Leg-to-body ratio
A study using Polish participants by Sorokowski found 5% longer legs than an individual used as a reference was considered most attractive. The study concluded this preference might stem from the influence of leggy runway models. The Sorokowski study was criticized for using a picture of the same person with digitally altered leg lengths which Marco Bertamini felt were unrealistic.
Another study using British and American participants, found "mid-ranging" leg-to-body ratios to be most ideal.
A study by Swami et al. of American men and women showed a preference for men with legs as long as the rest of their body and women with 40% longer legs than the rest of their body The researcher concluded that this preference might be influenced by American culture where long leg women are portrayed as more attractive. The Swami et al. study was criticized for using a picture of the same person with digitally altered leg lengths which Marco Bertamini felt were unrealistic. Bertamini also criticized the Swami study for only changing the leg length while keeping the arm length constant.Bertamini's own study which used stick figures mirrored Swami's study, however, by finding a preference for leggier women.
So long legs don't look so bad even on men, Moderately long tho.
I feel bad for the black/african dudes who want LL, they usually have very long legs to start with..
*sigh*
Sometimes i wonder if its even worth it to get to a height that is considered upper average in most if not all western countries. 
Quote from: Wannabegiant on October 25, 2014, 04:58:17 AMI feel bad for the black/african dudes who want LL, they usually have very long legs to start with..
But they got the wingspan for atleast one surgery. Try mexicans if you want unproportinate.
Does it mean 5% longer legs than the average or 5 percantage point more?
For example if I am 180 cm tall and my legs are 82 does that mean the ideal should be 82*1.05=86 (5% more) or 90cm (50% of my total height instead of 45%)?
Quote from: Uppland on October 25, 2014, 09:17:56 AMDoes it mean 5% longer legs than the average or 5 percantage point more?
For example if I am 180 cm tall and my legs are 82 does that mean the ideal should be 82*1.05=86 (5% more) or 90cm (50% of my total height instead of 45%)?
I think it's 5% longer legs compared to the body(pelvis to head). So for a 180cm person with a legs of 82cm would have a sitting height of 98cm. 98*1.05=102.9cm. That's the ideal 5% longer leg length in the given polish study. Ofcourse, this assumes the sitting height=body. It would be great to see the entire study to be sure.
You must be logged in to post a reply.