined a cadaveric osteological collection, not written by doctors involved in cosmetic LL (JPO), and which evaluated correlation between t/f and osteoarthritis through multiple regression analysis. The other is by a former admin of the previous forum, a place involved in collusion scandals with CLL doctors, specially getting them to do external tibias in places like India. It may be because I don't have an account on the old forums, but I can't find the source for the ranges he posted and termed as the "normal range" of femur:tibia ratios.

The main counterargument you can use against the study is that it comes from the JPO - the Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, which is under the umbrella of POSNA - the Pedriatic Orthopedic Society of North America.

However, the Hamann-Todd osteological collection doesn't seem to even focus towards infant and adolescent bone collections:

http://www.oberlinlibstaff.com/omeka_projects/exhibits/show/ohio-bones/the-hamann-todd-osteological-c
https://www.cmnh.org/phys-anthro/collection-database
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Museum_of_Natural_History

Yeah, I also thought that with 5cm on tibia, I'd still fall into normal range according to the old forum while it wouldn't be the case with femur lengthening. Eventhough, I was wondering how they came up with that number too. But your study actually mentioned the average and not the normal range.

In the end, based on my mockups, I look more normal with the 5cm tibias.

Edit Post

Quote from: myloginacc on July 05, 2018, 08:52:06 AMHere's from Paley himself too. Of course standard deviations still exist.

Quote from: myloginacc on July 05, 2018, 09:04:08 AMAlso, Bruce, if you read this thread again, bear in mind Android said (in his diary) his leg length estimates were totally off. You can only really know your numbers by getting them measured through x-rays.

Fair enough. My estimation is most likely wrong.

Edit Post

Quote from: Valiant on August 01, 2018, 06:22:42 PMThe concern with LL is you don't want and try to avoid going outside the tibia/ femur ratios of 0.78(long femur) to 0.92(long Tibia) in the interests of preserving joint health.

Where did you get these numbers?

Edit Post

Quote from: Valiant on August 02, 2018, 07:19:04 AMAren't these the typical ranges for tibia/ femur ratios in majority of people?

I saw a lecture by Dr. Paley I think, on YouTube where he mentioned these figures and some members here described the same figures too.

Could you link the video? I can't find the confirmation of these stats from reliable sources.