Thank you, Name. I took some measurements with my stadiometer and found out that I go from 180,3 to 178,8 cm over the course of a normal day (these last few days, anyhow). It is possible that I may drop below 178,8 if I exert myself, but I don't think I would ever fall under 177,8 (plain 5'10).
My belly button is presently 108-109 cm above the ground. I plunged into the depths of proportion lore and learned that height:navel height should be equivalent to the golden ratio (~1.618:1), at least if the ancient Greek sculptors are to be trusted. 109*1.618 is 176,3 cm. If I were to lengthen my legs by 4 cm, I would become almost perfectly proportional (182-183:112-113).
Here's a picture of my body as it presently looks (the mirror/angle may distort things but I tried to minimize that). Yes, I know that I am skinny, I don't work out and don't eat enough food because I frequently have a bad stomach.
https://imgur.com/84vgQM8Arm length: 82 cm (acromion to tip of middle finger, I think most of my arm length is in my humerus as my hands are only 19,5 cm)
Biacromial breadth: 43-44 cm (very hard to tell exactly, but between those marks)
Biiliac width: 31 cm (I think my hips look a little wide, but what to do)
Skull height: very nearly 23 cm, so pretty much 9 inches on the nose (would make me eight heads tall at 6')
Shoe size: 43 EU (would be slightly smaller than average at 6', but that's alright)
As you can probably tell, proportionality is a major concern for me. However, I'd still take being 6' even if it meant sacrificing some of that.
Do you agree that, based on the pic (which may or may not give a sufficient idea, the mirror is slightly upward-tilted), that femurs would be the most aesthetically viable option for me?