My ratio is 44,2% (crotch to floor) according to this method, seems a bit low. I'll remeasure it the next days. Do you put the ruler on the lowest part of your crotch right in between your legs? 
Height 178,5
Inseam79
Quote from: Alittletooshort on March 25, 2015, 06:09:29 PMMy ratio is 44,2% (crotch to floor) according to this method, seems a bit low. I'll remeasure it the next days. Do you put the ruler on the lowest part of your crotch right in between your legs?
Height 178,5
Inseam79
I pushed the ruler against the pubic symphysis (or as close as I could get), and measured to the floor along my left leg
Quote from: NewHeights on March 25, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
I pushed the ruler against the pubic symphysis (or as close as I could get), and measured to the floor along my left leg
That's how I measured my inseam too, if I measured from crotch I would get around 75cm inseam. xD
While long legs do look aesthetic, you need long torso and wide shoulder to balance out your longer lower body proportion. The key is proportion. I think proportion is more aesthetic than final height. This is especially true for men than it is for women though I previously post that photo of the girl. Her height may be diminutive for American standard but her proportion trumps all.
While LL, I had the benefit of going to parties and comparing the length of different people's tibae. Some people are just not meant for tibia lengthening. They should have done femur lengthening or no LL at all. That's why I wish for the day where we can have torso lengthening. Then all the short people can lengthen themselves to 6'1 and still look amazing.
I guess if you are concerned about your proportion, then you probably have realized that your legs are a bit long for your height. That's why I ask whether final height is important for you or proportion. If you already have regular tibia length and you realized you are pushing to the edge of your proportion, then I recommend doing femur lengthening as you can hide long legs by wearing your pants low whereas long tibias will stick out at the knee and can't be hidden.
Long legs do look good. But you wouldn't want your crotch to be up to someone chest who is your same height. Moreover, long legs without long and wide upper body magnifies your shorter upper body which doesn't look too good. Imagine looking behind someone who has long legs but who has short back. If you find yourself exceeding your proportion, things you can do is to workout your upper body to develop a wide frame. This may help to compensate for the long lower body and overall proportion but it doesn't compensate for where the crotch is. It may compensate for frontal view but with back view, where your butt is up high and your back is visible, it doesn't look too good neither.
Some people have really long legs (Apo, Crazy 6, Tall from old forum ). They take great care in what they want to show you but I personally met Crazy 6 and he stood next to the helper who was also his height. I'm glad that he was happy with his finally height but I thought his legs are too long for his upper body.
Sitting height is incorrect because people with fatter butt automatically has higher sitting height but not necessarily longer torso.
One great diary to check out is my buddy Calic. He is no longer active on this forum. He lengthened 6.5 but thought that his legs were a bit long and perhaps 5.5cm would be more suitable. Check out his diary on here.
The model below is 6'1. But just imagine instead of having a 6'1 upper body frame, he has a 5'7 upper body with the legs of 6'1. It doesn't look too good though he may be thrilled by being at an acceptable height. Proportion vs. final height - which is more important for you.
About me, I'm 5'9 with 32" inseam. My legs were short before. I posted a video of my proportion on this forum a while ago as well as having opinion from guys who also done LL in person. We agreed that an 2" would be pushing the limit but acceptable. Moreover, it will balance out the ratio of my legs. 2" additional length on the femur on a 5'9 with 32" would be pushing the limit. But I mentioned before that I would be wearing Mephisto flat shoes once I come back and life is still good.
Good post Smallguy, dare I ask that you show us another photo?
My legs can handle another 7CM but that's it for me, 8CM would be the absolute max.
Quote from: Uppland on March 25, 2015, 09:29:44 AMHey Smallguy, I'm 179CM and have an 80-81CM inseam how much do you reckon I could do?
Max 7cm. What is your tibae/femur ratio is like? If you have regular tibia, then femur would look good on you.
Quote from: Alittletooshort on March 25, 2015, 09:34:35 AMI have almost the same inseam as you Smallguy
32"? 32" to the bottom of the floor. 
Quote from: NewHeights on March 25, 2015, 01:05:32 PMSorry guys, again, I have to make sure I'm doing this right...
How is inseam measured exactly?
Is it pubis bone to floor (most conservative, and would give longest length) or is it bottom of balls to ankle?
Correct. To the bottom of the floor.
Quote from: KirPi on March 25, 2015, 01:14:20 PMwhy you dont try with lifts to see how much you could lengthen before look weird?
Good idea.
Quote from: NewHeights on March 25, 2015, 11:00:00 AMI know this is a stupid question, but I have to be 100% sure. Is inseam crotch to ankle or crotch to floor?
I measure to the bottom which is 32".
Usually men pants are designed to cover the ankle which means they are measured to the bottom.... unless you have unique taste. I know that women sometime wear shorter pants to extenuate their long legs. But normally for me, a 32" inseam pants cover my ankle and the top of the back of my heels.
Quote from: Smallguy on March 28, 2015, 12:15:41 AMMax 7cm. What is your tibae/femur ratio is like? If you have regular tibia, then femur would look good on you.
32"? 32" to the bottom of the floor.
Correct. To the bottom of the floor.
Good idea.
I measure to the bottom which is 32".
Usually men pants are designed to cover the ankle which means they are measured to the bottom.... unless you have unique taste. I know that women sometime wear shorter pants to extenuate their long legs. But normally for me, a 32" inseam pants cover my ankle and the top of the back of my heels.
You have to start at you pubic bone though. Shove a book up there like this 
Quote from: Uppland on March 28, 2015, 12:03:29 AMGood post Smallguy, dare I ask that you show us another photo?
My legs can handle another 7CM but that's it for me, 8CM would be the absolute max.
Sure, here is the female version.
As you can see, the male appears to have longer tibias relative to femur whereas the female appears to have longer femur relative to tibias. However, while the crutches are similar, the male has a much longer torso and broader shoulder compare to the female. That's why I say female can get away with proportion up to a certain point.
Long legs without upper long body and wide frame will accentuate the short back (back-view) and torso (front-view). It will also makes the male looks effeminate which is the looks I'm not looking for. 
Quote from: NewHeights on March 28, 2015, 12:36:15 AMYou have to start at you pubic bone though. Shove a book up there like this
Good point. I'll remeasure myself.
Thanks but I meant a photo of your proportions, I never saw the last one you posted.
Quote from: NewHeights on March 28, 2015, 12:36:15 AMYou have to start at you pubic bone though. Shove a book up there like this
83cm which is almost 33"
Quote from: Uppland on March 28, 2015, 12:54:28 AMThanks but I meant a photo of your proportions, I never saw the last one you posted.
Sorry. Maybe you can ask description from other senior member (Sweden, Calic, Captain America, Crimsontide, Blackhawk, Kusop etc.)
There is some vindictive homo on this site like hadrian which I don't feel safe uploading. I don't want to get attacked for my booty while walking home at night.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
