Print

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

[oklama]

OK so I got sick of the waffling back in forth here on this forum. so I actually looked for REAL DATA regarding the biggest two concerns for proportions for CLL patients

first arm length: Arm length was found to have NO real correlation to attractiveness (to women, not insecure proportion obsessed people on this forum) at amounts plus or minus 3 standard deviations. I couldn't find what SD this study used. but another study has the average percentage of wingspan to height at 102.4% with a sd of 2.7%.  This means having a wingspan to height ratio of 94.3 - 110.5% will not affect how attractive you look. this would generally mean that, for example, a 72 inch tall person would need a (slightly below) 68 inch wing span.

Now Leg to body ratio (as far as im aware this is the same as SHR, if not let me know): leg to body ratio actually DOES have an effect on attractiveness, however the people on this forum tell you not to cross 50% and if you do you will look like a freak.... well thats entirely wrong. The study found that 50% is the ideal most attractive leg to body ratio ( pretty sure this is what Da Vinci said as well). They tested values of 0.447, 0.462, 0.477, 0.491, 0.506, 0.521 and 0.535, with lower indicating shorter legs. While 50% was found to be the best in general... check out this chart.



Values in the range of -1 - 2sds have nearly the same rating of attractiveness, all being better than -2/3 and +3.

So essentially anything in the range  of 0.477-0.521 leg to body ratio (this would mean 0.523-0.479% SHR) would be  the best values

studies cited:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171790 ( you can see the arms chart here, its basically flat )
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170399


I am aware the way ive came to these conclusions is a little bit sloppy so have a margin of error here, but it's definitely interesting to look at the this data. everyone please check my work and ensure I havent majorly screwed up somewhere here, im prone to small mistakes. Lets all help ourselves make the best decisions

[EndGame]

OK so I got sick of the waffling back in forth here on this forum. so I actually looked for REAL DATA regarding the biggest two concerns for proportions for CLL patients

first arm length: Arm length was found to have NO real correlation to attractiveness (to women, not insecure proportion obsessed people on this forum) at amounts plus or minus 3 standard deviations. I couldn't find what SD this study used. but another study has the average percentage of wingspan to height at 102.4% with a sd of 2.7%.  This means having a wingspan to height ratio of 94.3 - 110.5% will not affect how attractive you look. this would generally mean that, for example, a 72 inch tall person would need a (slightly below) 68 inch wing span.

Now Leg to body ratio (as far as im aware this is the same as SHR, if not let me know): leg to body ratio actually DOES have an effect on attractiveness, however the people on this forum tell you not to cross 50% and if you do you will look like a freak.... well thats entirely wrong. The study found that 50% is the ideal most attractive leg to body ratio ( pretty sure this is what Da Vinci said as well). They tested values of 0.447, 0.462, 0.477, 0.491, 0.506, 0.521 and 0.535, with lower indicating shorter legs. While 50% was found to be the best in general... check out this chart.



Values in the range of -1 - 2sds have nearly the same rating of attractiveness, all being better than -2/3 and +3.

So essentially anything in the range  of 0.477-0.521 leg to body ratio (this would mean 0.523-0.479% SHR) would be  the best values

studies cited:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171790 ( you can see the arms chart here, its basically flat )
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170399


I am aware the way ive came to these conclusions is a little bit sloppy so have a margin of error here, but it's definitely interesting to look at the this data. everyone please check my work and ensure I havent majorly screwed up somewhere here, im prone to small mistakes. Lets all help ourselves make the best decisions

I've come across this research before. It's quite useful, but you've made flawed conclusions. They define leg length as height up to the trochanter landmark less ankle height. Then LBR they define as that leg length over total height. So it's definitely NOT the case that in this study LBR = 1 - SHR. They'll end up similar but slightly different. That's why you've mistakenly concluded that going below 0.50 on SHR is no big deal. Some people will look fine below 0.50 but it's more like 0.50 or higher SHR and you are fine but below that do mock-ups and give it some serious thought. 0.497 is 1 stdev below the mean on the main study everyone looks at but it's for Dutch men. Dutch are both a little taller and leggier than most populations. The 0.50 is a good guideline but everyone is different. Long arms or thick muscular legs I think often let some people look better than others below 0.50. There was a recent thread with a guy whose picture was him post LL a bit below 0.48 and folks generally agreed it looked off and bad. The good news is a half stdev leggier than mean is ideal so that helps us LLers in general. Anyway, sorry to rain on your parade but you didn't read closely and you are simply mistaken.

Re arms I've seen that they don't matter before. Still scratching my head over that as it's at odds with my life experience which admittedly statistically is simply anecdotal evidence and not reliable. I'd like to see a study done with pictures of real people instead of silhouettes. That would be far more convincing for me, but no studies saying short arms matter or are bad yet to my knowledge. My take is this though... Women may not notice it right away, it might be at the bottom of their list, but I think once a woman does finally notice short arms or anything 2 stdev away from mean, they won't stop noticing and will care. Keep in mind the way this study was designed, if women do care on arms but legs are 3x more important then automatically this study would incorrectly show zero impact from arms. Whether short, average or long arms, the pictures get basically ranked on legs regardless. A study with all identical SHR and only arm length varied would be much more informative. If they did a study like that I suspect the results would show arm length preferences, but if it didn't then I'd actual trust the results and conclusion that arm length does not matter. Read the study closely especially on methodology and what I've explained should become clear.

[oklama]

I've come across this research before. It's quite useful, but you've made flawed conclusions. They define leg length as height up to the trochanter landmark less ankle height. Then LBR they define as that leg length over total height. So it's definitely NOT the case that in this study LBR = 1 - SHR. They'll end up similar but slightly different. That's why you've mistakenly concluded that going below 0.50 on SHR is no big deal. Some people will look fine below 0.50 but it's more like 0.50 or higher SHR and you are fine but below that do mock-ups and give it some serious thought. 0.497 is 1 stdev below the mean on the main study everyone looks at but it's for Dutch men. Dutch are both a little taller and leggier than most populations. The 0.50 is a good guideline but everyone is different. Long arms or thick muscular legs I think often let some people look better than others below 0.50. There was a recent thread with a guy whose picture was him post LL a bit below 0.48 and folks generally agreed it looked off and bad. The good news is a half stdev leggier than mean is ideal so that helps us LLers in general. Anyway, sorry to rain on your parade but you didn't read closely and you are simply mistaken.

Re arms I've seen that they don't matter before. Still scratching my head over that as it's at odds with my life experience which admittedly statistically is simply anecdotal evidence and not reliable. I'd like to see a study done with pictures of real people instead of silhouettes. That would be far more convincing for me, but no studies saying short arms matter or are bad yet to my knowledge. My take is this though... Women may not notice it right away, it might be at the bottom of their list, but I think once a woman does finally notice short arms or anything 2 stdev away from mean, they won't stop noticing and will care. Keep in mind the way this study was designed, if women do care on arms but legs are 3x more important then automatically this study would incorrectly show zero impact from arms. Whether short, average or long arms, the pictures get basically ranked on legs regardless. A study with all identical SHR and only arm length varied would be much more informative. If they did a study like that I suspect the results would show arm length preferences, but if it didn't then I'd actual trust the results and conclusion that arm length does not matter. Read the study closely especially on methodology and what I've explained should become clear.

there is a graph of arms alone on the first study and it shows no preference

I dont understand how 2stdev of leg length would not equal 2 stdev sitting height, because they would be linked 1:1 except in cases of very fat or muscular people which would be averaged out. I get that the measurement may be different a little bit but the stdev would be exactly linked. and it checks with the dutch study. and honestly the study being of dutch people doesn't matter to me because im white so if the dutch dont look weird doing it I wouldn't either. Please explain on why the stdev would not be the same/linked. dutch study shows slightly below .48 being -2stdev and this study shows 0.521  being +2 stdev, these nearly exactly match. With the same height, is it possible to have +2stdev leg length and not have -2stdev sitting height? Im not sure if im right but it's not making sense to me. The numbers wouldn't map but the Standard deviation values would map
 

[more]

Leg to body ratio depends on countries . Asian countries like Korea , Singapore or china they prefer long legs

[informationispower]

I've come across this research before. It's quite useful, but you've made flawed conclusions. They define leg length as height up to the trochanter landmark less ankle height. Then LBR they define as that leg length over total height. So it's definitely NOT the case that in this study LBR = 1 - SHR. They'll end up similar but slightly different. That's why you've mistakenly concluded that going below 0.50 on SHR is no big deal. Some people will look fine below 0.50 but it's more like 0.50 or higher SHR and you are fine but below that do mock-ups and give it some serious thought. 0.497 is 1 stdev below the mean on the main study everyone looks at but it's for Dutch men. Dutch are both a little taller and leggier than most populations. The 0.50 is a good guideline but everyone is different. Long arms or thick muscular legs I think often let some people look better than others below 0.50. There was a recent thread with a guy whose picture was him post LL a bit below 0.48 and folks generally agreed it looked off and bad. The good news is a half stdev leggier than mean is ideal so that helps us LLers in general. Anyway, sorry to rain on your parade but you didn't read closely and you are simply mistaken.

Re arms I've seen that they don't matter before. Still scratching my head over that as it's at odds with my life experience which admittedly statistically is simply anecdotal evidence and not reliable. I'd like to see a study done with pictures of real people instead of silhouettes. That would be far more convincing for me, but no studies saying short arms matter or are bad yet to my knowledge. My take is this though... Women may not notice it right away, it might be at the bottom of their list, but I think once a woman does finally notice short arms or anything 2 stdev away from mean, they won't stop noticing and will care. Keep in mind the way this study was designed, if women do care on arms but legs are 3x more important then automatically this study would incorrectly show zero impact from arms. Whether short, average or long arms, the pictures get basically ranked on legs regardless. A study with all identical SHR and only arm length varied would be much more informative. If they did a study like that I suspect the results would show arm length preferences, but if it didn't then I'd actual trust the results and conclusion that arm length does not matter. Read the study closely especially on methodology and what I've explained should become clear.

What anecdotal experience you have had regarding arm lengrh? I am curious

[Werewolf]

I've come across this research before. It's quite useful, but you've made flawed conclusions. They define leg length as height up to the trochanter landmark less ankle height. Then LBR they define as that leg length over total height. So it's definitely NOT the case that in this study LBR = 1 - SHR. They'll end up similar but slightly different. That's why you've mistakenly concluded that going below 0.50 on SHR is no big deal. Some people will look fine below 0.50 but it's more like 0.50 or higher SHR and you are fine but below that do mock-ups and give it some serious thought. 0.497 is 1 stdev below the mean on the main study everyone looks at but it's for Dutch men. Dutch are both a little taller and leggier than most populations. The 0.50 is a good guideline but everyone is different. Long arms or thick muscular legs I think often let some people look better than others below 0.50. There was a recent thread with a guy whose picture was him post LL a bit below 0.48 and folks generally agreed it looked off and bad. The good news is a half stdev leggier than mean is ideal so that helps us LLers in general. Anyway, sorry to rain on your parade but you didn't read closely and you are simply mistaken.

Re arms I've seen that they don't matter before. Still scratching my head over that as it's at odds with my life experience which admittedly statistically is simply anecdotal evidence and not reliable. I'd like to see a study done with pictures of real people instead of silhouettes. That would be far more convincing for me, but no studies saying short arms matter or are bad yet to my knowledge. My take is this though... Women may not notice it right away, it might be at the bottom of their list, but I think once a woman does finally notice short arms or anything 2 stdev away from mean, they won't stop noticing and will care. Keep in mind the way this study was designed, if women do care on arms but legs are 3x more important then automatically this study would incorrectly show zero impact from arms. Whether short, average or long arms, the pictures get basically ranked on legs regardless. A study with all identical SHR and only arm length varied would be much more informative. If they did a study like that I suspect the results would show arm length preferences, but if it didn't then I'd actual trust the results and conclusion that arm length does not matter. Read the study closely especially on methodology and what I've explained should become clear.

Don't get me wrong but you sound really boring. You know everything, you are knowledgeable about everything and you write a lot, this is amazing. You are wasting your time on this forum. You must be a professor. I'm sure you will solve all the unanswered questions lol

[EndGame]

Don't get me wrong but you sound really boring. You know everything, you are knowledgeable about everything and you write a lot, this is amazing. You are wasting your time on this forum. You must be a professor. I'm sure you will solve all the unanswered questions lol

LOL. OP specifically asked folks if he might have screwed up anywhere...

 I have a few troll posts I'm seeing all of a sudden from you. Apparently I hurt you feelings... Was not intentional. Hope you get it over it. I wish you the best.

[Cookie Girl]

LOL. OP specifically asked folks if he might have screwed up anywhere...

 I have a few troll posts I'm seeing all of a sudden from you. Apparently I hurt you feelings... Was not intentional. Hope you get it over it. I wish you the best.

I saw your post on "recent posts now. Why are you writing this message to everyone? "Apparently I hurt you feelings... Was not intentional. Hope you get it over it. I wish you the best" Why are you trolling people? I'm just wondering that's why I'm asking please don't get me wrong. I hope I don't hurt your feelings

[EndGame]

I saw your post on "recent posts now. Why are you writing this message to everyone? "Apparently I hurt you feelings... Was not intentional. Hope you get it over it. I wish you the best" Why are you trolling people? I'm just wondering that's why I'm asking please don't get me wrong. I hope I don't hurt your feelings

LOL, very cute...  I had already guessed you and Werewolf were the same person. Was not my intention to make you feel trolled or upset. Best wishes. No hard feelings.

[oklama]

LOL. OP specifically asked folks if he might have screwed up anywhere...

 I have a few troll posts I'm seeing all of a sudden from you. Apparently I hurt you feelings... Was not intentional. Hope you get it over it. I wish you the best.

you are right  thank you for letting me know about my knowledge gap

[Werewolf]

LOL, very cute...  I had already guessed you and Werewolf were the same person. Was not my intention to make you feel trolled or upset. Best wishes. No hard feelings.

No hard feelings yes yes you are always offended I don't understand why you write this but anyway xD no offense thanks for pointing that out. Oh by the way, we can do some more philosophy. For example, who am I? Who are the same people? Who isn't who? Write me long articles as you write to other topics, please let us question life with you. İ'm not me...  Am i me?

[Cookie Girl]

LOL, very cute...  I had already guessed you and Werewolf were the same person. Was not my intention to make you feel trolled or upset. Best wishes. No hard feelings.

Do you dare to video chat? I won't hurt your feelings don't worry. Why are you writing to everyone I hurt your's feelings? Nobody cares about you, don't you understand that? You can only make your voice heard in this forum, without this place you would be nothing. I guess nobody wants to listen to you in real life. Now no hard fellings I think I hurt your feelings As a woman even if your height is 1.85 cm, I would not meet with you, I would meet with a 1.60 cm tall man. Women look for the brain in men. Intelligence is important. You are someone who slanders and generalizes everyone. Was not my intention to make you feel trolled or upset. Best wishes. No hard feelings

Btw I don't know a werewolf. I don't care about you, it's frustrating that you wrote that I didn't want to hurt you like  just making fun of people. Understand that you cannot hurt anyone. You can't hurt anyone even if you want to btw Was not my intention to make you feel trolled or upset. Best wishes. No hard feelings I will ignore you now.