Here's another proportion discussion on something I've been thinking about.
Often see pretty thin tall guys where I live and what strikes me is that they mostly seem to have very long legs. I actually think tall men are more prone to having more of their height in their legs than average or short guys. What do you think?
Quote from: Taller on February 26, 2015, 03:26:45 PMYes, you are correct. The former site member GrowTallOrDieTrying posted a few research papers confirming this.
Is there a large difference on average?
Also if you have the links to these papers please add them, I can't find anything.
What is the consensus on torso-to-leg ratio anyway?
I read somewhere that ones inseam should always be less than 50% of ones height.
Quote from: YellowSpike on February 27, 2015, 02:12:23 AMThis was my experience. My inseam before LL was 30, and my total height was 65.3-65.5 inches, so it was less than 50%. Now, with a 32 inch inseam, it will probably be about 50%. The only thing I worry about is that I kinda have big hips, and so my pants always tend to make my legs look longer than they are (even before LL). So having to tuck in my shirt may be an issue.
We need to talk more about hips, when I wear really tall lifts my hips are so high up in relation to my torso that it looks really strange when I move, even though it appears normal if I'm just standing still. This effect can be highly mitigated by increasing my shoulder width, if I wear a suit for example it becomes much less noticeable.
I think an important part of male proportion is making sure that the torso is always dominant, otherwise the legs and hips will be the most prominent part of ones body. Avoiding loose pants and building muscle helps with avoiding this.
My inseam is about 45-6% of my total height, if I add 7CM through LL it will be 47-8% and with 3CM shoes my legs will appear even longer.
Edit, Taller I really appreciate the info you quoted but could you please avoid taking up so much space. With all that text it becomes a chore to scroll through the thread.
I've seen a lot of people with long legs where I live, and it's plenty cold let me tell you.
I know aboriginals and africans often have very long legs in relation to torso though, there is probably some truth to this study.
Quote from: ItsMyLife on February 27, 2015, 07:24:49 PMPre-op: 90/174 = 0.52
Now Im 90 cm/179 cm = 0.50
final ratio: 90 cm/182 cm = 0.49
so I guess im fine? what is the lower limit? 0.48??
It's supposed to be your inseam divided by height. For example my inseam is abut 80-82CM which is 45-46% of my total height. If I add 7CM it will be between 47 and 48% of my height which is acceptable to me but barely. If your glucosamine/yoga routine works maybe I can gain an extra 2CM and be 187-88CM with a better ratio...
Quote from: ItsMyLife on February 28, 2015, 12:39:51 AMso SHR is inseam/height?
And 48 percent is the limits of attractiveness?
The way I understood it is that you divide your inseam with your total height. I read that some doctor recommended staying below 50% of your height -that is your inseam should be less than 50% of your total height.
Obvioussly 49 and 48% will look more or less weird as well considering 50% is the alleged maximum.
45% is average and 50% inseam is the absolute most you should have. As far as I understood it at least.
Quote from: ItsMyLife on February 28, 2015, 07:03:38 PMAh. Thanks bro. So, 47-48% is considered more-or-less close to the upper limit, and very leggy?
Something like that, but obviously everyone is different.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
