And of course, I was right. Kunta kinte, like most average height people that visit this forum, at one point leave and never come back.
Certainly. Average height people from the tallest countries in the world won't stick around in a CLL forum much, after they truly learn about the procedures.
Reply to an earlier post: some Africans seem to have long legs.
https://ispub.com/IJBA/4/1/13635#
Southeastern Nigerian men have an average height of 179 cm with a leg length of 92 cm (subischial, so from groin to bottom of foot), which is pretty damn long! compared to a sitting height of about 89 cm.
So apparently somewhere in the world being a bit more than 50% leg is normal.
Regardless, according to some other graph I saw (on wiki I think) it's better for men to have a 1:1 height to leg length ratio but not more.
Sub-Saharan Africans (excluding groups such as the Khoisan and pygmy peoples) and Aboriginal Australians have longer limbs compared to their trunks (i.e. torsos) when compared to those of European ancestry. This is anthropometric data that has been known for almost a century now. Human proportions are not uniform across nature, so when analyzing all these studies you need to take into account the dominant ethnic group of the region that performed them.
Source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2872302/Ctrl + F "trunk" (5th hit) for the statement that "blacks" (i.e. most Sub-Saharan African peoples) have shorter trunks (torsos) and longer extremities when compared to "whites" of the same exact height.
Ctrl + F "aborigine" for the statements about their having the longest legs relative to their bodies when compared to any other human group. You can check out this
thread for pictures too.
This is the average natural human variation in sitting height ratio (SHR):Mean SHR for populations of adults varies from minimum values, i.e., relatively longest legs, for Australian Aborigines (SHR = 47.3 for men and 48.1 for women) to the maximum SHR values, i.e., relatively shortest legs, for Guatemala Maya men and Peruvian women (SHR = 54.6 and 55.8 ).
Whoa, whoa...Wait.
My height is 172 cm. Wingspan 183 cm...and sitting height is only 82.6 CM. Making the ratio .48. Two standard deviations below average.
CLL for my desired 2.2 inches would make my ratio .464 (82.6 cm / 178 cm) which isn't even on that chart above.
I doubt people in Australia bat an eye to the even longer than average legged Aboriginal Australian men. .465 is almost on the chart at 20. You'd be fine.
Either way, in CLL you have to choose between height (plus your endurance, mobility, job, pains, etc...) or your natural proportions. This is the nature of the beast.
So my sitting height is 88.5 cm at 168 cm of height. This means that my ratio is at approximately 0.53 or "+1."
It's closer to 0.525 (i.e. yours is ~0.527), but yeah, essentially +1 at fully grown (21).
I have a 96CM sitting height but I feel that, while a little long, my torso isn't freakishly or super long, just a little. I have very thick bones and I think that my groin bones must be responsible for my sitting height.
Good thing you stopped posting here and moved on. Being 178cm and having most of that be torso length is one of the best things you could ask for, at least as a man. Long legs are attractive, but long torsos are even more so, as long as you work on your shoulders. If you were naturally gifted with wide shoulders, it gets even better. With a good shoulder-to-waist ratio to go with your torso and your height, you don't even need to think about CLL. (And it seems you
don't anymore - which is great.)
Again, this is not to say I am opposed to people on the taller side (176cm+) getting CLL. But know your strengths instead of being insecure about little details.
Author
Topic: How tall are you? What is your wingspan and sitting height? (Read 50915 times)