Print

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

[theuprising]

For those on the forum wanting to justifying lengthening by saying that they are the exception and a wide variety of proportions exist among humans... bad news

"Fundamental mathematical relationships are widespread in biology yet there is little information on this topic with regard to human limb bone lengths and none related to human limb bone volumes. Forty-six sets of ipsilateral upper and lower limb long bones and third digit short bones were imaged by computed tomography. Maximum bone lengths were measured manually and individual bone volumes calculated from computed tomography images using a stereologic method. Length ratios of femur : tibia and humerus : ulna were remarkably similar (1.21 and 1.22, respectively) and varied little (<7%) between individuals"

"The most striking finding was a logarithmic periodicity in bone length moving from distal to proximal up the limb (upper limb λ = 0.72, lower limb λ = 0.93). These novel data suggest that human limb bone lengths and volumes follow fundamental and highly conserved mathematical relationships, which may contribute to our understanding of normal and disordered growth, stature estimation, and bio mechanics"


We're all fundamentally messing with our bodies it's really just a matter of degree.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633342/

Interesting to note only the volume ratio (bone thickness) had more variability.

Hope this helps those who are concerned about athletic recovery and bio mechanics in determining amount and segment.

[TIBIKE200]

If that's the case, than in my gym almost everyone did LL because I see men with long femurs and super short tibias and men with tibias sometimes even longer than their femurs.. And let's not talk about torso length...
 

[theuprising]

If that's the case, than in my gym almost everyone did LL because I see men with long femurs and super short tibias and men with tibias sometimes even longer than their femurs.. And let's not talk about torso length...
 

Of course, even though it occurs with such certainty that medical texts confidently state that the femur is the longest bone in the body yet in your gym you happen to see men with the reverse. Justify away.
People on here will use or make up any excuse to do whatever their plan is no matter evidence to the contrary. This thread is more for those accepting of reality and wanting to make informed choices.

[TIBIKE200]

Of course, even though it occurs with such certainty that medical texts confidently state that the femur is the longest bone in the body yet in your gym you happen to see men with the reverse. Justify away.
People on here will use or make up any excuse to do whatever their plan is no matter evidence to the contrary. This thread is more for those accepting of reality and wanting to make informed choices.

  Being the longest doesnt always mean you will have a longer thighs to calves ratio.. Depends on the curvature, the angle of the coxal-femural join and other anatomical features.. But hey, whatever makes you happy

They even themselves were suprised by the results which means that from an aesthetical perspective, the people that got measured had a viarity of proportions

[Daylight]

Of course, even though it occurs with such certainty that medical texts confidently state that the femur is the longest bone in the body yet in your gym you happen to see men with the reverse. Justify away.
People on here will use or make up any excuse to do whatever their plan is no matter evidence to the contrary. This thread is more for those accepting of reality and wanting to make informed choices.

Nice thread. Sweden must be very happy. He has been right all along I feel 5-7 cms of lengthening is the most acceptable proportion wise. Beyond that amount, it becomes noticeable. Just my opinion though.

[theuprising]

  Being the longest doesnt always mean you will have a longer thighs to calves ratio.. Depends on the curvature, the angle of the coxal-femural join and other anatomical features.. But hey, whatever makes you happy

You changed from your earlier statement that you'd seen men in your gym with tibias longer than their femurs. Now it's due to the muscle ratio?! Once again justify away.

femur [fe´mur] (pl. fem´ora, femurs) (L.)

1. the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee; the longest and strongest bone in the body. Its proximal end articulates with the acetabulum, a cup-like cavity in the pelvic girdle. The greater and lesser trochanters are the two processes (prominences) at the proximal end of the femur. See anatomic Table of Bones in the Appendices.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/femur

[TIBIKE200]

You changed from your earlier statement that you'd seen men in your gym with tibias longer than their femurs. Now it's due to the muscle ratio?! Once again justify away.

femur [fe´mur] (pl. fem´ora, femurs) (L.)

1. the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee; the longest and strongest bone in the body. Its proximal end articulates with the acetabulum, a cup-like cavity in the pelvic girdle. The greater and lesser trochanters are the two processes (prominences) at the proximal end of the femur. See anatomic Table of Bones in the Appendices.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/femur

Muscle ratio? I meant the curvature and the angle of the coxal femoral join (The femur's neck). Also looking at the reaserch, the table comparing europeans to asian indians new-zealanders shows that while europeans have longer femurs, the tibias are almost the same length.
 To be more specific, Europeans have on average, 20mm longer femurs.. While their Tibia is only 2-3mm longer on average than asian indians. Table 1

[theuprising]

Muscle ratio? I meant the curvature and the angle of the coxal femoral join (The femur's neck). Also looking at the reaserch, the table comparing europeans to asian indians new-zealanders shows that while europeans have longer femurs, the tibias are almost the same length.
 To be more specific, Europeans have on average, 20mm longer femurs.. While their Tibia is only 2-3mm longer on average than asian indians. Table 1

European male femur length mean =444.3mm
and tibia length= 354.3mm

10cm difference

Asian indian femur length mean= 425.4mm
and tibia length= 353.3mm

Just over 7cm difference

This is hardly the wide range of proportions that people claim that exist on the forum.

[TIBIKE200]

European male femur length mean =444.3mm
and tibia length= 354.3mm

10cm difference

Asian indian femur length mean= 425.4mm
and tibia length= 353.3mm

Just over 7cm difference

This is hardly the wide range of proportions that people claim that exist on the forum.

Btw, I was never one of the guys that said that you can lengthen 10cm per segment and look normal afterwards... Also, it means (atleast that's what I believe) that lengthening in the 2-3cm range wont make any change in terms of "normal proportions" while also doing 5-7cm wont make too noticble change because it will be only 2-4cm change from the normal worldwide range that is presented on this scientific paper

[theuprising]

Btw, I was never one of the guys that said that you can lengthen 10cm per segment and look normal afterwards... Also, it means (atleast that's what I believe) that lengthening in the 2-3cm range wont make any change in terms of "normal proportions" while also doing 5-7cm wont make too noticble change because it will be only 2-4cm change from the normal worldwide range that is presented on this scientific paper

I agree with your point 10cm on segment won't look normal and would put it lower at around 8cm. At this point clothing would have to be used to create the illusion of normalcy.

I believe 5-6cm can be done if the ratios are favorable. Ethnicity would also have to come into the equation.

[TIBIKE200]

I agree with your point 10cm on segment won't look normal and would put it lower at around 8cm. At this point clothing would have to be used to create the illusion of normalcy.

I believe 5-6cm can be done if the ratios are favorable. Ethnicity would also have to come into the equation.

Problem is that they put "whites" as a whole while the white "race" is made of many different races... Slavs, saxons, germans, scandinavians and Ashkenazi Jews are all white yet they are not the same... Afterwards there are middle eastern, Italians and spaniards and what not

[theuprising]

Problem is that they put "whites" as a whole while the white "race" is made of many different races... Slavs, saxons, germans, scandinavians and Ashkenazi Jews are all white yet they are not the same... Afterwards there are middle eastern, Italians and spaniards and what not

The category used was New Zealand European who are prominently of British descent. I think more people would categorize Italians and Spanish as white before jews.