It's all about simple geometry and focus points.
1. Geometry. Ask yourself - What makes anything look tall? Simple. It's looks much longer than it's wider. Therefore to look taller, you need to look thinner - no belly, no over muscular legs and hands which make you look wider. As simple as that.
2. Focus points. The biggest difference among body parts between short and tall people is in legs. No coincidence here, LL is all about making legs longer. So when one tries to differentiate short and tall people, the focus is directed at legs. To shift that focus, you can make your shoulders pop out at little bit by making them bigger and the same time keeping slim waist and the rest. If shoulders grew at the same proportion to the rest of muscles groups, you're back at point 1. You just made yourself wider therefore shorter in perception.
Visible muscle definition is always good for men but too much muscle can hurt one's perception especially if you're short because of the 2 points above.
Short guys who escaped the "short guy" look by working out
I escaped the short look by getting LL. Now I don't think about life in centimeters anymore. Sorry about you guys.
Also, I disagree with including Zac Efron in a thread like this. 5'5 and 5'8 are almost 10cm apart. 5'8 is average-short[ish] (as opposed to short-short) in the US and a lot of Europe, and isn't short in most of the world.
Quote from: RealTrump on February 06, 2018, 05:37:23 AMI escaped the short look by getting LL. Now I don't think about life in centimeters anymore. Sorry about you guys.
Unless you are also working out, there is a significant chance you look ridiculous and just don't notice. This isn't about looking "tall" because you have long legs, this is about offsetting the small chest and narrow shoulders that come as a result of being short. Adding length to your legs won't offset this and it won't look good.
Quote from: myloginacct on February 08, 2018, 12:10:39 AMAlso, I disagree with including Zac Efron in a thread like this. 5'5 and 5'8 are almost 10cm apart. 5'8 is average-short[ish] (as opposed to short-short) in the US and a lot of Europe, and isn't short in most of the world.
I included him because he has the "short guy" look. There are guys shorter than him who look taller, Jon Stewart for example is only 5'7 but he looks 6 ft tall easily. Meanwhile if I saw a photo of Efron alone I would guess him as being 5'6, 5'6.5 at most.
Quote from: CaptainAmerica on February 08, 2018, 05:27:00 AMI included him because he has the "short guy" look. There are guys shorter than him who look taller, Jon Stewart for example is only 5'7 but he looks 6 ft tall easily. Meanwhile if I saw a photo of Efron alone I would guess him as being 5'6, 5'6.5 at most.
You are right about your points of height mostly increasing frame proportionally (to the genetics of that specific person), but you also give the impression that you think slim/lean and wide/broad are defining height markers. I wouldn't guess Efron as being 5'6 just because he was lean and not broad.
Here's a 174~175cm (5'8.5~5'9) swimmer standing next to a 185cm (6'1) guy on the right side of the picture.
This is why I honestly believe no one needs more than 5'9. That guy is already a "9/10" in looks. Do you think it would be worth it to remove his physique, but make him 10cm taller, so he reaches the same height as the guy on the right side of the picture? Do you think that would make him more attractive?
You could bring up the point "add a taller swimmer with a similar physique next to him and see which women will prefer". That'd be a fair point. However, we are already in 9/10 to 10/10 territory. How many of you can pick between two "9/10" and "9.2/10" women? Anyway, looks aren't everything. You just want to get to a point where you aren't discriminated against negatively. More than that is not needed.
CLL is an extremely dangerous and forceful surgery. I'd really like the taller guys here to think this over and see if this is really worth it for them.
Quote from: myloginacct on March 12, 2018, 06:01:06 PMHere's a 174~175cm (5'8.5~5'9) swimmer standing next to a 185cm (6'1) guy on the right side of the picture.
This is why I honestly believe no one needs more than 5'9. That guy is already a "9/10" in looks. Do you think it would be worth it to remove his physique, but make him 10cm taller, so he reaches the same height as the guy on the right side of the picture? Do you think that would make him more attractive?
You could bring up the point "add a taller swimmer with a similar physique next to him and see which women will prefer". That'd be a fair point. However, we are already in 9/10 to 10/10 territory. How many of you can pick between two "9/10" and "9.2/10" women? Anyway, looks aren't everything. You just want to get to a point where you aren't discriminated against negatively. More than that is not needed.
CLL is an extremely dangerous and forceful surgery. I'd really like the taller guys here to think this over and see if this is really worth it for them.
From what do you find this man as a 9/10?
It is just your opinion, for me he is just an average looking man with a fit body and nothing more.
I can't see his lower body but even if it is perfect with great proportions this man is nothing more than 6.5/10 for me. An average face and a better than average body but nothing spectacular.
9/10 would have been if he had the face of Brad Pit and the body of Lazar Angelov. I see nothing like that here.
And yes, if he was about 1.80 he would have been better because he could attract women of all heights but especially taller than 1.68-70 much easier.
Anyone who is less than 1.78-80 would have been a little better (or a lot the shorter they are) if he was taller.
So it is ok to have your opinion but it is just your opinion.
I rrally doubt if any woman would find that man as good looking as you think. Even if he was 1.85 I doubt any woman would find him better than 7-7.5 max.
And finally, there is no reason to lose your psysique after LL. If you don't get crippled you could still have the body you had before LL or at least a very close to it
I had 47cm arms with about 15% fat and 90kg weight and I am completely natural. I didn't have that body before LL because an 1.68 man that muscular would look as he is compensating for his height while an 1.75 muscular man is just a muscular man (although still some guys I am sure they think that I am overcompensating because I am not tall enough). When I hit 1.81 with my new LL I would still have the same body and I'd be a (almost) tall and muscular man who noone would think that I comownsate for anything.
LL don't make your body looking worse, unless you lengthen 10cm per segment, but the opposite.
Quote from: Body Builder on March 12, 2018, 11:04:06 PMFrom what do you find this man as a 9/10?
It is just your opinion, for me he is just an average looking man with a fit body and nothing more.
I can't see his lower body but even if it is perfect with great proportions this man is nothing more than 6.5/10 for me. An average face and a better than average body but nothing spectacular.
9/10 would have been if he had the face of Brad Pit and the body of Lazar Angelov. I see nothing like that here.
And yes, if he was about 1.80 he would have been better because he could attract women of all heights but especially taller than 1.68-70 much easier.
Anyone who is less than 1.78-80 would have been a little better (or a lot the shorter they are) if he was taller.
So it is ok to have your opinion but it is just your opinion.
I rrally doubt if any woman would find that man as good looking as you think. Even if he was 1.85 I doubt any woman would find him better than 7-7.5 max.
And finally, there is no reason to lose your psysique after LL. If you don't get crippled you could still have the body you had before LL or at least a very close to it
I had 47cm arms with about 15% fat and 90kg weight and I am completely natural. I didn't have that body before LL because an 1.68 man that muscular would look as he is compensating for his height while an 1.75 muscular man is just a muscular man (although still some guys I am sure they think that I am overcompensating because I am not tall enough). When I hit 1.81 with my new LL I would still have the same body and I'd be a (almost) tall and muscular man who noone would think that I comownsate for anything.
LL don't make your body looking worse, unless you lengthen 10cm per segment, but the opposite.
You can use Michael Phelps as an example, then. Or any other swimmer you think has a better face than this one.
The point is that the swimmer's body type is the most attractive one for women. If you aren't short, you'll get better results in making yourself more attractive by pursuing it than by getting CLL.
The point the man in the image I posted has reached means that there will barely be any woman who would reject him simply based on how he looks. Only a tiny, tiny minority of very insecure 178cm+ women. Not being rejected based on how we look is something most people here want. Just being a decent height and getting a good body will allow you to reach that status with the vast majority of women. You won't get immediately rejected because of how you look if you look like this. It'll be other factors.
Quote from: myloginacct on March 12, 2018, 11:31:15 PMYou can use Michael Phelps as an example, then. Or any other swimmer you think has a better face than this one.
The point is that the swimmer's body type is the most attractive one for women. If you aren't short, you'll get better results in making yourself more attractive by pursuing it than by getting CLL.
The point the man in the image I posted has reached means that there will barely be any woman who would reject him simply based on how he looks. Only a tiny, tiny minority of very insecure 178cm+ women. Not being rejected based on how we look is something most people here want. Just being a decent height and getting a good body will allow you to reach that status with the vast majority of women. You won't get immediately rejected because of how you look if you look like this. It'll be other factors.
Still this is your opinion.
I showed him to my gf only asking him if he good looking (without mentioning his height) and she said he is ok, not ugly but not handsome either.
So no, not only a minority would reject him and not only for his height.
So saying things as a fact while it is only your personal opinion is not very clever.
The fact is that men beyond average are not as attractive as above average, all other things equal. Yes, at 1.75 you have a respectable height and if you are fit with a good face you are not going to have many problems with maybe the majority of women.
That said, if you have all the above and an 1.85 height you'll be exactly what any woman wants. So yes, being acceotable from the majority of women to being almost ideal for the vast majority of women has a big difference.
And almost no man with an 1.75 height is ideal for the majority of women, even if he is perfect in anything else in his appearance.
You must be logged in to post a reply.