Been away for a while and confused about current options. Need tips.

Edit Post

Hi! I used to browse this forum a lot, but I haven't lately.
Initially I had hopes of doing 8cm femur and 6cm tibia and just going all in, however, reality catches up.

I have decided that I simply want to become at least 170 CM. My height seems to be around 166 (tried measuring just now and I am 165.5-166.5, kind of hard to measure without proper tools).
If I were to lengthen 3.5-5 cm (5 in case I am only 165), tibias are the obvious choice, but there is a problem:

I am currently using shoe lifts along with Nike Airmax, making me not look quite as short.
Were I to do tibia, I assume I would have to stop using them due to the screwed-up proportions?

This makes me more inclined to do Femurs, however, I have the stiffest legs ever.
If I try to bend forward to reach the ground, I can only reach my knees (I am extremely stiff). Meaning that femur would not work well for me? Or am I wrong?

Femurs would:
1) Allow me to lengthen a bit more (under normal circumstances at least. Meaning that I could reach 171-172.
2) Not make me look as weird if I were to combine it with Shoe Lifts.
3) Perhaps not be possible due to stiff hamstrings?

Tibia would:
1) Be half the cost of femurs, or even less. Meaning that I could afford it straight out of Uni (I have some savings, would convert to around 20-25k dollars)
2) Be possible(?). I don’t think my calves are as stiff as my hamstrings, if they are, I can do achilles tendon release.

About what doctor,
Femur: Is Mangal Parihar (and Precise 2) still the most cost-efficient (and realiable) way of doing femurs? I heard that the South African doctor quit.
Tibia: I am thinking of Catagni/Pili, they seemed good when I was researching a few years ago, being able to do the surgery in Europe would also be very preferable.

I am extremely confused. With this information, do any of you have any suggestions for how I should proceed?

Edit Post

Shortasiandude:

Don't go that far. You are fking yourself over for life. Don't do more than 6.5 cm on your femur, do tibia later on instead of you really want more.


Apparition:

You are not going to do that, trust me. You will get fked up.
If you want to combine, to be safe, 6 femur and 4.5 tibia is probably your max. And that's fine. You'd become tall if u did that.



Guys, don't do more than 15% of initial length. Just don't.
Let's say your femur is 40 cm and your tibia is 30, that means you'd be able to do 6 femur and 4.5 tibia. And still remain somewhat functional.

Edit Post

Quote from: StrangeDays67 on April 20, 2019, 02:05:41 PMAre you out of shape? I would start exercising and doing some stretches to improve that. And choosing femurs vs tibias is allways based upon your current ratio of femur to tibia.

I was born stiff. I am currently not in very good shape but I have been and my hamstrings were just as tense. Over all my body is very (extremely) tense.

Not really, choice is most often dependent on money.
Lots of money: Internal femur
Little money: External tibia

Edit Post

Quote from: Apparition on April 20, 2019, 01:50:47 PMIs there a certain length at which the legs get ruined or is it 15% of the bone length? I keep seeing LL doctors (Paley, Debiparshad, etc) consistently advertising their operations as 8 cm femur and 5 cm tibia but from what you're saying it's actually dangerous to go that far.

As far as tibia problems, ballerina etc, the magical number seems to be 13%.

In general you'll see huge problems post 20%, some problems 15-20% and a lot less complications sub 15%.
The difference between 10-13% is not the same as from 15-18%. It get's exponentially worse.

But to be fair, if you do 15% of both segments, you'll become a lot taller and also not get screwed up. It's worth being 176 instead of 179 if it means that you can jump.