So I've been spending the evening obsessing over body insecurities on the internet again like the absolute loser I am.
I was reading that the "golden" leg/torso ratio is 1.68. You can measure that by putting a tape measure from the floor to your belly button, then taking your total height and dividing that by the floor-belly button measurement. For example, I got 173 cm / 101 cm = a ratio of 1.71. Guess I have stubby legs.
I figured my proportions would get closest to that ratio at about 179-180 cm total height, assuming I did LL for 6-7 cm. Arm length I'm not convinced is actually important (apart from for practical reasons) so long as your arms aren't noticeably out of whack with the rest of your body- probably about 2 or 3 inches less than total height depending on the person.
There's also the whole issue of shoulder broadness vs narrow waist. The ideal waist circumference is 45% of your height and the ideal shoulder circumference is 1.5 to 1.6 times that. So a guy of 5'10 should ideally have a 31-32 inch waist and a shoulder circumference of 47- 51 or so inches.
I'd also like to say, for us guys 5'7-9 and over, I don't think height matters absolutely as much as proportions. A 6 ft plus guy with bad proportions is worse looking than a 5'7 guy with good ones imo. If you take the measurements and it turns out your legs are already long for your height, maybe it's better to focus on improving your upper body proportions more instead.
Obviously a 6'1 guy with good proportions is model material, and that's ideal. But I think at a certain point proportions are really more important than height.
Something to think about in terms of proportions- the "golden ratio"
OK, haha, you have a point about being obsessive over ratios. Probably the shoulder one is what matters the most.
That said, coincidentally I saw a guy in the street today who I think had done LL! I mean he had insanely long legs and a very small torso.
He didn't look too good.
Eh, screw this thread anyway, the other guys were (kinda) right, I do think naturally this forum overplays the absolute importance of height though.
Like at 5'8 I've never had a woman turn me down expressly for height. I've been told "I'd be attracted to you if you were a couple of inches taller" a couple of times though, but I wasn't sure if that was just a ty way of flirting. Oh yeah and despite this thread I'm not the super vain type, more shy, nerdy and skinny haha.
And I stand by what I said about the leg- torso ratio, this guy in town today looked seriously bizarre, his legs were like twice as long as his torso.
The dude in the photo looks really good. Hope my results are as good as that. Looks like he did femurs. I was thinking of doing 7 cm on my femurs; my tibias are 39-40 cm and my femurs are 40-41 cm as far as I remember. Do you think that'd look off balance?
Measured them again. 41 and 40 cm (femurs 1cm longer). Even better that I already have long tibias. I'll have to do an x ray I guess though.
Does anyone know the average shoulder width? I heard it's something like 18-18.5 inch for the average American white guy but the average American white guy is fat.
Cool, looks like I'm 18-18.5 so I guess I sit at average.
I sometimes wear 1 inch lifts if I'm not wearing heels. I think 5'11ish plus 1 inch lifts and shoes would bring me to a decent height.
Maybe I'll try bigger lifts at some point just to see what the weather really is like up there 
Plus, not being able to use your arms properly for months sounds worse than LL to me.
I've been told your wingspan shouldn't be less than 2 or 3 inches of your height, then it starts looking odd.
Plus, not being able to use your arms properly for months sounds worse than LL to me.
I've been told your wingspan shouldn't be less than 2 or 3 inches of your height, then it starts looking odd.
Quote from: YourSpaceBoyfriend on February 01, 2017, 06:00:11 PMImho arm length itself is more important than wingspan since u can have just wide shoulders but short arms.
I was thinking about that and found this:
http://www. /index.php/topic,1990.60.html
I duno how true it holds.
Looks like I shouldn't do over a couple of inches of LL.
EDIT:
Seems pretty stupid, though. I mean, giving myself the benefit of the doubt (cause it's pretty hard to measure your arms) at 74.5 cm it says my "ideal" height at my arm to height ratio is 171 cm but my maximum is 186 cm before I look weird! 15 cm seems too much of a big difference to me.
Doesn't really make sense to me. Guess I'll stick to my 5-7 cm LL goal though. The doctor will probably give me advice anyway, hopefully before taking my money
make me taller seems to be blocked here, well basically OP says:
"So I've been doing a lot of measuring and alterations of photos of celebrities, ordinary people (like myself) and someone who's done LL. From MY measurements and observations, most normally proportioned people (and those that have aesthetically pleasing proportions - such as models, celebrities) have a height to arm length (this is NOT armspan - this is measured from top of shoulder to tip of the middle finger) ratio of about 2.3. And this ratio, incidentally, was reported by Benjamin Gould in "Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers" Cambridge: Riverside Press, reprinted Arno Press, NY 1979 after measuring 4,855 soldiers.
When altering photos w/ photoshop, I've noticed that disporportions start to become noticeable and displeasing as one surpasses a height to arm length ratio of 2.5."
Yeah, I guess a good doctor would be very careful about proportions if I had a good discussion with him on this.
You must be logged in to post a reply.