Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AnotherLLer]

Assuming a man has long legs at 178 cm night height and has a wide frame and good looking, masculine face, is that height enough in order to be taken seriously by virtually any woman on the planet? What's your thoughts?

I mean, between 178 low and 180-181 low is not that big of a difference, especially if we compare 178 low man who did LL and has long legs and appears taller than he is to someone who is 180-181 low naturally and has average legs for his height.

Don't forget that 2-3 cm can be frauded easily with 5 cm elevator shoes in order to appear as 180-181 man at 178 low whenever needed.

[onedaytall]

I must say that in order to be taken seriously even by most women on the planet, you simply cannot care if the women on this planet take you seriously or not. This is the mindset part that I'm familiar with. As far as height and other physical attributes... I couldn't say. I get where you're going with this but I would personally just try to maximise whatever I see as my ideal self, regardless of what is considered ideal by any other idiot on this planet. I personally would be very happy at 178cm and I know I'll be an absolute monster at that height. Lord help the world if I ever become over 6' lol.

I must say, there are many men who only try to become their best self by physical means and if it's all based on insecurity and lacking substance underneath, those people always "smell funny". I'm not saying this is you.

You made a good point where people, especially women, can't even tell how tall a guy is when it comes to inch here inch there.

I must mention a funny thing that happened the other night. I often perform on cruises. After a show a woman saw me at a hallway, dragged me to her cabin because her friend had a crazy crush on me. The friend happened to be about as tall as I am (I'm 5'8 ). We took a pic together and I noticed that she kneeled a bit lower to look shorter than me in the pic. Whether that was intentional or subconscious, I found it hilarious. Maybe height mattered to her and she didn't want to seem like she was taller than me, or she wanted to justify feeling attracted to me and wanted me to look taller in the pic. Whatever it was, I think it was kinda cute reaction. At no point did I feel insecure about any of it, it was just awesome. Maybe my main point is that regardless what women say about height or any other thing they claim to be a criteria for them, they will find a way to spin it all around in their head once they feel attracted to a guy. So many women fall in love with guys who "are not their usual type" or whatever.

[AnotherLLer]

Dude, you say you're 5'8 and that's not short at all. I know that 178 is better but at 173 you are just 4-5 cm shorter than average which means you can blend in with 2-3 cm height fraud easily.

Things get progressively harder below 5'8 mark and at 5'5 it gets ridiculous. Now, if I really wanted to become a bit taller at 173, I would just get 4 cm tibia and be done with this shiet forever. It would take about 6 months with frames so it would be tolerable if I really wanted that 4 cm.

But, at 165 cm I can't get away with just 4-5 cm tibia lengthening. I have to lengthen my femurs too in order to become at least 174 which is not detrimental in dating for the majority of women. 9 cm is no joke from my starting height, it's totally different world. I want to get 11.5 cm in total as that's my eye level so increasing my height by that much would feel awesome.

IMO, 174-176 range is my realistic destination after double LL unless I go crazy and overlengthen both segments for 14-15 cm total to reach 180 cm.

[onedaytall]

Dude, you say you're 5'8 and that's not short at all. I know that 178 is better but at 173 you are just 4-5 cm shorter than average which means you can blend in with 2-3 cm height fraud easily.

Things get progressively harder below 5'8 mark and at 5'5 it gets ridiculous. Now, if I really wanted to become a bit taller at 173, I would just get 4 cm tibia and be done with this shiet forever. It would take about 6 months with frames so it would be tolerable if I really wanted that 4 cm.

But, at 165 cm I can't get away with just 4-5 cm tibia lengthening. I have to lengthen my femurs too in order to become at least 174 which is not detrimental in dating for the majority of women. 9 cm is no joke from my starting height, it's totally different world. I want to get 11.5 cm in total as that's my eye level so increasing my height by that much would feel awesome.

IMO, 174-176 range is my realistic destination after double LL unless I go crazy and overlengthen both segments for 14-15 cm total to reach 180 cm.

Dude I agree with you in terms of your starting height. I've read some other posts of yours and you have a solid plan for yourself. At least it is very much achievable for you! And I'm sure you will be very happy with the results once you get to the 174 range or even above. If you do 5cm or 5,5cm tibias and reach 170 and recover well (as is your plan), then you should be able to get away with lengthening more for your femurs. 177-178cm is very much possible for you (although pretty much maxed out and riding the danger zone imo), and yet I'm sure you would be fully satisfied with less. 174-176 sounds like a perfect goal.

[AnotherLLer]

Yeah, the safe goal is 9-11.5 cm total split between the two segments. IMO, 13 cm is pushing it but is achievable if planned properly.

The problem is tibia as it can't be lengthened by more than 5 cm safely and 5 cm is not enough for me. Femurs is easier to get 7-8 cm which is significant amount of height and longer femurs look amazing in every outfit IMO. Basically, unless I lengthen femurs not much will change with just 5 cm tibia, although things will become comparatively easier at 170 cm vs 165 cm now.

[wantingtobetaller]

Assuming a man has long legs at 178 cm night height and has a wide frame and good looking, masculine face, is that height enough in order to be taken seriously by virtually any woman on the planet? What's your thoughts?

I mean, between 178 low and 180-181 low is not that big of a difference, especially if we compare 178 low man who did LL and has long legs and appears taller than he is to someone who is 180-181 low naturally and has average legs for his height.

Don't forget that 2-3 cm can be frauded easily with 5 cm elevator shoes in order to appear as 180-181 man at 178 low whenever needed.

Yes that height is enough to be taken seriously by virtually any woman.

[Body Builder]

If you are at least relatively muscular and have a good style, yes 1.78 is a good height that won't make it harder for a woman to get attracted to you.
If you are skinny or obese then no, it won't help. But to be honest, even if you are taller but obese, skinny or ugly, it won't help much either. Because if you have zero looks overall, being tall is not enough. If you are ok in anything else, 1.78 won't benefit you but it won't be detrimental too. After 1.80 upnto 1.88-90 height becomes a benefit and then it deteriorates again, of course not as much as being less than 1.70.

Personally speaking, I see a lot of difference when I wear 2-3cm insoles and become about 1.80 with shies on compared to my real height (1.76 morning height but most of the day I am between 1.74 and 1.75). I am sure if I was 1.78 night height (which means 1.80 morning height) I would have had way more success with women even without wearing insoles. So from my personal experience yes, 1.78 night height is a good height to become attractive to the vast majority of women. Some fat weirdos that want men taller than 1.83 and have 6 digits income and more are just a joke that no man care about.

[AnotherLLer]

Man, my problem is not only my short height of 165 cm but also very short and stocky legs, especially thighs. My tibia is also short but at least they are not bent and with Chelsea style elevator boots and long pants it looks fine. But, my short and stumpy thighs are a real issue which can't be camouflaged as easily as tibia with boots and long pants. I try to tuck in everything I wear and raise the pants as high as possible up to my waist but still look very short. My inseam from knee to crotch is very short and my walking biomechanics look very weird due to that.

That's why I'm contemplating doing femurs first and become disproportionate till I do tibia later. With +9 or even +10 femur I will look infinitely better in jeans and Chelsea boots and I will be able to wear untucked shirts without looking short. With tibia, I know that at most I can gain 5.5 cm and that won't change much compared with +9 or +10 femur (even with Q angle loss which is a mere 0.2-0.3 mm at most). And, no matter how much I lengthen my tibia, my short and stumpy thighs will make me look like a dwarf on stilts and I won't be able to wear untucked shirts and my walking will be weird and strides will be as short as it is now (long femur makes strides much longer than long tibia).

When I look in the mirror even with very high waist pants and tucked in shirt, especially with posterior view, my short thighs are very apparent and make me look very short and stocky. I want to get lean femurs and with femur LL those thick muscles will atrophy and my femurs will no longer look stumpy (especially with +10 cm lengthening). And, after +10 cm femur LL, I will be able to moderately buff them and still look sleek and tall without stumpy and midget like thighs.

As for tibia, I know that after +9 or +10 femur LL I will look really odd nked but I don't care, I will get tibia LL eventually after I remove femur nails (in about 2-3 years post nail removal). Before tibia LL, I will try to camouflage short tibia with +6 cm Don's elevator boots with long pants. I will stand at 180 cm tall with them and my legs will look really long and proportional with long pants.

[Body Builder]

Man, my problem is not only my short height of 165 cm but also very short and stocky legs, especially thighs. My tibia is also short but at least they are not bent and with Chelsea style elevator boots and long pants it looks fine. But, my short and stumpy thighs are a real issue which can't be camouflaged as easily as tibia with boots and long pants. I try to tuck in everything I wear and raise the pants as high as possible up to my waist but still look very short. My inseam from knee to crotch is very short and my walking biomechanics look very weird due to that.

That's why I'm contemplating doing femurs first and become disproportionate till I do tibia later. With +9 or even +10 femur I will look infinitely better in jeans and Chelsea boots and I will be able to wear untucked shirts without looking short. With tibia, I know that at most I can gain 5.5 cm and that won't change much compared with +9 or +10 femur (even with Q angle loss which is a mere 0.2-0.3 mm at most). And, no matter how much I lengthen my tibia, my short and stumpy thighs will make me look like a dwarf on stilts and I won't be able to wear untucked shirts and my walking will be weird and strides will be as short as it is now (long femur makes strides much longer than long tibia).

When I look in the mirror even with very high waist pants and tucked in shirt, especially with posterior view, my short thighs are very apparent and make me look very short and stocky. I want to get lean femurs and with femur LL those thick muscles will atrophy and my femurs will no longer look stumpy (especially with +10 cm lengthening). And, after +10 cm femur LL, I will be able to moderately buff them and still look sleek and tall without stumpy and midget like thighs.

As for tibia, I know that after +9 or +10 femur LL I will look really odd nked but I don't care, I will get tibia LL eventually after I remove femur nails (in about 2-3 years post nail removal). Before tibia LL, I will try to camouflage short tibia with +6 cm Don's elevator boots with long pants. I will stand at 180 cm tall with them and my legs will look really long and proportional with long pants.

With 9-10cm on femurs you will be crippled first of all. At least much more than doing 6.5cm on tibias instead of 5.5.
So if you are 1.65 a realistic gain with 2 LLs is something like 13-14cm at max (8cm femurs and 6cm tibias) which will make a huge difference that you can't even imagine. 9-10 cm on femurs won't offer you anything more while you will risk to end up crippled and for sure your biomechanics will be ruined.

[AnotherLLer]

I agree that more than 8 cm on femurs is risky but I don't want to lengthen my tibia first because that will make me look like a dwarf on stilts. With femurs, my overall leg length will dramatically increase, especially the distance from knee to crotch. Most tall men have long femurs that make them look long-legged when wearing jeans or other type of pants. I hate how I look in jeans or other pants due to short and stumpy femurs that make me look like a dwarf. And not only do I look like a dwarf but also I move like a dwarf due to those short and stumpy femurs. Especially from lateral view the movement looks odd due to short strides. I want to push femurs as much as possible, at least for solid 8 cm and if soft tissues allow, I might go for 9 cm in order to make them as long as possible as most height gain from LL comes from femurs and I don't want to overlengthen my tibia in order to get more height from those segments. I know that most people get ballerina foot after 5 cm so max 5.5 or 6 cm is what I think I will get from tibia and that's enough from those segments I think. It's femurs that should be lengthened reasonably if one wants to gain significant height from LL.

[AnotherLLer]

Body Builder:

Regarding LON femur, I do completely agree with you that it's barbaric, risky, etc. but I don't see a reason not risking it as my main concern is stumpy femurs and unless I get sheitton of money I won't be able to afford pure internal methods in my youth (I'm almost 30 BTW).

I can't live like that anymore because I want to benefit from it in my younger years, not in my late 40s and 50s or something.

I want to feel better about myself and at this height and proportions it's impossible. Even if I do 6 cm tibia, I won't feel good because of short and stumpy femurs that makes me look really short and disproportional.

What's the point in doing LL if after the procedure and recovery you won't feel good about yourself? Yes, I do understand that I won't look perfect until I do tibia too but tibia can be lengthened visually with elevator boots and long pants whilst femur can't. No matter how hard you try to elongate your femur, the distance from crotch to knee won't change compared with tibia when you wear high ankle boots and longer pants where the distance from knee to lower end of pants increases that makes the tibia appear longer visually.