It could also be that photos magnify the effect, or that mirrors mitigate the effect, because when I bend my leg and look in a mirror, it doesn't look odd. When I take a photo of it, then the disproportion becomes apparent...
I also think you are looking better than on the pictures
My sitting height is just under 90cm, so my legs are 4 cm longer than upper body, giving me a 0.49 SHR. That puts me at about 1 standard deviation below average sitting height, as per this thread: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=174.0, so I am definitely long legged. Programdude is the only person I've had a chance to see in person, and he did mention me being long legged, but not disproportional.
Quote from: Polycrates. on June 29, 2015, 07:02:11 PMMy sitting height is just under 90cm, so my legs are 4 cm longer than upper body, giving me a 0.49 SHR. That puts me at about 1 standard deviation below average sitting height, as per this thread: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=174.0, so I am definitely long legged. Programdude is the only person I've had a chance to see in person, and he did mention me being long legged, but not disproportional.
Your sitting height right under 90cm? Interesting, my sitting height is like 89cm (per Dr. G)...and I think you were already a good amount taller than me (I was 166cm before LL).
PD is also an LL patient of course, so maybe he was looking for it? Most people I'm sure won't know/care that much.
Were you a bit overweight or have large thigh muscles? Perhaps that elevated you to 90cm. Interesting to note that I am 1sd below average dutch sitting height, but 1sd above average dutch leg length, as per this site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720514/
It also says, since I am 50th percentile dutch height (0sd), I could qualify for Marfan syndrome with my SHR...
Quote from: Polycrates. on June 29, 2015, 07:41:16 PMWere you a bit overweight or have large thigh muscles? Perhaps that elevated you to 90cm.
Yeah that was probably it, I have/had naturally big thighs/big butt. Not so much now, but working on getting them back. Hoping muscle mememory and hard work eventually help me.
What was your starting height polycrates? I suppose around 177?
I measured my sitting height a couple of times now and it was always between 96-98cm at a height of 178≈. I do have a long upperbody and a long neck but your SH seems a bit low for your height, doesn't it? Or would you describe your SH as average? I'm just curious because the numbers are so different although our genetic height is almost the same.
90/178~=0.51, so it was spot on average pretty much. Yours, at 0.55, is extremely high for the height.
Quote from: Polycrates. on June 29, 2015, 07:02:11 PMMy sitting height is just under 90cm, so my legs are 4 cm longer than upper body, giving me a 0.49 SHR. That puts me at about 1 standard deviation below average sitting height, as per this thread: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=174.0, so I am definitely long legged. Programdude is the only person I've had a chance to see in person, and he did mention me being long legged, but not disproportional.
I don´t know my sitting height but I believe my "true inseam" (measured from a book shoved up my crotch) is 46% of my total height. If I lengthen 7CM it will be about 47,8%, I´ve looked at my proportions after 7CM and I do look quite long-legged in 3CM shoes. I recommend that you try to widen your shoulders as that mitigates the "lanky" effect, that was my advice when you asked my thoughts in a PM as well.
Oh, and is programdude as good looking as he says IRL?
From the Dutch study scatter plot, it shows that I am still in the circle of normalcy with my SHR and overall height. Quite a few dots around it, actually.
You must be logged in to post a reply.