I am a 170cm male.

Edit Post

Yeah, they have no idea what is about... but hopefully good doctors stop their st-upid impetus and calm them down...

Edit Post

Caring about wingspan proportions is just a joke. This only shows some of the people here are either not really short or don't take this surgery seriously, in my honest opinion.

Edit Post

Quote from: heightiseverything on August 03, 2024, 09:30:05 PMCaring about wingspan proportions is just a joke. This only shows some of the people here are either not really short or don't take this surgery seriously, in my honest opinion.

Of course being too autistic about wingspan and proportions is kinda ridiculous when we're talking about gaining height through LL which only increases leg length and not makes one grow proportionally like in puberty but there's a certain limit where if one exceeds that limit he will look bad in the end. That's why it's important to take quantitative measurements like wingspan and leg-to-body ratio into account and don't exceed too much of what is considered normal and acceptable proportions.

There's no doubt that 20 cm is too much for anyone, we all can agree upon that I hope. But, as I said in my previous post, 15 cm can be done if one is determined and his starting body proportions allow it. More than 15 or 16 cm is not only dangerous but is a joke unless one has dwarvish legs to begin with.

Going up to 8 cm of wingspan is more or less acceptable and not that obvious but anything above 8 cm will start to look suspicious. But, again, it depends on patient cases, like, for example, if one is comically short and needs to sacrifice acceptable proportions in order to reach normal height, then it's justifiable to disregard the wingspan aspect and look like a t-rex post huge amounts of LL. But, when we're talking about cosmetic (i.e. physical enhancement in order to look more attractive) cases of LL where one seeks increased height in order to become more attractive to opposite gender, disregarding the proportions aspect defies the purpose entirely as there's no point lengthening huge amounts if in the end you'll look like a freak and repulsive to opposite gender.

Edit Post

It doesn't have to look perfect and it doesn't even have to look 'natural', it just has to overall make you more attractive than being shorter but with 'better proportions' does.

More height is pretty much always going to be more attractive than better proportions unless you already started at 5ft 10+.

Start at say 5 ft 5, and doing 6 inches to now be a 5ft 11 't-rex' is still much better than only doing 2 inches and 'maintaining a good wingspan ratio' or whatever. No one is saying it's as good as being 5ft 11 naturally but that isn't one of the options on the table, it's either bad proportions, or remain short.

If you already started at 5ft 10+ it's a consideration but that's only because the marginal benefits of extra height will taper off considerably after only a 2 inch gain and past 4 inches isn't a benefit at all.

Edit Post

I can agree that it could look kind of odd if you overlengthen too much, but that almost never happens in practice (so far as I've heard). Even with already longer legs, people could get away with 25 cm without looking freakish. Yes, it looks kindly feminizing having those proportions, but there's no other choice to lengthen spine as well for now. Furthermore, if you lengthen above 185+, tall people naturally have high proportion variations and there are plenty of tall people that are like 65% legs. But that requires you to lengthen arms as well in this exceptional case.

Edit Post

Quote from: heightiseverything on August 04, 2024, 12:08:01 PMI can agree that it could look kind of odd if you overlengthen too much, but that almost never happens in practice (so far as I've heard). Even with already longer legs, people could get away with 25 cm without looking freakish. Yes, it looks kindly feminizing having those proportions, but there's no other choice to lengthen spine as well for now. Furthermore, if you lengthen above 185+, tall people naturally have high proportion variations and there are plenty of tall people that are like 65% legs. But that requires you to lengthen arms as well in this exceptional case.

No, man, 25 cm is too much, even 20 cm is too much. 16 cm is enough if one is so desperate to squeeze off every cm possible with 2 surgeries (10 cm LON femur and 6 cm LON or external only tibia).

25 cm will not only screw leg-to-arm ratio but also leg-to-torso ratio to a comical degree. Every woman will get turned off immediately once you take off your clothes and reveal your freakish body proportions.

Quote from: jbfjbj4It doesn't have to look perfect and it doesn't even have to look 'natural', it just has to overall make you more attractive than being shorter but with 'better proportions' does.

More height is pretty much always going to be more attractive than better proportions unless you already started at 5ft 10+.

Start at say 5 ft 5, and doing 6 inches to now be a 5ft 11 't-rex' is still much better than only doing 2 inches and 'maintaining a good wingspan ratio' or whatever. No one is saying it's as good as being 5ft 11 naturally but that isn't one of the options on the table, it's either bad proportions, or remain short.

If you already started at 5ft 10+ it's a consideration but that's only because the marginal benefits of extra height will taper off considerably after only a 2 inch gain and past 4 inches isn't a benefit at all.

I agree that when doing double LL at a starting height of at least 5'5 (lowest normal male height) it makes sense to lengthen the upper safe limit (6 inches) in order to become above average height. Strong 180 cm barefoot is low end of tall height (noticeable above average in the west) but nothing special indeed. At least it's not considered average height even if it's marginally higher than average and barely qualifies as a tall height.

Given that I'm hovering between 165-167 cm throughout the day, I need to lengthen 15 cm in order to break that average height barrier and become a bit taller than average. My wingspan is 174-176 cm range (depending how much I stretch). I know that it won't look perfect after 15 cm of double LL but it won't be t-rex level either. My arm length is 73 cm from acromion to middle finger and that's with a 17.5 cm hands which is very small so if I had at least 20 cm hand length my arm length would have been 75.5 cm. Average arm length for 180 cm white man is about 78 cm long so I will have 5 cm shorter arms which is noticeable but not detrimental either.

If I lengthen 10-12 cm, I will stand at exactly average height at 175-177 cm range which is not a failo but is not enough to appear tall with 4 cm Air Maxes for example. At a strong 180 cm another 2, 2.5 cm boost from shoes is enough to appear visibly taller than the average male, especially with long legs from double LL of 15 cm.

Unfortunately, some guys have a really bad starting proportions for such a huge amount of lengthening, i.e. small torso, narrow shoulders, small skull, short and frail arms...

Meck looks tall after he gained muscles in his legs, although his arms are a bit short proportionally for his new height and his long legs. It's miles better than his old height of 163-164 cm indeed, but 16 cm is something that only a few could accomplish with 2 surgeries and is a dangerous goal. At least 14 cm is realistic with 8 cm femur and 6 cm tibia and it's enough IMO.

Edit Post

Quote from: AnotherLLer on August 04, 2024, 01:14:58 PMNo, man, 25 cm is too much, even 20 cm is too much. 16 cm is enough if one is so desperate to squeeze off every cm possible with 2 surgeries (10 cm LON femur and 6 cm LON or external only tibia).

25 cm will not only screw leg-to-arm ratio but also leg-to-torso ratio to a comical degree. Every woman will get turned off immediately once you take off your clothes and reveal your freakish body proportions.

I don't know whether there exists an objective standard for what looks freakish. I myself am determined to do four surgeries 1.5 years apart to achieve my goal, and after mock-ups I feel I look just fine even though I have relatively long legs to begin with. No women would reject a tall man based on his leg to torso ratio, most women would reject a short man however ideal his proportions are.

It is comical how people are actually willing to spend lots of money for LL only to get like 3 inch difference (which let's be realistic, is barely noticeable). If you are going through this pain, you might as well make it worth the struggle and the money you put in.

Edit Post

Quote from: heightiseverything on August 04, 2024, 06:32:39 PMI don't know whether there exists an objective standard for what looks freakish. I myself am determined to do four surgeries 1.5 years apart to achieve my goal, and after mock-ups I feel I look just fine even though I have relatively long legs to begin with. No women would reject a tall man based on his leg to torso ratio, most women would reject a short man however ideal his proportions are.

It is comical how people are actually willing to spend lots of money for LL only to get like 3 inch difference (which let's be realistic, is barely noticeable). If you are going through this pain, you might as well make it worth the struggle and the money you put in.

I bet most women will reject freakish looking man no matter how tall he might be the same way they reject short men. Women not only value height but also physical symmetry, proportions and harmony.

And, 3 inches you get from femur LL is very noticeable height increase, although not dramatic or towering indeed. One can also lengthen his tibia later for 2 inches and stand 5 inches taller which is significant height increase.

This is your 5 inch height difference:

https://ibb.co/gm6J7gM

And, unless one is shorter than 5'5, 5 inches is enough to stand at a solid 5'10 which is not a bad height and no women will think that at solid 5'10 a man is short and undesirable. If someone rejects a man who is 5'10, even if the woman explicitly mentions his height for a reason, 99.99% times it's an excuse and the real reason is different and not the height.

It's just physically dangerous to do more than 3 inches on femur and more than 2 inches on tibia unless you rebreak them, which is crazy as you not only lose insane amount of money but also many years of your life too.

Edit Post

Quote from: AnotherLLer on August 04, 2024, 06:56:11 PM

It's just physically dangerous to do more than 3 inches on femur and more than 2 inches on tibia unless you rebreak them, which is crazy as you not only lose insane amount of money but also many years of your life too.

Out of curiosity, since I am new to this, how long do you personally think full recovery after more than two surgeries take?

I’ve heard it’s around 1 year for most after surgery, but maybe healing time will be longer after repeating.

Edit Post

From what I've read so far, it depends on how much you lengthen, the method used and the segment you're lengthening. For example, for PRECICE 2 femur of 3 inches, it takes about 5-6 months before you start walking with crutches but with the weight bearing methods, you start walking immediately post surgery and 3 inches of lengthening requires on average 5-6 months till you can start walking unaided in that case.

For tibia, 2 inches requires about 2 or even 3 months of distraction (if you go slow) and assuming you're doing with weight bearing nails or frames, you'll start walking with crutches in about 4-5 months post surgery, but recovery will take a bit longer than femur.

Basically, for the most efficient way to get both segments done are with weight bearing options. Femur first, consolidate for about 3 months and then tibia after. It will take about 1.5 years to complete the journey, assuming you're doing 3 inches on femurs and then 2 inches on tibia, which is the safest maximum amounts recommended by most doctors.

After 1.5 years, you will remove the internal nails and resume normal life, although you'll still be required to stretch daily, do the physio and workout your legs in general in order to strengthen the muscles and restore the balance and gait.

If you repeat this process, you will lose another 1.5 years of your life and it will be much harder to recover than in the first time because you're going to rebreak the broken bones and stretch the soft tissues even further. I don't see any reason to repeat this process to get another 5 inches of height since it will look comical and your functionality will be impaired severely for a very long time.