Limb Lengthening Forum
Limb Lengthening Surgery => Limb Lengthening Discussions => Topic started by: choin on July 18, 2024, 08:46:20 PM
-
I am a 170cm male.
My femur is 45 cm long and my tibia is 35 cm long.
Wingspan is 170cm.
I want to be about 5~6cm taller.
Do you think I should lengthen the tibia or the femur?
-
penis is better :D
-
Where are you from? If you are not like -2sd of the average height of your country this surgery is not that worthy. If you are average then just forget about this surgery. I don't recommend those whose heights do not impact thoroughly negatively on their lives.
-
Where are you from? If you are not like -2sd of the average height of your country this surgery is not that worthy. If you are average then just forget about this surgery. I don't recommend those whose heights do not impact thoroughly negatively on their lives.
The average height of men in my country is around 174~175cm.
-
I agree with the others. :)
-
I am a 170cm male.
My femur is 45 cm long and my tibia is 35 cm long.
Wingspan is 170cm.
I want to be about 5~6cm taller.
Do you think I should lengthen the tibia or the femur?
Your femurs are already pretty long relative to your tibia so you should probably go with tibia if you must.
Given that your wingspan is already the same as your height, you could probably get away with 3-4cm but by the time you're 175/5'9, you're at a 5cm wingspan deficit at just 175. I think it probably starts to get noticeable after that. Not sure though. Maybe others who've done it can chime in.
-
According to most people in the proportion section, up to 7 cm above your wingspan is acceptable and not really that noticeable.
I honestly think it depends on your build and torso size as well. The smaller and thinner you are to begin with, the less you can lengthen without it looking off. Again this is just what I have observed, since this matter is subjective.
-
How do you measure your tibia and femur? If it was not with traditional xray or dexa scan it is very difficult to be accurate, btw tibia:femur ratio is usually .8 +-.02
what is your height true inseam not pants inseam ?
-
According to most people in the proportion section, up to 7 cm above your wingspan is acceptable and not really that noticeable.
I honestly think it depends on your build and torso size as well. The smaller and thinner you are to begin with, the less you can lengthen without it looking off. Again this is just what I have observed, since this matter is subjective.
I'm ~168 with a 175 wingspan. Are you saying that I can get away with heightening to 180cm without my 5cm wingspan deficit being noticeable?
-
Your arms will look shorter the more you lengthen, there's no question about it. Unless your arm length is ridiculously long for your natural height, you won't look normal past 4 inches of LL. And, most guys have normal arm length for their natural height, therefore, they must be aware that they won't look natural after significant lengthening of legs.
IMO, measure your leg-to-body ratio and try not to exceed 0.52 post-LL. That's the highest I'd go with (only if I was really short like 5'2 and needed to max out on 2 LL procedures). Otherwise, any guy starting from 5'5 who wants to get double LL for 2 main reasons: 1. height gain and 2. boosting proportions between rather short legs and long torso should calculate his arm length, leg length, torso length and lengthen within the safe limits. Anything past 2 inches per segment will look bad and requires another LL to fix the proportions.
So, if the need is more than 2 inches, double LL is necessary at this point. IMO, 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm in femur is enough and won't look bad unless having ridiculously long legs and short torso (with short arms) before LL. 9 cm is enough height gain if one is at least 165 cm of height.
-
Yea you should probably stay within 5CM, if you care about proportions.
-
You have a difficult t/f ratio to do just one LL. You will need to do two if you want to lengthen 5cm.
-
IMO, measure your leg-to-body ratio and try not to exceed 0.52 post-LL. That's the highest I'd go with (only if I was really short like 5'2 and needed to max out on 2 LL procedures).
How are the legs measured for this ratio? Searched online and got multiple different answers
-
he say 0.52 than ratio is most likely ¨Hip height¨ / total height
(length from greater trochanter landmark to the floor / total height)
PS: please correct me if wrong
-
Leg-to-body ratio means total leg length (measured tibia bone length + measured femur bone length on x-rays) divided by total body height from head to toe.
-
I am a 170cm male.
My femur is 45 cm long and my tibia is 35 cm long.
Wingspan is 170cm.
I want to be about 5~6cm taller.
Do you think I should lengthen the tibia or the femur?
If you have plenty of money go for internal femurs.
If not, go for external tibias. Simple as that.
Everything else about proportions etc are plain bs. If you stick to 7cm on femurs or 6 on tibias you won't look bad no matter what are your exact initial proportions.
If you do huge amounts like 10cm on femurs then you'll look weird again no matter what were your initial proportions.
-
agree with you, some people ask such a weird questions that don't make sense in general.
New guys, listen this dude if you need a good advice, he know what he is talking about ;)
-
7 cm on femurs will look terrible. Most guys have longer femurs than tibia and even 5 cm lengthening on femurs will produce weird disproportion between lower and upper legs. I've seen nked results of femur-only lengthening cases and above 5 cm looks terrible in most cases.
Most results people post are with clothes on so it skews the perception of how they really look post lengthening. Believe me, you won't like your body after 3 inches of femur lengthening.
If you want to gain 5 cm and don't plan doing another LL, go for tibia only. If the goal is more than 5 cm, then you have to do double LL no matter you want it or not. If you can't afford double LL, then either don't do LL at all or do only external tibia up to 2 inches only.
And, most femur LL patients who did more than 2 inches do the tibia in the end too or wish they had the funds to do it because of severe disproportion and biomechanics issues that arises after 3 inches of femur LL.
-
I am a 170cm male.
My femur is 45 cm long and my tibia is 35 cm long.
Wingspan is 170cm.
I want to be about 5~6cm taller.
Do you think I should lengthen the tibia or the femur?
Your wingspan is pretty short.
I was 1.71 m, with 1.78 wingspan, so I got a good final proportion after 12 cm gain.
Just look to your picture in swimsuit and watch which part looks short and do it. Some people has too long femur, others too long tibia... so just look at yourself.
Be carefully, femur should be always longer than tibia !
-
Yeah, I too think that above 2 inches of wingspan is the limit to look acceptable, but up to 3 inches can be done if more height is needed. More than 3 inches and it will look retarded IMO.
-
Yeah, they have no idea what is about... but hopefully good doctors stop their st-upid impetus and calm them down...
-
Caring about wingspan proportions is just a joke. This only shows some of the people here are either not really short or don't take this surgery seriously, in my honest opinion.
-
Caring about wingspan proportions is just a joke. This only shows some of the people here are either not really short or don't take this surgery seriously, in my honest opinion.
Of course being too autistic about wingspan and proportions is kinda ridiculous when we're talking about gaining height through LL which only increases leg length and not makes one grow proportionally like in puberty but there's a certain limit where if one exceeds that limit he will look bad in the end. That's why it's important to take quantitative measurements like wingspan and leg-to-body ratio into account and don't exceed too much of what is considered normal and acceptable proportions.
There's no doubt that 20 cm is too much for anyone, we all can agree upon that I hope. But, as I said in my previous post, 15 cm can be done if one is determined and his starting body proportions allow it. More than 15 or 16 cm is not only dangerous but is a joke unless one has dwarvish legs to begin with.
Going up to 8 cm of wingspan is more or less acceptable and not that obvious but anything above 8 cm will start to look suspicious. But, again, it depends on patient cases, like, for example, if one is comically short and needs to sacrifice acceptable proportions in order to reach normal height, then it's justifiable to disregard the wingspan aspect and look like a t-rex post huge amounts of LL. But, when we're talking about cosmetic (i.e. physical enhancement in order to look more attractive) cases of LL where one seeks increased height in order to become more attractive to opposite gender, disregarding the proportions aspect defies the purpose entirely as there's no point lengthening huge amounts if in the end you'll look like a freak and repulsive to opposite gender.
-
It doesn't have to look perfect and it doesn't even have to look 'natural', it just has to overall make you more attractive than being shorter but with 'better proportions' does.
More height is pretty much always going to be more attractive than better proportions unless you already started at 5ft 10+.
Start at say 5 ft 5, and doing 6 inches to now be a 5ft 11 't-rex' is still much better than only doing 2 inches and 'maintaining a good wingspan ratio' or whatever. No one is saying it's as good as being 5ft 11 naturally but that isn't one of the options on the table, it's either bad proportions, or remain short.
If you already started at 5ft 10+ it's a consideration but that's only because the marginal benefits of extra height will taper off considerably after only a 2 inch gain and past 4 inches isn't a benefit at all.
-
I can agree that it could look kind of odd if you overlengthen too much, but that almost never happens in practice (so far as I've heard). Even with already longer legs, people could get away with 25 cm without looking freakish. Yes, it looks kindly feminizing having those proportions, but there's no other choice to lengthen spine as well for now. Furthermore, if you lengthen above 185+, tall people naturally have high proportion variations and there are plenty of tall people that are like 65% legs. But that requires you to lengthen arms as well in this exceptional case.
-
I can agree that it could look kind of odd if you overlengthen too much, but that almost never happens in practice (so far as I've heard). Even with already longer legs, people could get away with 25 cm without looking freakish. Yes, it looks kindly feminizing having those proportions, but there's no other choice to lengthen spine as well for now. Furthermore, if you lengthen above 185+, tall people naturally have high proportion variations and there are plenty of tall people that are like 65% legs. But that requires you to lengthen arms as well in this exceptional case.
No, man, 25 cm is too much, even 20 cm is too much. 16 cm is enough if one is so desperate to squeeze off every cm possible with 2 surgeries (10 cm LON femur and 6 cm LON or external only tibia).
25 cm will not only screw leg-to-arm ratio but also leg-to-torso ratio to a comical degree. Every woman will get turned off immediately once you take off your clothes and reveal your freakish body proportions.
It doesn't have to look perfect and it doesn't even have to look 'natural', it just has to overall make you more attractive than being shorter but with 'better proportions' does.
More height is pretty much always going to be more attractive than better proportions unless you already started at 5ft 10+.
Start at say 5 ft 5, and doing 6 inches to now be a 5ft 11 't-rex' is still much better than only doing 2 inches and 'maintaining a good wingspan ratio' or whatever. No one is saying it's as good as being 5ft 11 naturally but that isn't one of the options on the table, it's either bad proportions, or remain short.
If you already started at 5ft 10+ it's a consideration but that's only because the marginal benefits of extra height will taper off considerably after only a 2 inch gain and past 4 inches isn't a benefit at all.
I agree that when doing double LL at a starting height of at least 5'5 (lowest normal male height) it makes sense to lengthen the upper safe limit (6 inches) in order to become above average height. Strong 180 cm barefoot is low end of tall height (noticeable above average in the west) but nothing special indeed. At least it's not considered average height even if it's marginally higher than average and barely qualifies as a tall height.
Given that I'm hovering between 165-167 cm throughout the day, I need to lengthen 15 cm in order to break that average height barrier and become a bit taller than average. My wingspan is 174-176 cm range (depending how much I stretch). I know that it won't look perfect after 15 cm of double LL but it won't be t-rex level either. My arm length is 73 cm from acromion to middle finger and that's with a 17.5 cm hands which is very small so if I had at least 20 cm hand length my arm length would have been 75.5 cm. Average arm length for 180 cm white man is about 78 cm long so I will have 5 cm shorter arms which is noticeable but not detrimental either.
If I lengthen 10-12 cm, I will stand at exactly average height at 175-177 cm range which is not a failo but is not enough to appear tall with 4 cm Air Maxes for example. At a strong 180 cm another 2, 2.5 cm boost from shoes is enough to appear visibly taller than the average male, especially with long legs from double LL of 15 cm.
Unfortunately, some guys have a really bad starting proportions for such a huge amount of lengthening, i.e. small torso, narrow shoulders, small skull, short and frail arms...
Meck looks tall after he gained muscles in his legs, although his arms are a bit short proportionally for his new height and his long legs. It's miles better than his old height of 163-164 cm indeed, but 16 cm is something that only a few could accomplish with 2 surgeries and is a dangerous goal. At least 14 cm is realistic with 8 cm femur and 6 cm tibia and it's enough IMO.
-
No, man, 25 cm is too much, even 20 cm is too much. 16 cm is enough if one is so desperate to squeeze off every cm possible with 2 surgeries (10 cm LON femur and 6 cm LON or external only tibia).
25 cm will not only screw leg-to-arm ratio but also leg-to-torso ratio to a comical degree. Every woman will get turned off immediately once you take off your clothes and reveal your freakish body proportions.
I don't know whether there exists an objective standard for what looks freakish. I myself am determined to do four surgeries 1.5 years apart to achieve my goal, and after mock-ups I feel I look just fine even though I have relatively long legs to begin with. No women would reject a tall man based on his leg to torso ratio, most women would reject a short man however ideal his proportions are.
It is comical how people are actually willing to spend lots of money for LL only to get like 3 inch difference (which let's be realistic, is barely noticeable). If you are going through this pain, you might as well make it worth the struggle and the money you put in.
-
I don't know whether there exists an objective standard for what looks freakish. I myself am determined to do four surgeries 1.5 years apart to achieve my goal, and after mock-ups I feel I look just fine even though I have relatively long legs to begin with. No women would reject a tall man based on his leg to torso ratio, most women would reject a short man however ideal his proportions are.
It is comical how people are actually willing to spend lots of money for LL only to get like 3 inch difference (which let's be realistic, is barely noticeable). If you are going through this pain, you might as well make it worth the struggle and the money you put in.
I bet most women will reject freakish looking man no matter how tall he might be the same way they reject short men. Women not only value height but also physical symmetry, proportions and harmony.
And, 3 inches you get from femur LL is very noticeable height increase, although not dramatic or towering indeed. One can also lengthen his tibia later for 2 inches and stand 5 inches taller which is significant height increase.
This is your 5 inch height difference:
https://ibb.co/gm6J7gM (https://ibb.co/gm6J7gM)
And, unless one is shorter than 5'5, 5 inches is enough to stand at a solid 5'10 which is not a bad height and no women will think that at solid 5'10 a man is short and undesirable. If someone rejects a man who is 5'10, even if the woman explicitly mentions his height for a reason, 99.99% times it's an excuse and the real reason is different and not the height.
It's just physically dangerous to do more than 3 inches on femur and more than 2 inches on tibia unless you rebreak them, which is crazy as you not only lose insane amount of money but also many years of your life too.
-
It's just physically dangerous to do more than 3 inches on femur and more than 2 inches on tibia unless you rebreak them, which is crazy as you not only lose insane amount of money but also many years of your life too.
Out of curiosity, since I am new to this, how long do you personally think full recovery after more than two surgeries take?
I’ve heard it’s around 1 year for most after surgery, but maybe healing time will be longer after repeating.
-
From what I've read so far, it depends on how much you lengthen, the method used and the segment you're lengthening. For example, for PRECICE 2 femur of 3 inches, it takes about 5-6 months before you start walking with crutches but with the weight bearing methods, you start walking immediately post surgery and 3 inches of lengthening requires on average 5-6 months till you can start walking unaided in that case.
For tibia, 2 inches requires about 2 or even 3 months of distraction (if you go slow) and assuming you're doing with weight bearing nails or frames, you'll start walking with crutches in about 4-5 months post surgery, but recovery will take a bit longer than femur.
Basically, for the most efficient way to get both segments done are with weight bearing options. Femur first, consolidate for about 3 months and then tibia after. It will take about 1.5 years to complete the journey, assuming you're doing 3 inches on femurs and then 2 inches on tibia, which is the safest maximum amounts recommended by most doctors.
After 1.5 years, you will remove the internal nails and resume normal life, although you'll still be required to stretch daily, do the physio and workout your legs in general in order to strengthen the muscles and restore the balance and gait.
If you repeat this process, you will lose another 1.5 years of your life and it will be much harder to recover than in the first time because you're going to rebreak the broken bones and stretch the soft tissues even further. I don't see any reason to repeat this process to get another 5 inches of height since it will look comical and your functionality will be impaired severely for a very long time.
-
AnotherLLr, how much time it takes for precise 2 to allow you to walk normally after lenghtening 5 or 6 cm? i hope is less than 3 or 4 months for each
-
No, man, 25 cm is too much, even 20 cm is too much. 16 cm is enough if one is so desperate to squeeze off every cm possible with 2 surgeries (10 cm LON femur and 6 cm LON or external only tibia).
25 cm will not only screw leg-to-arm ratio but also leg-to-torso ratio to a comical degree. Every woman will get turned off immediately once you take off your clothes and reveal your freakish body proportions.
I agree that when doing double LL at a starting height of at least 5'5 (lowest normal male height) it makes sense to lengthen the upper safe limit (6 inches) in order to become above average height. Strong 180 cm barefoot is low end of tall height (noticeable above average in the west) but nothing special indeed. At least it's not considered average height even if it's marginally higher than average and barely qualifies as a tall height.
Given that I'm hovering between 165-167 cm throughout the day, I need to lengthen 15 cm in order to break that average height barrier and become a bit taller than average. My wingspan is 174-176 cm range (depending how much I stretch). I know that it won't look perfect after 15 cm of double LL but it won't be t-rex level either. My arm length is 73 cm from acromion to middle finger and that's with a 17.5 cm hands which is very small so if I had at least 20 cm hand length my arm length would have been 75.5 cm. Average arm length for 180 cm white man is about 78 cm long so I will have 5 cm shorter arms which is noticeable but not detrimental either.
If I lengthen 10-12 cm, I will stand at exactly average height at 175-177 cm range which is not a failo but is not enough to appear tall with 4 cm Air Maxes for example. At a strong 180 cm another 2, 2.5 cm boost from shoes is enough to appear visibly taller than the average male, especially with long legs from double LL of 15 cm.
Unfortunately, some guys have a really bad starting proportions for such a huge amount of lengthening, i.e. small torso, narrow shoulders, small skull, short and frail arms...
Meck looks tall after he gained muscles in his legs, although his arms are a bit short proportionally for his new height and his long legs. It's miles better than his old height of 163-164 cm indeed, but 16 cm is something that only a few could accomplish with 2 surgeries and is a dangerous goal. At least 14 cm is realistic with 8 cm femur and 6 cm tibia and it's enough IMO.
I have, from a totally not-scientific measurement determined by standing against a wall, a wingspan of 172cm, and a post-LL height of 180cm.
Now whether that looks freakish or not is a matter of opinion but what isn't a matter of opinion is the much increased online dating matches and the more frequent amount of sex. I also think the average person in a non-romantic sense treats me with more respect, although that isn't quantifiable like the first thing is.
Two women in the past year mentioned that I had long legs, but it wasn't said in a negative sense, and both of them still slept with me (they mentioned it in the room after taking them home so it was pretty much a sure thing anyway, but I mean, getting nked didn't cause a rejection). No one has ever mentioned anything outside although of course people aren't usually going to disrespect strangers to their face.
As I say, even if perhaps, some were turned off, it is vastly outweighed by the number who prefer the extra height.
-
I have, from a totally not-scientific measurement determined by standing against a wall, a wingspan of 172cm, and a post-LL height of 180cm.
Now whether that looks freakish or not is a matter of opinion but what isn't a matter of opinion is the much increased online dating matches and the more frequent amount of sex. I also think the average person in a non-romantic sense treats me with more respect, although that isn't quantifiable like the first thing is.
Two women in the past year mentioned that I had long legs, but it wasn't said in a negative sense, and both of them still slept with me (they mentioned it in the room after taking them home so it was pretty much a sure thing anyway, but I mean, getting nked didn't cause a rejection). No one has ever mentioned anything outside although of course people aren't usually going to disrespect strangers to their face.
As I say, even if perhaps, some were turned off, it is vastly outweighed by the number who prefer the extra height.
You lengthened 9 cm on your femurs which is still acceptable limit and depending on your tibia length it might not look too bad when nked. The guy above is asking for 25 cm total LL from 4 surgeries which will definitely look comical and I hope you agree with that.
Getting more matches at 180 cm versus at 171 cm is indeed logical result and it was worth it in your case to get to that height. I start at a very bad height of 165 cm, thus, in order to get rid of a height failo I need to lengthen at least 13 cm to stand at a strong 178 cm, which is doable with 2 LL if one pushes really hard.
I just measured my legs from ground to the base of the penis and it's 79 cm long. Since at night my sternum height is 136 cm, it means that my torso is 57 cm from the base of the penis to sternum. This legs is ideal for someone who is 157 cm tall. 57 x 1.618 = 92.3 cm so I need about 13.3 cm more leg length to have an ideal leg-to-torso ratio. My arms will look a bit short, but it won't look freakish level.
I am more concerned about my short leg-to-torso ratio rather than my short height to be honest. Yeah, below 173 cm is brutal but having short legs with huge torso at 165 cm is more brutal as it makes you look even shorter than you are. And, since my torso is not only long but also very wide, it makes me look squarish with this short legs and disproportion is very apparent between lower and upper body segments.
13-15 cm of double LL will make me look much better than I look now. You mention that some girls said to you that your legs are longish in a good way but I have the opposite experience: one girl recently explicitly told me that I have short legs. She mentioned it due to my short stride when walking. That's why I need full 8 cm femur lengthening as my stride is really short due to short and stumpy femurs. 5 cm is enough for tibia since I don't want to suffer from ballerina foot long-term.
-
You lengthened 9 cm on your femurs which is still acceptable limit and depending on your tibia length it might not look too bad when nked. The guy above is asking for 25 cm total LL from 4 surgeries which will definitely look comical and I hope you agree with that.
Getting more matches at 180 cm versus at 171 cm is indeed logical result and it was worth it in your case to get to that height. I start at a very bad height of 165 cm, thus, in order to get rid of a height failo I need to lengthen at least 13 cm to stand at a strong 178 cm, which is doable with 2 LL if one pushes really hard.
I just measured my legs from ground to the base of the penis and it's 79 cm long. Since at night my sternum height is 136 cm, it means that my torso is 57 cm from the base of the penis to sternum. This legs is ideal for someone who is 157 cm tall. 57 x 1.618 = 92.3 cm so I need about 13.3 cm more leg length to have an ideal leg-to-torso ratio. My arms will look a bit short, but it won't look freakish level.
I am more concerned about my short leg-to-torso ratio rather than my short height to be honest. Yeah, below 173 cm is brutal but having short legs with huge torso at 165 cm is more brutal as it makes you look even shorter than you are. And, since my torso is not only long but also very wide, it makes me look squarish with this short legs and disproportion is very apparent between lower and upper body segments.
13-15 cm of double LL will make me look much better than I look now. You mention that some girls said to you that your legs are longish in a good way but I have the opposite experience: one girl recently explicitly told me that I have short legs. She mentioned it due to my short stride when walking. That's why I need full 8 cm femur lengthening as my stride is really short due to short and stumpy femurs. 5 cm is enough for tibia since I don't want to suffer from ballerina foot long-term.
If you've got short legs relative to your overall height then you don't need to stress over this - just go for the max amount you can, especially starting at 165cm.
I had about the 'normal' legs for my height (i.e. they were pretty close to 50% of my height pre-LL), so I have long legs now for sure relative to my torso. It's noticable, especially if you were looking for it, but the good thing is most people aren't 'looking for it', and even if they were some girls who cared about proportions there's certainly a lot more that care that you're 171cm.
It's really just a matter of what you can afford to prioritise. At 171 I could get away with one LL, but really needed to shoot for the maximum amount to get into that 'safe' height zone. 5cm would probably have looked better proportions-wise, but 0cm would have looked even better for proportions by that logic. If I was 178cm already and for some reason decided to do the surgery, I'd have just gone for 7cm absolute maximum because the tradeoffs wouldn't be worth it beyond that.
Being realistic, at 165cm, you'd going to have to shoot for maximum height gain, as that's going to be the best for your overall life enjoyment. Proportion discussions are really only for those who are already tall - if you're 16x or god forbid 15x, the most +EV move is just to max the height at the detriment of everything else so long as basic functionality isn't impaired (but if you can't play amateur sports again or do heavy squats, that's gonna be a price you'll have to pay, by functionality I mainly mean walking and that's it).
25cm is too much as that'll almost certainly cause functionality problems. They won't even do that in Turkey though so it's a moot discussion. If someone wanted to get say, 16cm (let's say 9cm femur and 7cm tibia, which is about the max you can realistically get aside from some very extreme outliers), that'd still be worth it even with really bad proportions if they were low 160s or below in height.
Basically, I think proportion discussions can start once you reach about 5ft 10/178cm. Before that, every cm is too important no matter what it does to your wingspan ratios or anything else.
-
If you've got short legs relative to your overall height then you don't need to stress over this - just go for the max amount you can, especially starting at 165cm.
I had about the 'normal' legs for my height (i.e. they were pretty close to 50% of my height pre-LL), so I have long legs now for sure relative to my torso. It's noticable, especially if you were looking for it, but the good thing is most people aren't 'looking for it', and even if they were some girls who cared about proportions there's certainly a lot more that care that you're 171cm.
It's really just a matter of what you can afford to prioritise. At 171 I could get away with one LL, but really needed to shoot for the maximum amount to get into that 'safe' height zone. 5cm would probably have looked better proportions-wise, but 0cm would have looked even better for proportions by that logic. If I was 178cm already and for some reason decided to do the surgery, I'd have just gone for 7cm absolute maximum because the tradeoffs wouldn't be worth it beyond that.
Being realistic, at 165cm, you'd going to have to shoot for maximum height gain, as that's going to be the best for your overall life enjoyment. Proportion discussions are really only for those who are already tall - if you're 16x or god forbid 15x, the most +EV move is just to max the height at the detriment of everything else so long as basic functionality isn't impaired (but if you can't play amateur sports again or do heavy squats, that's gonna be a price you'll have to pay, by functionality I mainly mean walking and that's it).
25cm is too much as that'll almost certainly cause functionality problems. They won't even do that in Turkey though so it's a moot discussion. If someone wanted to get say, 16cm (let's say 9cm femur and 7cm tibia, which is about the max you can realistically get aside from some very extreme outliers), that'd still be worth it even with really bad proportions if they were low 160s or below in height.
Basically, I think proportion discussions can start once you reach about 5ft 10/178cm. Before that, every cm is too important no matter what it does to your wingspan ratios or anything else.
Yeah, I agree that being at least 178 cm after single or double LL (depending on need) is important to no longer feel small.
One thing is aiming for a maximum amount per segment but the other thing is to come out functional from it in the end. Recovery is very important and that's why anyone should have realistic goals and expectations and not become obsessive about fixed numbers to reach.
I would gladly lengthen 9 cm on my femur and 6 cm on my tibia if it was easy, but I'm fine with 7.5 cm on femur and 5.5 cm on tibia as 13 cm total is already enough to stand at a "no longer disadvantaged" height of 178 cm tall. I know that it's nothing to brag about being 178 cm but some dudes are 182-183 cm with short legs and I'd rather be 178 cm with long legs to be honest. At that height and with long legs, you no longer give manlet vibes unless you have severely short torso and arms.
I can always wear 4 or even 5 cm shoes to gain that 1 inch height advantage to other men in order to appear visibly above average height if needed. At that point having a good body becomes more important than being x amount of height taller. At least you don't have to compensate like crazy at 178 cm which is relieving. Guys from 165-175 cm tend to compensate very hard which is obvious immediately to anyone and looks cringe in most cases.
-
................
-
I'm in a similar situation and I agree with you. Unfortunately in my case I have long legs, a small torso to begin with, while being 165 cm. When I got my x-rays and could get a view of what i would like after 6,5 cm femur lengthening, I knew myself enough to know that I wouldn't feel satisfied. Not only with propertions but also when it came to the height. I was actually measured barefoot to 164,5 so on a good day I would be 171 cm since I got adviced to max do 6,5 cm, which is still very short in Denmark, where men is on average 181 cm. And this is not accounting in the extra added risk, because of renauds syndrome, duck ass and small bones. When the surgeon literally tells you that he isn't sure and is on the fence whether the nail is going to fit inside of you, your best bet is to let it be.
But if one day I become rich and has like 130.000 dollars to spend, I would do both segments and lengthening around 10 cm.
-
I'm in a similar situation and I agree with you. Unfortunately in my case I have long legs, a small torso to begin with, while being 165 cm. When I got my x-rays and could get a view of what i would like after 6,5 cm femur lengthening, I knew myself enough to know that I wouldn't feel satisfied. Not only with propertions but also when it came to the height. I was actually measured barefoot to 164,5 so on a good day I would be 171 cm since I got adviced to max do 6,5 cm, which is still very short in Denmark, where men is on average 181 cm. And this is not accounting in the extra added risk, because of renauds syndrome, duck ass and small bones. When the surgeon literally tells you that he isn't sure and is on the fence whether the nail is going to fit inside of you, your best bet is to let it be.
But if one day I become rich and has like 130.000 dollars to spend, I would do both segments and lengthening around 10 cm.
If you already have longish legs at 165 cm relative to torso and you've got problems fitting the nails inside the bone canal, it makes sense to just to 4 cm pure external on tibia (in order not to get abnormally long legs as you've already got long legs to begin with). You'll stand at 169 cm and will have pretty long legs, which is good thing to have if you're below 6 feet.
At 169 cm, you can relocate from Denmark to other parts of Europe, i.e. in Spain or Portugal where average male height is about 173 cm. At least you can have decent life there at 169 cm tall if you compensate in other areas of yourself. Or you can move to SEA at 169 cm and live much happier life, although 169 cm is enough in Spain or Portugal IMO if you have decent qualities at your disposal.
4 cm on tibia won't look that bad, yes, the femur to tibia ratio will still be altered and you won't look the best nked, but at least you can ditch the lifts and wear normal shoes no longer worrying appearing too short.
-
That might not be a bad idea. Feeling normal in Denmark is out of reach for sure haha. just can't find any qualified doctors that do externals only? Can you recommend any?
I remember seeing a study that showed, that only lengthening the tibia, with give you a lot higher risk of arthritis tho :/
-
Yes, it's not good to screw the 0.80 tibia to femur ratio to a significant degree but 4 cm tibia won't be that much unless your tibia is already longish relative to femur.
You can get pure external tibia in Russia as there are many doctors specializing in Ilizarov method and it's very cheap at around $5-10k on average. You'll need about 2 months to distract 4 cm and 6-8 months in total in frames to consolidate.
-
DanishCUCK is a born pu*sy and I guarantee he won't be lengthening so much as a millimetre in his whole life. His being here is just mental masturbation, there's always a new excuse he trots out for not taking action.
-
Jb4 whatever your name is. Your're literally mentally ill, your behaviour proves that. The fact that you constantly have a urge to personally attack me for no reason, shows that your're crazy. Seek help. Especially financial help, since you have decided to take huge loans you brag about not paying off, while calling other pu$$ys for not doing the same. (Your own earlier responses) Just because you behave irresponsibly and takes huge risks in your life, that would likely make you homeless in the future, (arthritis with debt by overlengthening in the us) doesn't mean that others are pu$$ies for not doing the same.
The fact that you don't see the stated reasons above as valid excuses for not doing the surgery, clearly shows your lack of intelligence. When a doctor tells you he isn't sure the nail can fit inside of you, after hundreds of patients, only fools with low iqs with go trough with it. It's not called being a P, its called having a high IQ because one understands the risk to reward ratio. In my case the risk outshines the reward by miles. I'm not your average Joe Unfortunately. Not even as a LL patient.
And for the love of god, okay I get that you think that I'm a Pu$$y even tho you don't know me, but how hard is it to understand that people on here including myself don't care? I actually anticipated your childish mentally ill behaviour, and I Unfortunately was right. Again dude for your own sake, seek som help including one from a financial advisor.
-
25cm is too much as that'll almost certainly cause functionality problems. They won't even do that in Turkey though so it's a moot discussion.
What do you mean they won't do that? I've emailed many doctors and basically everyone agreed to consider it if everything goes well. Can you elaborate how you got this information?
-
I'm in a similar situation and I agree with you. Unfortunately in my case I have long legs, a small torso to begin with, while being 165 cm. When I got my x-rays and could get a view of what i would like after 6,5 cm femur lengthening, I knew myself enough to know that I wouldn't feel satisfied. Not only with propertions but also when it came to the height. I was actually measured barefoot to 164,5 so on a good day I would be 171 cm since I got adviced to max do 6,5 cm, which is still very short in Denmark, where men is on average 181 cm. And this is not accounting in the extra added risk, because of renauds syndrome, duck ass and small bones. When the surgeon literally tells you that he isn't sure and is on the fence whether the nail is going to fit inside of you, your best bet is to let it be.
But if one day I become rich and has like 130.000 dollars to spend, I would do both segments and lengthening around 10 cm.
To be normal in Denmark you should strive for at least 185 cm by considering repeating surgeries. 175 in Denmark is below average, won't get you any benefits for this amount of struggle.
-
To be normal in Denmark you should strive for at least 185 cm by considering repeating surgeries. 175 in Denmark is below average, won't get you any benefits for this amount of struggle.
I bet my left ball that Jason Statham at 5'9 would cuck many 6'1-6'4 guys in Denmark if he went there 10 years ago (when he looked mature but still young with shaved head). Even if he was nobody by the way.
Height past strong 5'9 with good proportions and body frame is really cope, although one has to be really masculine / DOM looking at that height, otherwise it won't carry them for sure.
-
Jb4 whatever your name is. Your're literally mentally ill, your behaviour proves that. The fact that you constantly have a urge to personally attack me for no reason, shows that your're crazy. Seek help. Especially financial help, since you have decided to take huge loans you brag about not paying off, while calling other pu$$ys for not doing the same. (Your own earlier responses) Just because you behave irresponsibly and takes huge risks in your life, that would likely make you homeless in the future, (arthritis with debt by overlengthening in the us) doesn't mean that others are pu$$ies for not doing the same.
The fact that you don't see the stated reasons above as valid excuses for not doing the surgery, clearly shows your lack of intelligence. When a doctor tells you he isn't sure the nail can fit inside of you, after hundreds of patients, only fools with low iqs with go trough with it. It's not called being a P, its called having a high IQ because one understands the risk to reward ratio. In my case the risk outshines the reward by miles. I'm not your average Joe Unfortunately. Not even as a LL patient.
And for the love of god, okay I get that you think that I'm a Pu$$y even tho you don't know me, but how hard is it to understand that people on here including myself don't care? I actually anticipated your childish mentally ill behaviour, and I Unfortunately was right. Again dude for your own sake, seek som help including one from a financial advisor.
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.543693238.0596/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u2.jpg)
-
Well I live in Denmark, so I think I have the best idea of this and if you want to be in that normal range it starts at 175 cm barefoot in my opinion. The average man no matter the age, stands at about 180 cm, (only source I have is in danish - 182 cm is for the average young man) so by being AT LEAST 175 cm, you will be just within that threshold of normal.
But I completely agree with you that for this surgery to be worth it, you will have to reach this threshold of about normal height at least. If not it's a waste of time, money, health etc.
-
I'm living in Scandi country and with 175 cm feels like -2sd from the mean. Idk maybe it's only my height dysphoria but I always feel like it in public, if I see 10 men, 7 usually are taller than me. For pure external, if Europe try Dr Dimitrios Giotikas MD, PhD. Although I would save some money for femur internals, less painful, faster recovery and you can pull 1-2 more cms.