What's your inseam to height ratio?

Member

Posts: 448

Joined: Jan 2015

Posted on Mar 25, 2015, 5:52 pm

#1

Hello All,

I measured my true inseam (pubis bone to floor) not my pants inseam (balls to ankle), and my ratio of inseam/height is 47.7% which kinda sucks because the average man has a ratio of 46.5%

My inseam is 33", and height is 69"

Above 48% is considered "long legs", and before 45% is "short legs"

What's your ratio of true inseam/height?

Like (0)

K

kunta kinte

Member

Posts: 335

Joined: Jul 2014

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 12:30 am

#2

mine is 46.5%. where did you get the information that 46.5% is average?

Like (0)

A

Alittletooshort

Member

Posts: 459

Joined: Jan 2015

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 5:23 am

#3

Mine is 44,2

Like (0)

H

hadrian

Member

Posts: 460

Joined: Mar 2015

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 11:08 am

#4

45.2%

Once I compared my legs with a 5'10" girl, and surprisingly we had the same leg length.

Like (0)

U

Uppland

Member

Posts: 330

Joined: Sep 2014

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 11:19 am

#5

45,2%

Not sure about that 48%=long legs

If I would lengthen 7CM my ratio would be 47,5% and they look would very long, in fact I wouldn't do more than that solely because of my proportions. Long legs look good on both men and women, but all things in moderation.

Like (0)

B

Bry

Member

Posts: 136

Joined: Jan 2015

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 11:21 am

#6

Mine is 46,3%

Might be exactly 50% after LL.

Ya can call me Mr Daddy Long Legs!

Like (0)

N

NewHeights

Member

Posts: 454

Joined: Jan 2015

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 11:31 am

#7

This is how you measure it btw. Take a thin book and shove it up your crotch like this

I guess all of you guys have legs either short or on the shorter side. Sucks to be me

Like (0)

H

hadrian

Member

Posts: 90

Joined: Mar 2015

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 11:37 am

#8

Quote from: Uppland on March 26, 2015, 11:19:41 AM45,2%

Not sure about that 48%=long legs

If I would lengthen 7CM my ratio would be 47,5% and they look would very long, in fact I wouldn't do more than that solely because of my proportions. Long legs look good on both men and women, but all things in moderation.

I agree. My father was all legs, he wore a 36" inseam(so probably 38" legs in total), I am 4 inches shorter and wear a 32". He was very talented in combat sports due to his long reach(his palms alone hang halfway down his femurs) and ability to take long strides. Long legs only look feminine when you have traits like a small ribcage, short clavicles, wide hips, or short arms. He relied on striking, not sure how well he would have done in something heavy on ground combat like MMA with his high center of gravity and all.

Like (0)

N

NewHeights

Member

Posts: 231

Joined: Jan 2015

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 12:30 pm

#9

Quote from: Uppland on March 26, 2015, 11:19:41 AM45,2%

Not sure about that 48%=long legs

If I would lengthen 7CM my ratio would be 47,5% and they look would very long, in fact I wouldn't do more than that solely because of my proportions. Long legs look good on both men and women, but all things in moderation.

At 47.7%, I don't think my legs look "very long". They are definitely noticeably longer than average, but I actually think they look good aesthetically at my current ratio.

Unfortunately, once you start getting into that 48% to 49% range, they start to look very long

Like (0)

U

Uppland

Member

Posts: 282

Joined: Sep 2014

Posted on Mar 26, 2015, 12:44 pm

#10

Quote from: NewHeights on March 26, 2015, 12:30:39 PM
Unfortunately, once you start getting into that 48% to 49% range, they start to look very long

Right and that's exactly what you do when you wear 3CM shoes. There seems to be kind of a cutoff at 48% because when I wear long pants and walk on my toes (+7-8CM) My proportions look surprisingly good, but when I add shoes to that I start to look pretty awkward.

Like (0)

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics