Should I be concerned about this? (Am i calculating my limb ratio correctly?)

Member

Posts: 28

Joined: Oct 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 2:43 am

#1

Currently my leg/height ratios is 45%. After my desired lengthening of two segments it will be 47.86%.
The average is 45-48% is this enough to worry about?

surgery one: 169cm - 174cm (5cm in femurs) will = 46.66%
[potential] surgery two - would bring my ratio to 47.86% adding 4cm to the tibias.

Quote from: midnightninja on October 21, 2016, 03:47:36 AM 76.2
--------- x 100 = 45% This is my ratio currently.
169

Surgery one:

81.2
--------- x 100 = 46.66%
174

surgery two:

85.2
--------- x 100 = 47.86%
178

I think this is the correct way to work out my end ratio. Is this correct?

Also, my wingspan is the exact same as my height.. I am 169 and my wingspan is 169.1cm ... I thought wingspans were meant to be longer.

age: 19
Inseam: 30inches (76.2)
Sitting height: 35inches (88.9)
Wingspan: 66.6inches (169.1cm)
Height: 5'6.5 ( I go by 5'7

Should I be concerned about this? (Am i calculating my limb ratio correctly?)

)

I plan on doing either 4-5cm on my femurs (probably 4cm) and potentially 4cm on my tibias later on.

My goal height is to be 5'9 (175cm) I would be forever thankful if I can reach 5'10 (177cm).

Like (0)

O

onemorefoot

Member

Posts: 141

Joined: Jul 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 3:34 am

#2

Can you take a measurement of your navel height??? From the ground to your navel. I think you should do both segments, 5 or 4 per segment, no more, 180 or 179 is a good height.

Like (0)

M

midnightninja

Member

Posts: 294

Joined: Oct 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 3:47 am

#3

I'll do that tonight. Do you know if I'm calculating the ratio right?

76.2
--------- x 100 = 45% This is my ratio currently.
169

Surgery one:

81.2
--------- x 100 = 46.66%
174

surgery two:

85.2
--------- x 100 = 47.86%
178

I think this is the correct way to work out my end ratio. Is this correct?

Like (0)

O

onemorefoot

Member

Posts: 128

Joined: Jul 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 4:34 am

#4

Yes your calculations are right, the ratio in correct in both parts.

Like (0)

A

apoxyomenos

Member

Posts: 207

Joined: Oct 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 8:01 am

#5

Hi midnightninja,
You're already perfect before LL with an ape index=1, veryfing the assumption of the vitruvian man: height=wingspan, but in humans you can find also an ape index <1. So, being you brachyskelic (short legs), if you intend to do only 1 surgery, you could measure your crural index, so to establish the limb to lengthen, knowing that the crural index varies from about 78 up to about 89. Being brachyskelic is common to have a low crural index. At your height, and if you're of white european genetics, you could have a common crural index of about 80, so with something like 4cm added to your tibiae you'll reach a crural index of about 89. If you want 2 surgeries, and if your crural index is 80, go for 5cm in femurs and 4cm in tibiae: 4/5=0.8. From brachyskelic you'll become macroskelic/dolichoskelic, like a masai man, but with an ape index <1.

Like (0)

M

midnightninja

Member

Posts: 150

Joined: Oct 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 8:22 am

#6

I just measured my navel to feet and the measurement is 38inches (96.52cm)

Like (0)

Y

YourSpaceBoyfriend

Member

Posts: 145

Joined: Jun 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 11:57 am

#7

Rather than making empty assumptions you should just make photo of yourself and do mockups. This will give you image of how could you look like after LL.

But 89 sitting height at 5'7 is not much doe... someone who has shorter sitting height than me and is 5'11 lol.

Like (0)

A

Auron

Member

Posts: 179

Joined: Jul 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 1:06 pm

#8

I'd say that 89cm sitting height at 169cm is about average.

Like (0)

O

onemorefoot

Member

Posts: 308

Joined: Jul 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 6:07 pm

#9

You did a correct measurement, my navel height is 102 cm, someone in the old forum said that he had 109 cm navel height at 176 cm with 93 cm of sitting height, that doesnt make sense, even I could say that your navel height is 97-98 cm. Your height 169.1 cm is in the morning or afternoon??I have a doubt if you are taller than someone in the sitting height are you taller in the legs, too orcan be just in one section?

Like (0)

M

midnightninja

Member

Posts: 173

Joined: Oct 2016

Posted on Oct 21, 2016, 11:04 pm

#10

Quote from: YourSpaceBoyfriend on October 21, 2016, 11:57:05 AMBut 89 sitting height at 5'7 is not much doe... someone who has shorter sitting height than me and is 5'11 lol.

What do you mean by shorter sitting height then you? Are you saying I would have a shorter sitting height than you at 5'10 or someone you have seen/read about on here?

Quote from: NoRegrets on October 21, 2016, 01:06:32 PMI'd say that 89cm sitting height at 169cm is about average.

I've just started the gym and a bulking phase as well so my upper body will gain more muscled and width which could look better in the end.

Quote from: onemorefoot on October 21, 2016, 06:07:02 PMYou did a correct measurement, my navel height is 102 cm, someone in the old forum said that he had 109 cm navel height at 176 cm with 93 cm of sitting height, that doesnt make sense, even I could say that your navel height is 97-98 cm. Your height 169.1 cm is in the morning or afternoon??I have a doubt if you are taller than someone in the sitting height are you taller in the legs, too orcan be just in one section?

My navel to feet length is 96.59cm. I think I am average in sitting height and the same for legs.
I'm not really sure what you mean by your comment.

Like (0)

Should I be concerned about this? (Am i calculating my limb ratio correctly?)

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics