Hi! I used to browse this forum a lot, but I haven't lately.
Initially I had hopes of doing 8cm femur and 6cm tibia and just going all in, however, reality catches up.
I have decided that I simply want to become at least 170 CM. My height seems to be around 166 (tried measuring just now and I am 165.5-166.5, kind of hard to measure without proper tools).
If I were to lengthen 3.5-5 cm (5 in case I am only 165), tibias are the obvious choice, but there is a problem:
I am currently using shoe lifts along with Nike Airmax, making me not look quite as short.
Were I to do tibia, I assume I would have to stop using them due to the screwed-up proportions?
This makes me more inclined to do Femurs, however, I have the stiffest legs ever.
If I try to bend forward to reach the ground, I can only reach my knees (I am extremely stiff). Meaning that femur would not work well for me? Or am I wrong?
Femurs would:
1) Allow me to lengthen a bit more (under normal circumstances at least. Meaning that I could reach 171-172.
2) Not make me look as weird if I were to combine it with Shoe Lifts.
3) Perhaps not be possible due to stiff hamstrings?
Tibia would:
1) Be half the cost of femurs, or even less. Meaning that I could afford it straight out of Uni (I have some savings, would convert to around 20-25k dollars)
2) Be possible(?). I don’t think my calves are as stiff as my hamstrings, if they are, I can do achilles tendon release.
About what doctor,
Femur: Is Mangal Parihar (and Precise 2) still the most cost-efficient (and realiable) way of doing femurs? I heard that the South African doctor quit.
Tibia: I am thinking of Catagni/Pili, they seemed good when I was researching a few years ago, being able to do the surgery in Europe would also be very preferable.
I am extremely confused. With this information, do any of you have any suggestions for how I should proceed?