|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 26, 2007 21:21:09 GMT -5
BTW, the relative sitting height and standing height ratio is basically how tall you are when your sitting down straight divided by how tall you are when you are standing straight times 100. If you have anything 50 or lower (meaning that your entire torso including head is less than half your total standing height, you'll pretty long legged). Needlingless to say, if it's 57 or higher than you turnip legged ;D. BTW, the purpose of this trend is because I found that most E. Asians tend to have proportionally short legs, so it's interesting to find out how you folks fair  |
|
Mr Brad Pitt
Full Member
Social Retard Spreading Sh.i.t
Posts: 467
|
Post by Mr Brad Pitt on Dec 26, 2007 23:27:09 GMT -5
What about ya?
|
|
|
|
Post by dannyd on Dec 27, 2007 19:55:54 GMT -5
What if you have a really fat arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by hapalicious on Dec 27, 2007 20:12:36 GMT -5
^it d have to be the muscular type that s like air cushions and doesn t squish too much when you sit then.
if it s the flabby type that squishes on the sides, i take it we don t take this into consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 27, 2007 22:19:15 GMT -5
Actually, I am even kinda surprised that several ppl responded here 'cause from other forum I asked the same topic but nobody even brother responding there. I am very short legged, unfortunately and thus very short armed as well. This is pretty disadvantage for me in some way for many sports obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by i move the stars for no one on Dec 28, 2007 2:33:42 GMT -5
screwed up the math on that somehow.i'm 68 inches tall and about 33 inches of that is legs.i guess that's moderately long legged.enough that i look really stupid with my shirt tucked in.
|
|
|
|
Post by daisypukes on Dec 28, 2007 2:38:25 GMT -5
That math sounds complicated (I know, I'm so un-Asian for saying that). I'll try doing your formula later if I ever find my tape measure. Anyway, I can answer now regardless: I have long legs. I'm a short girl, but my legs are long for my height. I have a short torso.
|
|
|
|
Post by TeeHee on Dec 28, 2007 5:20:41 GMT -5
my altogether height is 68inches, 28inches of that is my torso(making my legs 40 inches), so using that formula, i ended up with 41. so yea, i'm long-legged.
|
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 28, 2007 13:53:15 GMT -5
my altogether height is 68inches, 28inches of that is my torso(making my legs 40 inches), so using that formula, i ended up with 41. so yea, i'm long-legged. Actually, I don't think your using the formula correctly because like I stated, the whole torso length includes your head as well. There's no way away could have a ratio that low; not even Marfanoids possibly. If you include your head height then it should be in the low fifities. |
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 28, 2007 14:06:52 GMT -5
Actually, the math is pretty easy; the measurements are tricky. Lots of you guys are confusing this as a ratio of sitting height vs. leg length from total height (no, it's the ratio between the sitting height and standing height and part of your legs are hidden by the bottom of your trunk which is why this ratio should be higher than it is). For most, it should be in the low to mid fifities, but again it varies throughout ethnic groups; for example, Australian Aborigines and some African tribes typically have unusually long legs in proportion to their bodies, but most East Asians, African Pygmies, and Eskimos for example tend to be short legged. Lastly, shorter legs tends to collerate with shorter arms as well (both absolutely and relatively). Interesting map (btw, how do you do the above/below arrow thingie?) about the distribution of relative leg length throughout the world. www.biodiversityforum.com/gallery2.php/v/maps/anthropologic-traits/Relative+leg+length_+the+relative+sitting+height+_Lundman_.png.html |
|
|
|
Post by TeeHee on Dec 28, 2007 16:49:40 GMT -5
my altogether height is 68inches, 28inches of that is my torso(making my legs 40 inches), so using that formula, i ended up with 41. so yea, i'm long-legged. Actually, I don't think your using the formula correctly because like I stated, the whole torso length includes your head as well. There's no way away could have a ratio that low; not even Marfanoids possibly. If you include your head height then it should be in the low fifities. nope, i DID include my head as well for my torso length. i thought that low number was kinda weird too, and even re-measured/re-did the formula, which came up with the same results. whatever the case, i have a short torso relative to my legs. |
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 28, 2007 17:58:41 GMT -5
nope, i DID include my head as well for my torso length. i thought that low number was kinda weird too, and even re-measured/re-did the formula, which came up with the same results. whatever the case, i have a short torso relative to my legs. Are you in any case Marfanoid? What's your ethnicity? BTW, one of my close friends in high school he was nearly two meters in height upon graduation and yet when he was sitting down, he was actually a little shorter than me  To be honest, I obviously was not expecting ppl to actually measure themselves; I just wanted approximations.  |
|
|
|
Post by TeeHee on Dec 29, 2007 4:50:13 GMT -5
Are you in any case Marfanoid? What's your ethnicity? BTW, one of my close friends in high school he was nearly two meters in height upon graduation and yet when he was sitting down, he was actually a little shorter than me To be honest, I obviously was not expecting ppl to actually measure themselves; I just wanted approximations. hmm, from what i've read about marfan's syndrome so far, i highly doubt it. even though i exhibit extremely flat feet(a possibility in people with marfan's syndrome) and have extra bone in the area of my foot where an arch would be, many other symptoms/conditions of it i don't have. i'm 3/4asian1/4euro(of vietnamese and french background). like the example you mention, i look short sitting down too. there are some people who i'm taller than when we're standing up, but about the same torso height or even shorter when we're all seated. |
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Dec 29, 2007 15:10:14 GMT -5
^But I didn't imply that you had Marfan's just because you have long legs i.e. does it mean most Aborigines are Marfanoid just because most of them are very lanky?
|
|
|
|
Post by TeeHee on Dec 29, 2007 17:21:46 GMT -5
^But I didn't imply that you had Marfan's just because you have long legs i.e. does it mean most Aborigines are Marfanoid just because most of them are very lanky? um, i didn't think you were trying to imply anything. i was just answering what i thought was a question, trying to be concise as possible. i actually hadn't even heard of that term before until you brought it up here(nor have i seen/met that many australian aborigines before, so). |
|
To be honest, I obviously was not expecting ppl to actually measure themselves; I just wanted approximations. 