Print

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

[Body Builder]

Wait, I thought the lengthening is like 0.5-1 mm per day, so for, say, 7 cm, it would be 70-140 days.

You need about 45 days per cm from operation day till fully bone consolodation, not.just lengthening.

[NailedLegs]

Funny thing you are planning on doing quadrilateral lengthening by up to 11,5 cm and you are calling ME crazy?

And just for the record, I am right now at this very moment in the middle of a bimax-surgery-process (jaw surgery). And do you want to know the best part? It's completely free for me! I live in a country with a publicly financed comprehensive healthcare system, and my case goes under specialised health care. So I am undergoing orthognathic surgery where they will perform a bimax and possibly a sliding genioplasty on me. My surgery will be in 1.5-2  years from now. I am now in partial braces and will get full on braces in the spring of next year. Only the braces themselves would cost me at least 6 000 euro if I would do it privately. The cost of the operation can go up to 150 000 ($) done in a private clinic in the USA. I went extatic with joy when I got opted for orthognatic surgery. And this is what opened a window for me to seriously consider undergoing LL.

The biggest question I have for now is: Should I do my quadrilateral LL BEFORE or AFTER my bimax surgery? That is the question. Could you give any advice or input in that?

While 11.5cm is "a lot", it's not "crazy"--quadrilateral, not single segment. Unless you consider all LL to be crazy, which many think it is. 7cm femur, 4.5cm tibia is within the safe range.

Congratulations on the bimax surgery and braces. That will without a doubt do FAR MORE for you than LL ever will. How is your hairline? If you're a Norwood 3+, do a hair transplant before LL. I'm being brutally honest with you on what will have the highest ROI.

My recommendation? Get LL after bimax. Why? Because you may change your mind. You may get bimax, get great results and a general quality of life increase that you're looking for professionally and romantically, and realize it's not your height holding you back.

[Kintaeryos]

You need about 45 days per cm from operation day till fully bone consolodation, not.just lengthening.

Got it, thanks

[Sky is the Limit]

Look, as a guy who did the surgery...
I don't know you, and you asked for advise, that's what I have to offer. You can like or not it's up to you, it comes from an honest will to help.

People get in this forum into long debates about this surgery and the procedure, tibia or femur, 4 or 5 or 5.5 or 8 cm, proportions, etc etc....its easy to get caught in this and feel like this is your world when in fact, it's not. The real world is out there and it's full of people who think this surgery is pure crazy. And it includes many shorter guys. Shorter than average guys who of course would love to be taller but in no way in hell would consider go through this risky journey. Many girls (which obviously women are a huge reason for guys to do this) actually look down at a guy who did this kind of a surgery because it shows a serious lack of self confidence, some inferiority issues, superficiality and even lack of a mature judgement. I think a decent woman would prefer a shorter guy with confidence and charisma over a taller guy who got this surgery to be tall.
So in other words - try not to mix the guys in here and this forum with the real, sane people that are out there, which we all were a part of before this surgery infected our minds:)

Obviously, significantly shorter guys or girls that are met with this in every single social interaction or even on their own dealing with being below 1 percentile, would probably have a just case of going through this risky journey because the benefit outweigh the risks.
But for a person who is in a decent height? That's just unnecessary risk.
And for all your talk about being taller makes it less risky because of proportions etc, or even discussing whats the "safest" method, I'm sorry to say but thats just bullcrap.
You break your bones and practically maim your most essential function of your body - the ability to walk. Yes it may recover to normality but hardly it ever goes 100 percent normal and for a healthy, normal person to do it to his body,  is pretty much cruelty. So for a normal height guy? That's plain crazy.
I actually think it's crazy for people of all heights even the shortest....but I guess some craziness is more justified than others.

That is my opinion only and I wish only the happiness and th best to everyone

You are starting of very nicely, but your post as a whole does not make any sense and lacks any concrete information. You are not giving any constructive arguments to why it is not less risky to undergo LL with a higher starting height. Could you elaborate more on the bolded part? Why is it bullcrap?

I have already given my own arguments and explained why the benefits would outweigh the risks in my case. The lengthening amounts are very minor in proportion to the initial length of my bones and therefore it is much easier for my body to adjust to the new length. The problem with LL is not the breaking of the bones, because bones heal. The problem with LL is rather the extending of the muscles and nerves by too much. If you ask any doctor, most of them would choose to have a broken bone rather than to receive an injury to the soft tissue of the body, because bones heal easily.

You mention that you have undergone the procedure yourself. Are you happy with the results? What was your starting height and what is your current height? Did you encounter any complications during or after LL? If so, what kind of complications? Which country did you do the LL in and what doctor did perform the LL on you? You can also answer these questions via PM.

[Sky is the Limit]

Quadrilateral lengthening is always riskier than lengthening one segment. For some people it is the only way to reach a normal height but for a 6ft dude to do both segments with ridiculous amounts like 3cm on tibias is just a stupid idea. LL is the most invasive, risky and extreme cosmetic surgery, nothing to do with gnathoplasty and all these. Also, noone will be as before, even if he just lengthens 2cm. It is hillarious to believe that with quadriple LL, even with relatively low amounts, you will function as before, because you want.
And no, with 6cm on femurs and 3cm on tibias you won't keep your proportions right because femurs are not double the size of the tibias so to keep proportions you should have done something like 4cm on femurs and 3.on tibias.
Still the biomechanics will be altered with LL no.matter what. And by not even waiting to fully.consolidate from one segment and then do the other but do both of them with just a few weeks break between them is also a bad decision.
Anyway, you are some of the few cases here who really won't have any benefit from LL and no responsible doctor  should  even operate them. Still, I wish you luck and my 2 cents is just do 5cm on femur and stop there, if you really need extra height. But your body.your decision.

Could you explain why it is more riskier to undergo two separate lengthenings where the amount of the lengthening is well within the safety-limit and make up only a small percentage of the initial bone length compared to undergoing a huge lengthening in one segment, where you are stretching the muscles and nerves by far more and closer to the absolute safety limit? Many people on this forum have stated that it is far more safer in the long run to make two separate, but smaller lengthenings in two segments, than to make a huge stretch in only one segment. Going the easy way and only lengthening the femurs is not an option for me, since it will forever skew the proportions and will permanently change and affect the biomechanics and range of motions in the legs. By lengthening both tibias and femurs way within the safety limits you preserve the biomechanics and range of motion between the legs and won't have to adjust to a completely new biomechanical range of motion. If you are doing quadrilateral lengthening, you are getting longer legs that you have to adjust to, but the ratios will stay as intact as possible. The muscles and nerves will also adjust more easily due to the minor stretching that they undergo.

[YOUNGandSTRONG]

u could go for 6'2, also a great height as 6'4. In my opinion both are perfect height range for a man these days

[Body Builder]

Could you explain why it is more riskier to undergo two separate lengthenings where the amount of the lengthening is well within the safety-limit and make up only a small percentage of the initial bone length compared to undergoing a huge lengthening in one segment, where you are stretching the muscles and nerves by far more and closer to the absolute safety limit? Many people on this forum have stated that it is far more safer in the long run to make two separate, but smaller lengthenings in two segments, than to make a huge stretch in only one segment. Going the easy way and only lengthening the femurs is not an option for me, since it will forever skew the proportions and will permanently change and affect the biomechanics and range of motions in the legs. By lengthening both tibias and femurs way within the safety limits you preserve the biomechanics and range of motion between the legs and won't have to adjust to a completely new biomechanical range of motion. If you are doing quadrilateral lengthening, you are getting longer legs that you have to adjust to, but the ratios will stay as intact as possible. The muscles and nerves will also adjust more easily due to the minor stretching that they undergo.

Because.the surgery.itself has many risks first of all. 2 surgeries,.double the risks.
Also, messing both segments is way worse than lengthening one segment to a safe amount and leave the other segment completely untouched. Because LL alters everything amd even with 3 cm your tibias won't be the same, the soft tissues will be sttetchen and become stiffer which will cause problems to ankle also etc.
Never doing both segments is not better.than doing one, never doing 4+2 cm on femurs and tibias will be safer than doing.6cm on femurs only.
10.years ago quadrilateral was very rare and only for very short people and nowadays many like you are willing to break all their bones in legs for ridiculous amounts and doctors are.willing to do it for double the money that they would get. Otherwise no real.doctor would have done quadrilaterals to people like you, only moneyhungry merchants.

[Kintaeryos]

Because.the surgery.itself has many risks first of all. 2 surgeries,.double the risks.
Also, messing both segments is way worse than lengthening one segment to a safe amount and leave the other segment completely untouched. Because LL alters everything amd even with 3 cm your tibias won't be the same, the soft tissues will be sttetchen and become stiffer which will cause problems to ankle also etc.
Never doing both segments is not better.than doing one, never doing 4+2 cm on femurs and tibias will be safer than doing.6cm on femurs only.
10.years ago quadrilateral was very rare and only for very short people and nowadays many like you are willing to break all their bones in legs for ridiculous amounts and doctors are.willing to do it for double the money that they would get. Otherwise no real.doctor would have done quadrilaterals to people like you, only moneyhungry merchants.

You keep saying "ridiculous amounts". What do you mean by that? OP has clearly stated he wants to do 8-10 cm, a very standard but also decent amount, he just wants to distribute it along two smaller segments to lengthen even further below the safety limits than it would be with just femur, and to preserve his tibia/femur ratio and thus biomechanics. Also, not everyone has normal-looking legs pre-LL, some people's tibia/femur ratio is already at the limits of statistical normality and can't do single LL without ending up with weird-looking legs they have to live with for the rest of their lives, worry about having to cover up, going to the beach etc. Just like some people have a short arm span/height ratio and have to do arm lengthening to avoid "t-rex arms" after LL (though Paley has said this is rare).
Does your argument mainly boil down to "LL is risky, so doing it twice is riskier, therefore double LL should be avoided as much as possible in favor of single LL"?

[Body Builder]

You keep saying "ridiculous amounts". What do you mean by that? OP has clearly stated he wants to do 8-10 cm, a very standard but also decent amount, he just wants to distribute it along two smaller segments to lengthen even further below the safety limits than it would be with just femur, and to preserve his tibia/femur ratio and thus biomechanics. Also, not everyone has normal-looking legs pre-LL, some people's tibia/femur ratio is already at the limits of statistical normality and can't do single LL without ending up with weird-looking legs they have to live with for the rest of their lives, worry about having to cover up, going to the beach etc. Just like some people have a short arm span/height ratio and have to do arm lengthening to avoid "t-rex arms" after LL (though Paley has said this is rare).
Does your argument mainly boil down to "LL is risky, so doing it twice is riskier, therefore double LL should be avoided as much as possible in favor of single LL"?

3cm is a ridiculous amount to break your legs for that.
If you are willing to do tibias you should do 5-6.5 cm to really worth it. Otherwise stick with 6-7 cm on femurs and nothing more.
OP will be tall even with 6cm added on femurs.which is a reasonable and relatively safe amount and nothing else. By breaking the tibias for 3cm he won't gain anything in reality. The biomechanics won't be ok with 7cm on femurs and 3on tibias, the difference should have been something like 6cm on femurs and 4,5 on tibias. Still the biomechanics will be altered.from LL no matter what, even if the ratio between femurs and tibias would remain the same (which it won't with 7 and 3 cm).
And of course.doing 2 surgeries instead of 1, especially as he wrote he would do them (not the second after completely rehabilitation of the first but with only some weeks difference) is an extra recipe for disaster.

But I'll wait for his diary and see if he will do it first of all and especially if he goes with tibias too after seeing how extreme LL is . Because most of people who talk about that ridiculous amounts (most of the times already average or tall) never do it, at least not as they planned it. They do one segment at best and just that.

[Kintaeryos]

3cm is a ridiculous amount to break your legs for that.
If you are willing to do tibias you should do 5-6.5 cm to really worth it. Otherwise stick with 6-7 cm on femurs and nothing more.
OP will be tall even with 6cm added on femurs.which is a reasonable and relatively safe amount and nothing else. By breaking the tibias for 3cm he won't gain anything in reality. The biomechanics won't be ok with 7cm on femurs and 3on tibias, the difference should have been something like 6cm on femurs and 4,5 on tibias. Still the biomechanics will be altered.from LL no matter what, even if the ratio between femurs and tibias would remain the same (which it won't with 7 and 3 cm).
And of course.doing 2 surgeries instead of 1, especially as he wrote he would do them (not the second after completely rehabilitation of the first but with only some weeks difference) is an extra recipe for disaster.

But I'll wait for his diary and see if he will do it first of all and especially if he goes with tibias too after seeing how extreme LL is . Because most of people who talk about that ridiculous amounts (most of the times already average or tall) never do it, at least not as they planned it. They do one segment at best and just that.

Assuming someone has normal tibias and femurs pre-LL, do you think 7 cm femurs-only will make a noticeable difference in how the legs look?

[Body Builder]

Assuming someone has normal tibias and femurs pre-LL, do you think 7 cm femurs-only will make a noticeable difference in how the legs look?

A noticeable, if you mean plain obvious with clothes on, definitely not.
I did 7.5 cm on tibias and I look great with clothes. And 7.5cm on tibias look definitely more disproportional than 7cm on femurs.

That said, without clothes there would be a little discrepancy but only to the experienced eye of an LLer. A normal person I don't think it will look twice or see something abnormal.
Again with my personal experience, I have some scars on tibias and they are relatively long compared to my femurs, still noone ever thought that something was not right when I am with underwear or a swimsuit.

So no, I don't beliebe that 7cm in femurs in normally proportional legs (before LL) would make a visible difference to how the legs look. But it will make a big difference to how tall you are.

[Kintaeryos]

A noticeable, if you mean plain obvious with clothes on, definitely not.
I did 7.5 cm on tibias and I look great with clothes. And 7.5cm on tibias look definitely more disproportional than 7cm on femurs.

That said, without clothes there would be a little discrepancy but only to the experienced eye of an LLer. A normal person I don't think it will look twice or see something abnormal.
Again with my personal experience, I have some scars on tibias and they are relatively long compared to my femurs, still noone ever thought that something was not right when I am with underwear or a swimsuit.

So no, I don't beliebe that 7cm in femurs in normally proportional legs (before LL) would make a visible difference to how the legs look. But it will make a big difference to how tall you are.

7 cm on tibias? Interesting, first time I hear that. What made you decide on that and not femurs?

[Body Builder]

7 cm on tibias? Interesting, first time I hear that. What made you decide on that and not femurs?

Because I wanted to do externals (for budget issues and safety too for reasons I have explained in other posts) and also I find longer tibias (from LL) more aesthetic than femurs. I did 7,5 cm and never regretted it.

[CLLvet]

I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer). 

What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet. 

So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially. 

However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".   

[slowed & reverb]

I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer). 

What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet. 

So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially. 

However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".

I am the same height as you were originally, 176-7 and I plan to do quad too, but shorter. Would you mind showing your proportions before and after

[CLLvet]

Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?

[CLLvet]

Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?

[slowed & reverb]

Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?

normal stature photos with clothes, before and after, front size is enough i guess. Also, how much is your wingspan?

[Kintaeryos]

I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer). 

What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet. 

So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially. 

However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".

Wow dude, 174 to 188 is an insane jump. From below average to within the ideal male height range. Did you write diaries for your two lengthenings?

[Beemer m3]

Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?

How was ur lordosis after femur lengthening? I can imagine it was severe.

[CLLvet]

@slowed & reverb- At the moment, I prefer not to post pics of me on a public form (even with my face cropped out). However, if you shoot me a Private Message (PM) on here, I can send you the photos that I have.

Keep in mind, I may not have a lot of full-body photos from before the surgeries. I suffered from pretty severe height dysphoria at the time and largely avoided taking photos full body, standing up.

I have never measured my wingspan as I was simply never interested in that data point. And I hate the act of any part of my body being measured (due to the dysphoria).

Propotion-wise today, nobody thinks anything is "off" with my body. Obviously my legs are a bit long for my torso, but I have never had anyone (including women I am dating) even suspect for a moment that something is out of proportion or not right.  They just look at me and see a tall, fit guy.

But again, I can send you some pics over PM and you can be the judge.

[CLLvet]

Wow dude, 174 to 188 is an insane jump. From below average to within the ideal male height range. Did you write diaries for your two lengthenings?

Thanks Kintaeryos, yes it was definitely a journey. I did not post a diary on the forum because I was very single-minded during my journey and I simply wanted to get through it without distractions, if that makes sense.

However, over the years, I have been putting together my "Guide to Limb Lengthening." It started as a personal diary/ journey to help me reflect on the experience and I never planned to show it to anybody else. However, it has turned into more of a practical guide that could help other LL'ers. I tried to go into detail on topics I wish I had known before my surgery. Like logistical matters, lessons learned, things I would have done differently, tips on how to select accommodation, questions to ask surgeons when you first interview them, how to keep this surgery private from family members and coworkers, etc. The privacy was something I made some mistakes on and I would do different now if I could turn back time.

And now that this journey is behind me, I want to give back to the community and share my experiences. So I will try to figure out a way to share it with the community, if that is something that people can find useful.

I feel that forum diaries can be useful, but they are somewhat too personally oriented to apply to a lot of people and be practical. I did read through a lot of diaries myself before getting the procedures. However, I found the content in the diaries a bit overwhelming and challenging to navigate, especially if the diaries began to span pages and pages in length. At times, it was also depressing and confusing. It was hard extracting the important/ applicable parts.

Everyone will have aches and pains, but your experience in terms of pain will differ a lot from the individual posting the diary. Having gone through it twice now), I feel that a practical guide (condensed, easy to follow, sequenced) focusing on lessons learned, logistics, etc is what can really help out a lot of people.

So long story short, those are some of the reasons I never wrote a diary on here. But I am trying to put together content right now that hopefully might be even more helpful. Again, thanks for your comment and your questions.   

[CLLvet]

How was ur lordosis after femur lengthening? I can imagine it was severe.

It actually wasn't so bad. I did have some duckass. What I found most helpful to help these kinds of posture/ physical problems was:

-Stretching my quads as much as possible through the standing quad stretch (standing up and pulling my feet to my butt)
-Strengthening my glutes and hamstrings at the gym through leg curl exercises (lay down on your stomach and pull the weight to your butt)

I really did almost no formal physical therapy once I completed lengthening and I still found these issues eventually resolved with time, without me doing much (besides walking and some exercises I just mentioned). But I would recommend someone try to continue with physical therapy in the consolidation phase. Your recovery will speed up and you will feel much better.

[Sky is the Limit]

Because.the surgery.itself has many risks first of all. 2 surgeries,.double the risks.
Also, messing both segments is way worse than lengthening one segment to a safe amount and leave the other segment completely untouched. Because LL alters everything amd even with 3 cm your tibias won't be the same, the soft tissues will be sttetchen and become stiffer which will cause problems to ankle also etc.
Never doing both segments is not better.than doing one, never doing 4+2 cm on femurs and tibias will be safer than doing.6cm on femurs only.
10.years ago quadrilateral was very rare and only for very short people and nowadays many like you are willing to break all their bones in legs for ridiculous amounts and doctors are.willing to do it for double the money that they would get. Otherwise no real.doctor would have done quadrilaterals to people like you, only moneyhungry merchants.

Yes, the soft tissues will always be stretched when undergoing LL, but it is always safer to stretch as little as possible. For example, the risk of complications to the ankle is by far greater in a situation where a tibia has been stretched by 7,5 cm than compared to a tibia that has been lengthened by only 3,5-4 cm. Wouldn't you agree? Also, the effects of the stretching also depends on the initial length of the bone that is being stretched. The less the bone is lengthened in proportion to its original length, the better it is and the less taxing it is for the leg. The risk of complications also drops significantly the less the amount of lengthening is in relation to the initial bone length.

And by the way. Just to point it out for you. First you write that the soft tissue will be stretched, and right after that you say that it is better to stretch more than less. I am sorry, but your reasoning does not make any sense. The majority of people on this forum agree that doing two separate lengthenings within the safe limits (if there actually are any "true" safe limits) is far better than making a huge stretch in only one segment. For example, a stretch of 5 cm femur + 3,75 cm tibia is better than stretching the tibia or femur alone by 8-9 cm.

[Sky is the Limit]

3cm is a ridiculous amount to break your legs for that.
If you are willing to do tibias you should do 5-6.5 cm to really worth it. Otherwise stick with 6-7 cm on femurs and nothing more.
OP will be tall even with 6cm added on femurs.which is a reasonable and relatively safe amount and nothing else. By breaking the tibias for 3cm he won't gain anything in reality. The biomechanics won't be ok with 7cm on femurs and 3on tibias, the difference should have been something like 6cm on femurs and 4,5 on tibias. Still the biomechanics will be altered.from LL no matter what, even if the ratio between femurs and tibias would remain the same (which it won't with 7 and 3 cm).
And of course.doing 2 surgeries instead of 1, especially as he wrote he would do them (not the second after completely rehabilitation of the first but with only some weeks difference) is an extra recipe for disaster.

But I'll wait for his diary and see if he will do it first of all and especially if he goes with tibias too after seeing how extreme LL is . Because most of people who talk about that ridiculous amounts (most of the times already average or tall) never do it, at least not as they planned it. They do one segment at best and just that.

Take a ruler and see how much 3,5-3,75 cm really is. It is quite a significant amount. Then put the ruler above your knee. Now you will see how much longer your tibia will be after the LL. It makes up quite a difference. Some people only need that little extra to reach their ideal height. The ideal height may differ between people, but the universal consensus for ideal male height is usually between 6'2-6'4" (Western world). My own ideal height is 6'3".

As I wrote in my initial post, the amounts that I am going to lengthen is not written in stone. The final amounts of lengthenings will be determined after consultation with a doctor. If 7 cm (femur) and 3 cm (tibia) is not close to proportional, then I will of course adjust the amounts of lengths and choose the best ratio. I will probably also end up lengthening only up to 8,5 cm, since my height goal is between 191-192 cm.

It might end up that the ratio between the tibia and femur will be something like 5 cm (femur) + 3,75 cm (tibia), whichever amounts of lengths are the most proportional to the original ratio between the bone lengths. By lengthening both segments equally much in proportion to the original ratio, the more intact the biomechanics will be. However, if you lengthen only the femur by up to 7 cm, and the tibia with 0 cm, the ratio will definitely not be the same and as good compared to a situation where both segments are lengthened proportionally.

Why would it be an extra recipe for disaster to do both surgeries in one go and be done with it all, if there are good prerequisites for undergoing the LL?

[Sky is the Limit]

I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer). 

What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet. 

So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially. 

However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".

Wow! Thanks for your input! Very nice to hear about your LL experience and how it has affected your life. I am very glad for you.

As I have mentioned somewhere in this thread, I know that I would benefit both proportionally and aesthetically as a whole with a little longer legs. I also see myself as above 190 cm, and the thought of reaching that height simply makes me happy. I also live in Scandinavia, where 6 feet is dead average - above average at best. Going from 6 feet to 6'3" would definitely have a positive impact on my life, but mostly on my own self image, and that is the most important part and reason to make an adjustment to one's height. While 6'3" is tall, I don't consider it very tall. To me, it's just an impressive height.

[Body Builder]

Take a ruler and see how much 3,5-3,75 cm really is. It is quite a significant amount. Then put the ruler above your knee. Now you will see how much longer your tibia will be after the LL. It makes up quite a difference. Some people only need that little extra to reach their ideal height. The ideal height may differ between people, but the universal consensus for ideal male height is usually between 6'2-6'4" (Western world). My own ideal height is 6'3".

As I wrote in my initial post, the amounts that I am going to lengthen is not written in stone. The final amounts of lengthenings will be determined after consultation with a doctor. If 7 cm (femur) and 3 cm (tibia) is not close to proportional, then I will of course adjust the amounts of lengths and choose the best ratio. I will probably also end up lengthening only up to 8,5 cm, since my height goal is between 191-192 cm.

It might end up that the ratio between the tibia and femur will be something like 5 cm (femur) + 3,75 cm (tibia), whichever amounts of lengths are the most proportional to the original ratio between the bone lengths. By lengthening both segments equally much in proportion to the original ratio, the more intact the biomechanics will be. However, if you lengthen only the femur by up to 7 cm, and the tibia with 0 cm, the ratio will definitely not be the same and as good compared to a situation where both segments are lengthened proportionally.

Why would it be an extra recipe for disaster to do both surgeries in one go and be done with it all, if there are good prerequisites for undergoing the LL?

Nowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.

[Kintaeryos]

Nowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.

You're still not addressing the biomechanics point or the fact that lengthening the tibias by 2-3 cm and the femurs by 4-5 cm should in principle be safer than lengthening only the femurs by 7-8 cm. What are your arguments? What are you basing your claims on? And OK maybe you think OP doesn't need LL cause he already has a decent height, but I have similar questions and I'm a much lower height (and I also want about 7-8 cm lengthening) so that doesn't apply to me. Pretend I'm the one who asked.

[Sky is the Limit]

Nowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.

My height goal i 6'3", which is pretty close to an ideal male height in the western world. I mention the range 6'2-6'4" just to point out that all the heights between 190 cm - 193 cm are being considered, since they all fall into the ideal range of male height, at least in my own opinion. My height goal is not to reach 193 cm or above, but somewhere around 190-192 cm, i.e. somewhere between 6'3 feet and 6'4 feet, but under 6'4 feet. For example, reaching 188-189 cm would not be enough for me. Since I am already +180 cm, the next milestone is 190 cm and above. I would not be satisfied with lengthening only my femurs, since that would leave me in the 180 cm-somewhere height range, considering the max amounts that I am planning to lenghthen each segment (5,75 cm for the femur, for example), and therefore not allow me to reach 190 cm (barefoot night height). I myself care about my height. I don't put much emphasis on what other people think. I am adjusting my height for myself only and for my self-image. The rest I consider as just a bonus.

[Sky is the Limit]

While 11.5cm is "a lot", it's not "crazy"--quadrilateral, not single segment. Unless you consider all LL to be crazy, which many think it is. 7cm femur, 4.5cm tibia is within the safe range.

Congratulations on the bimax surgery and braces. That will without a doubt do FAR MORE for you than LL ever will. How is your hairline? If you're a Norwood 3+, do a hair transplant before LL. I'm being brutally honest with you on what will have the highest ROI.

My recommendation? Get LL after bimax. Why? Because you may change your mind. You may get bimax, get great results and a general quality of life increase that you're looking for professionally and romantically, and realize it's not your height holding you back.

My hairline is fine. As I have mentioned later on in this thread, the reason I am adjusting my height is for myself only and for my self-image.

Thanks for your advice regarding bimax. I have to be in braces for quite a while before my bimax-surgery though, so the operation will not be until somewhere around two years from now, which means there is quite some time for me to wait. If I had the money and the perfect time window for LL before my bimax, I would go for the quadrilateral lengthening just to be done with it once and for all.

[Body Builder]

You're still not addressing the biomechanics point or the fact that lengthening the tibias by 2-3 cm and the femurs by 4-5 cm should in principle be safer than lengthening only the femurs by 7-8 cm. What are your arguments? What are you basing your claims on? And OK maybe you think OP doesn't need LL cause he already has a decent height, but I have similar questions and I'm a much lower height (and I also want about 7-8 cm lengthening) so that doesn't apply to me. Pretend I'm the one who asked.

The biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken  and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).

If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.