Quote from: applesandoranges on November 10, 2016, 12:43:45 PMHonestly I can't take this diary seriously. It doesn't come off as genuine.
I agree, I obviously painted my X-Rays on MS paint.
Hi Penguinn,
Congratulations for your actual achievement and thanks a lot for sharing your experience in the forum.
You wrote that you'll have a final crural index of 0,673 after 8cm added in the femurs. Have the measures of tibia and femur been made considering TBL (tibia maximum length) and FBL (femur Bicondylar length)?
Because if you had a very common original crural index of 0,825 for example; knowing that x/y=0,825 and that x/(y+8)=0,673...you get original tibia =29,2cm and original femur 35,4cm....
These values seem to be small for a person whose starting height is about 158cm, considering that you stated that your legs weren't particularly short before LL...
THanks in advance for your answer, and once again congratulations for the actual achievement.
Cheers.
Quote from: apoxyomenos on November 10, 2016, 01:50:53 PMHi Penguinn,
Congratulations for your actual achievement and thanks a lot for sharing your experience in the forum.
You wrote that you'll have a final crural index of 0,673 after 8cm added in the femurs. Have the measures of tibia and femur been made considering TBL (tibia maximum length) and FBL (femur Bicondylar length)?
Because if you had a very common original crural index of 0,825 for example; knowing that x/y=0,825 and that x/(y+8)=0,673...you get original tibia =29,2cm and original femur 35,4cm....
These values seem to be small for a person whose starting height is about 158cm, considering that you stated that your legs weren't particularly short before LL...
THanks in advance for your answer, and once again congratulations for the actual achievement.
Cheers.
My head's spinning..
Just looked again. My tibia was 33.6 and femur was 42.6. 33.6/42.6 = 7.887 which is about a 0.79 ratio that I had before.
I assumed 7.4cms of lengthening to round off 42.6 to 50. New ratio: 33.6/50 = 0.672
That's why I say I wasn't short legged, apparently my tibia was longer than Kilo's starting tibia and much longer than Morisette's(his was unusually short though). My femur was Kilo's femur length. However I've always felt normal if not short legged compared to 5'6 friends whose legs seem to be huge. Maybe it's a race thing?
(Edit: When I say "normal legged compared to 5'6 friends" I don't mean our legs are equal, I mean compared to their longer legs I felt like mine were right for my height if not short.)
Yeah, they don't matter so much to someone who's 5'2. Also apparently I have a 0.5cm discrepancy in my tibias and 0.2 in the femurs, making my left leg 0.7cms taller than my right, yet I can't even see it or feel it after knowing.
Thanks Penguinn for the fastness of your reply.
79 as original crural index means you were proportionally with short tibia, since as I wrote in the Height & Proportions section, the crural index varies from about 78 up to about 88. Just searching in the web you get these values, also with charts.
Nevertheless, as indicated in my last consideration in the same section, whatever your original crural index, you can lengthen the segment you consider more appropriate. Just listen to your body when it will tell you your individual safe limit.
Thanks again for sharing your experience rich of important details and useful infos.
Cheers.
Quote from: apoxyomenos on November 10, 2016, 02:30:25 PMThanks Penguinn for the fastness of your reply.
79 as original crural index means you were proportionally with short tibia, since as I wrote in the Height & Proportions section, the crural index varies from about 78 up to about 88. Just searching in the web you get these values, also with charts.Yeah, but as long as it's in the normal range, in my opinion, it doesn't matter too much. It's just not ideal. In the mockups I had made my lengthened femur looked ok while the lengthened tibia, even 6cms, looked ridiculous.
Penguin, if I could question you further on the whole proportion thing. Say where you're at now, practically 2 inches, if both Tibia and Femurs were equally lengthen to 5 CM, would you feel that would be too much for your legs to torso ratio? How about 8 CM equally increased? Would that then be too much for your own "proportional limit" legs to torso?
Same question as Alu.
Quote from: Alu on November 10, 2016, 08:32:37 PMPenguin, if I could question you further on the whole proportion thing. *Say where you're at now, practically 2 inches, if both Tibia and Femurs were equally lengthen to 5 CM, would you feel that would be too much for your legs to torso ratio? **How about 8 CM equally increased? Would that then be too much for your own "proportional limit" legs to torso?
Also just clarifying cause I feel like I worded it awkwardly:
*Say Tibia and Femurs were both increased to 1.5 cm for an equal of 5 CM.
**Say Tibia and Femurs were both increased to 4 cm for an equal of 8 CM.
This question is simply about Torso to Legs. Although it would be nice to hear your input later on what you think 10 CM would feel like.
Edit: Just read "where you're now".
Yes, 4" total lengthening would be too much. With my arms and sitting height of around 5'3.5-5'4, 5'5 is the limit for me. If I was put next to a 5'6 person after 4" of lengthening, you'd be able to tell something was off.
Edit: By sitting height of 5'3.5-5'4 I mean an inch or half an inch shorter than my dad who's 5'4.5 or so with normal proportions. I haven't measured it, honestly, I didn't care.
So 4 inches is too much, what would be the most you recommend considering that the person is normal, not short torso or legs?
You must be logged in to post a reply.
