Whats the ideal torso/legs ratio? And how to measure?

[Whatashame]

This is such an important ratio and i cant fimd that shit anymore. Please doesnt cope and try to be rational and reasonable.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Longer legs and shorter torso is most aesthetic, don't sperg over specific exact ratios.

 

[Whatashame]

Longer legs and shorter torso is most aesthetic, don't sperg over specific exact ratios.

Why men and women find longer legs more attractive

Men are not alone in finding the leggier form more attractive. Women consider longer-legged men more physically appealing than their stumpier counterparts, a study has found

www.theguardian.com

Thats a very important ratio for everyone who is thinking about leg lenghtening surgery, or use insoles on shoes. Not just that but to wear good clothes since you can fake longer legs with clothes. Its one of the few ratios i would say its good to have an idea.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Why men and women find longer legs more attractive

Men are not alone in finding the leggier form more attractive. Women consider longer-legged men more physically appealing than their stumpier counterparts, a study has found

www.theguardian.com

Thats a very important ratio for everyone who is thinking about leg lenghtening surgery, or use insoles on shoes. Not just that but to wear good clothes since you can fake longer legs with clothes. Its one of the few ratios i would say its good to have an idea.

I was blessed with proportionately long legs, still incel.

 

[Mr.Heightism]

Longer legs and shorter torso is most aesthetic, don't sperg over specific exact ratios.

Effect of Leg-to-Body Ratio on Body Shape Attractiveness - PubMed

Recent studies have examined various aspects of human physical attractiveness. Attractiveness is considered an evolved psychological mechanism acquired via natural selection because an attractive body reflects an individual's health and fertility. The length of the legs is an often-emphasized...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This study does not say the same.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Effect of Leg-to-Body Ratio on Body Shape Attractiveness - PubMed

Recent studies have examined various aspects of human physical attractiveness. Attractiveness is considered an evolved psychological mechanism acquired via natural selection because an attractive body reflects an individual's health and fertility. The length of the legs is an often-emphasized...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This study does not say the same.

Tldr or dnrd.

 

[Whatashame]

Tldr or dnrd.

Its the worst article ive ever read

 

[laughingchadlurker]

LBR = leg to body ratio.
LL = leg lengthening

The studies that were conducted (that I looked at) never took in consideration height (they would squish/stretch a figure). Taller people tend to have longer legs, it's really not weird when you are over 6'1 and you have high LBR, but if you are lengthening to attain human height ~5'10 then you really need to look at LBR.

The truth regarding this specific measurement is that it is almost useless. I am going to assume you are asking this for LL.

You can lengthen as much as your "volume" allows. Here is this body builder with an insane LBR:
His volume is frauded hard thanks to muscles and he doesnt have a muffin top thanks to being lean (muffin top + long legs = instant failo). Even without muscles his clavicle length and wingspan add so much volume.

The most important ratio is volume to leg ratio IMO, this is my conclusion after over 2 weeks research. I asked many friends to rate many edited pictures where I lengthened people's legs (before and afters side by side). If you are a framecel or have a small wingspan then LL will look uncanny (hands need to be comfortably past your waist). If your wingspan is good and your volume is good then longer legs are halo.

This is what I call volume theory. Take the volume pill. People don't care about height/frame, they care about volume. That's why 6'2 with frame mogs 6'4-6'5 framelet. It's also why 5'10 with frame hardly/never mogs 6'2 framelet, the volume you occupy is multiplicative with respect to both your height and frame, severely lacking in an either brings down your overall volume greatly.

Your leg length just needs to match your volume. It's also why people look better when they wear clothes when they have long legs (even if the shirt/jacket doesn't go past their torso). It's because clothes fraud volume.

If you want to simplify it, look at a picture and look at the area covered (shoulder_width * height) for people with similar musculature, you will immediately notice that more area covered can make longer legs look less uncanny or even good.

 

[Whatashame]

LBR = leg to body ratio.
LL = leg lengthening

The studies that were conducted (that I looked at) never took in consideration height (they would squish/stretch a figure). Taller people tend to have longer legs, it's really not weird when you are over 6'1 and you have high LBR, but if you are lengthening to attain human height ~5'10 then you really need to look at LBR.

The truth regarding this specific measurement is that it is almost useless. I am going to assume you are asking this for LL.

You can lengthen as much as your "volume" allows. Here is this body builder with an insane LBR:
His volume is frauded hard thanks to muscles and he doesnt have a muffin top thanks to being lean (muffin top + long legs = instant failo). Even without muscles his clavicle length and wingspan add so much volume.

The most important ratio is volume to leg ratio IMO, this is my conclusion after over 2 weeks research. I asked many friends to rate many edited pictures where I lengthened people's legs (before and afters side by side). If you are a framecel or have a small wingspan then LL will look uncanny (hands need to be comfortably past your waist). If your wingspan is good and your volume is good then longer legs are halo.

This is what I call volume theory. Take the volume pill. People don't care about height/frame, they care about volume. That's why 6'2 with frame mogs 6'4-6'5 framelet. It's also why 5'10 with frame hardly/never mogs 6'2 framelet, the volume you occupy is multiplicative with respect to both your height and frame, severely lacking in an either brings down your overall volume greatly.

Your leg length just needs to match your volume. It's also why people look better when they wear clothes when they have long legs (even if the shirt/jacket doesn't go past their torso). It's because clothes fraud volume.

If you want to simplify it, look at a picture and look at the area covered (shoulder_width * height) for people with similar musculature, you will immediately notice that more area covered can make longer legs look less uncanny or even good.

I didnt understood shit, what do u mean by volume?

 

[laughingchadlurker]

I didnt understood shit, what do u mean by volume?

Think of it like this, you are standing in a crowded train, the space you occupy that other people can't occupy is your volume. Your volume can extend slightly beyond the space you physically occupy, (e.g. people won't stand under your hands, also generally speaking people give you a little bit of space and don't hug you.

 

[Whatashame]

Think of it like this, you are standing in a crowded train, the space you occupy that other people can't occupy is your volume. Your volume can extend slightly beyond the space you physically occupy, (e.g. people won't stand under your hands, also generally speaking people give you a little bit of space and don't hug you.

i know whats volume but in the text u dont specify what volume u r talking about. Because if it was volume overral a fat guy would be ideal

 

[Jigen]

Legs (feet to hips) ideally should be 55% of height

 

[Whatashame]

Legs (feet to hips) ideally should be 55% of height

do u have a source or are u saying by experience?

 

[Jigen]

do u have a source or are u saying by experience?

I read it online somewhere.

 

[Jigen]

do u have a source or are u saying by experience?

Let me guess, you have short legs?

 

[Whatashame]

Let me guess, you have short legs?

no idea idk how to measure properly, but for what ive found yet i think i have big legs

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

0.465 is average. long legs look more aesthetic, long torso looks more robust. hard to say what is ideal, you want both tbh

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Legs (feet to hips) ideally should be 55% of height

where on hips? more clear measurement is to inseam

 

[Whatashame]

0.465 is average. long legs look more aesthetic, long torso looks more robust. hard to say what is ideal, you want both tbh

Do u know how to measure?

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Why men and women find longer legs more attractive

Men are not alone in finding the leggier form more attractive. Women consider longer-legged men more physically appealing than their stumpier counterparts, a study has found

www.theguardian.com

Thats a very important ratio for everyone who is thinking about leg lenghtening surgery, or use insoles on shoes. Not just that but to wear good clothes since you can fake longer legs with clothes. Its one of the few ratios i would say its good to have an idea.

good article.

"Leg length is a good indicator of childhood nutrition in women because their legs stop growing once they reach puberty. So if a woman has long legs it suggests she grew up in a good environment and that has a positive effect on fertility.

"The effect in men is more subtle, because their legs continue to grow beyond puberty," he said.

interesting pic though how does the longest leg male rank the lowest there?

Do u know how to measure?

I just measure from ground to below balls and then full height with a box next to wall so you're not tilting or bending the tape

 

[Jigen]

where on hips? more clear measurement is to inseam

Inseam isn’t always a good measurement because people have lower/higher crotches.

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Inseam isn’t always a good measurement because people have lower/higher crotches.

what do you mean? measure to behind balls. yes higher hips can give the illusion of longer legs with the same inseam, this is especially important for women

 

[Whatashame]

good article.

interesting pic though how does the longest leg male rank the lowest there?

I just measure from ground to below balls and then full height with a box next to wall so you're not tilting or bending the tape

bruh bellow balls its deff not it, bellow balls im in the 2/3 of the thigh

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

bruh bellow balls its deff not it, bellow balls im in the 2/3 of the thigh

it is what it is this is used by cyclists to measure leg length

 

[Dystopian]

LBR = leg to body ratio.
LL = leg lengthening

The studies that were conducted (that I looked at) never took in consideration height (they would squish/stretch a figure). Taller people tend to have longer legs, it's really not weird when you are over 6'1 and you have high LBR, but if you are lengthening to attain human height ~5'10 then you really need to look at LBR.

The truth regarding this specific measurement is that it is almost useless. I am going to assume you are asking this for LL.

You can lengthen as much as your "volume" allows. Here is this body builder with an insane LBR:
His volume is frauded hard thanks to muscles and he doesnt have a muffin top thanks to being lean (muffin top + long legs = instant failo). Even without muscles his clavicle length and wingspan add so much volume.

The most important ratio is volume to leg ratio IMO, this is my conclusion after over 2 weeks research. I asked many friends to rate many edited pictures where I lengthened people's legs (before and afters side by side). If you are a framecel or have a small wingspan then LL will look uncanny (hands need to be comfortably past your waist). If your wingspan is good and your volume is good then longer legs are halo.

This is what I call volume theory. Take the volume pill. People don't care about height/frame, they care about volume. That's why 6'2 with frame mogs 6'4-6'5 framelet. It's also why 5'10 with frame hardly/never mogs 6'2 framelet, the volume you occupy is multiplicative with respect to both your height and frame, severely lacking in an either brings down your overall volume greatly.

Your leg length just needs to match your volume. It's also why people look better when they wear clothes when they have long legs (even if the shirt/jacket doesn't go past their torso). It's because clothes fraud volume.

If you want to simplify it, look at a picture and look at the area covered (shoulder_width * height) for people with similar musculature, you will immediately notice that more area covered can make longer legs look less uncanny or even good.

Good post greycel, I will do LL myself comfirmed

 

[Dystopian]

0.465 is average. long legs look more aesthetic, long torso looks more robust. hard to say what is ideal, you want both tbh

Ideal is as the heroic statue

Skull fitting 3 times or more in the torso, but still having a big ass skull

Legs being longer than the torso

Wingspan bigger or as big as height

 

[Jigen]

what do you mean? measure to behind balls. yes higher hips can give the illusion of longer legs with the same inseam, this is especially important for women

That’s how you measure leg length

 

[Jigen]

Ideal is as the heroic statue
View attachment 2018689
Skull fitting 3 times or more in the torso, but still having a big ass skull

Legs being longer than the torso

Wingspan bigger or as big as height

My head only fits in my manlet torso like twice. And barely that

 

[Whatashame]

Ideal is as the heroic statue
View attachment 2018689
Skull fitting 3 times or more in the torso, but still having a big ass skull

Legs being longer than the torso

Wingspan bigger or as big as height

lifefuel then because its the one im more next to, with shoes and 1 lift its exactly. But im skinny af so it looks off lol i need to gain some muscle

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

View attachment 2018690
That’s how you measure leg length

yeah sure but do you know percentiles for that? also needs to go down to the ground. and how do you measure hip exactly? seems to involve some error tbh. and it doesn't go up to the socket which is the true "true" leg length

 

[Jigen]

yeah sure but do you know percentiles for that? also needs to go down to the ground. and how do you measure hip exactly? seems to involve some error tbh. and it doesn't go up to the socket which is the true "true" leg length

If you’re not fat. You can literally feel the hard bone where the top corner of your hip is. It’s right above your waist.

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

If you’re not fat. You can literally feel the hard bone where the top corner of your hip is. It’s right above your waist.

sure. all I'm saying is below balls is more clear measurement since that is a round bone that you have to palpate. anyway do you have percentiles for that? and studies on which one is most attractive?

this sort of measurement makes sense visually though. especially for holes it is truly disgusting when the hips are low

 

[Jigen]

sure. all I'm saying is below balls is more clear measurement since that is a round bone that you have to palpate. anyway do you have percentiles for that? and studies on which one is most attractive?

How though? The femur bone clearly extends past the groin region. So it can’t be an accurate measurement of leg length. At best it’s useful to seeing if suit pants will fit.

 

[Jigen]

sure. all I'm saying is below balls is more clear measurement since that is a round bone that you have to palpate. anyway do you have percentiles for that? and studies on which one is most attractive?

this sort of measurement makes sense visually though. especially for holes it is truly disgusting when the hips are low

And I’ll try to find some data on the percentiles or any numbers backing up what I’m saying. I’ll get back to you.

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

How though? The femur bone clearly extends past the groin region. So it can’t be an accurate measurement of leg length. At best it’s useful to seeing if suit pants will fit.

measuring to behind balls can't really be frauded/fucked up. it doesn't extend all the way to the hip either. perhaps a composite measurement of the two is best

 

[laughingchadlurker]

i know whats volume but in the text u dont specify what volume u r talking about. Because if it was volume overral a fat guy would be ideal

The problem is that being fat is also ugly, it's like saying "you talk about volume but that guy has recessed orbitals", like yes, recessed orbitals are ugly. Like I said in my post, volume triumphs as long as you don't have a muffin top (being fat). Yes, being fat is ugly and yes being fat adds volume, but it doesn't add enough volume to make up for how ugly it is... There is an aesthetic trade off, the most important is the volume your bones occupy. Muscles can fraud bone structure and fat can fraud bone structure but there is a limit and often an aesthetic trade-off. If you could have both the bone volume fraud that comes with being fat and also a six pack, V-shape, no muffin top, then yes that would be ideal...

 

[brucel]

do u have a source or are u saying by experience?

Legs (feet to hips) ideally should be 55% of height

Nope 50% is the ideal.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170399

 

[Whatashame]

Nope 50% is the ideal.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170399

interesting will read later

 

[Whatashame]

Nope 50% is the ideal.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170399

It says that more than 50% is ideal.

 

[brucel]

It says that more than 50% is ideal.

link the text where it says that

 

[brucel]

other:

Higher leg-body ratios (relatively longer legs) were preferred in women and lower ones in men

niggas cant read or do research then make up shit

 

[brucel]

Longer legs and shorter torso is most aesthetic, don't sperg over specific exact ratios.

no it is not, stop making up shit you fucking retard. Longer torso is more robust, longer legs is more aesthetic as long as legs are 50% of your body height you have ideal leg to height ratio meaning you have long legs, short torso is 16 inches medium is 18 long is 20+.

Dont fucking reply without strong evidence, I dont want to hear your coping rambling low iq reply

 

[Foreverbrad]

Longer torso is better cause then you can get leg lengthening.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Longer torso is better cause then you can get leg lengthening.

Or jus being tall with good proportions from the start is better.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

no it is not, stop making up shit you fucking retard. Longer torso is more robust, longer legs is more aesthetic as long as legs are 50% of your body height you have ideal leg to height ratio meaning you have long legs, short torso is 16 inches medium is 18 long is 20+.

Dont fucking reply without strong evidence, I dont want to hear your coping rambling low iq reply

Research shows both men and women find longer legs more attractive. Better yet think like this, short torso allows for a sharper V taper which is more aesthetic in men.

 

[brucel]

Research shows both men and women find longer legs more attractive. Better yet think like this, short torso allows for a sharper V taper which is more aesthetic in men.

No a smaller torso doesn't make a better v shape actually the opposite it makes you look deformed at times,

other:

Higher leg-body ratios (relatively longer legs) were preferred in women and lower ones in men

niggas cant read or do research then make up shit

read what I just said, are you mongoloid slanted eyed by any chance? you dumb coping chink.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

read what I just said, are you mongoloid slanted eyed by any chance? you dumb coping chink.

I am nordic. Cool it with the anti asiatic remarks.

 

[brucel]

I am nordic. Cool it with the anti asiatic remarks.

from iceland?

 

[HarrierDuBois]

from iceland?

Sweden, why?

 

[brucel]

Sweden, why?

you seem to be pretty retarded