This method is called The Cormic Index (Sitting Height):
1. Sit on the floor by a wall, with legs straight out and flat.
2. Have your bottom, back, shoulders and head straight and touching the wall, and your eyes gaze forward, and sit as high as you can.
3. With a hard book, or box placed on the top of your head, have someone make a small marking with a pencil underneath the book/box, or just keep holding the book/box. It is best to have someone assist.
4. Measure the distance from the floor (where you were sitting) to the pencil marking on the wall or to where the book/box is still being held. This is your sitting height, in other words the length of your body.
5. You can measure your total height as well if you are not aware of it.
With these measurements you can determine how long your legs are, by subtracting the sitting height from the total height.
My measurements are:
Height: 175cm (69 inches)
Torso: 90cm (35.5 inches)
Legs: 85cm (33.5 inches)
Leg ratio 48%
Sitting height ratio: 51%
Apparently the average woman has legs that are at least 45% of her total height. 48% and up is considered aesthetic and preferred. You can figure this out by dividing your leg length over total height. (You multiply this by 100 to have a whole number if you wish)
To determine your torso proportions do the same as above but with the sitting height
One knowledgeable commenter went into great detail in this post here.
" If your torso ratio is .52 or .53, you are completely within the normal range, and also very average too by the way. You should have a longer torso than your legs by the way, most humans do. If you're below .52, then you have very long legs for your torso. Usually, only some select Africans and Aborigines from Australia have ratios below .52. Africans and aborigines can have averages of .49 to .50 although the range of their ratios will follow other human populations."
I also found this quote in one study: "The mean Cormic Index for European and Indo-Mediterranean populations is about 0.52. Africans have proportionally longer legs, in general, with ratios around 0.51. Asian and Far Eastern populations have proportionally shorter legs and means of 0.53-0.54 (Pheasant, 1986)."
However I do not entirely understand how the sitting height can be used as a torso height, as it includes the neck and head as well? And according to all of this my proportions are in fact normalish. However I am not entirely convinced.
How are you all proportioned?
Lastly, legs which are 1.4 % (Nicole Kidman ) of the total height are regarded as perfect.
More info:
Valdosta University Georgia USA sitting height data
Another measuring method video
Feminine Beauty site
Posts
Lady SL,
ReplyDeleteI think your calculation shows that you don't have short legs, but perhaps a torso/sitting height that's on the longer side, although still very normal. Or a long torso with medium legs if we could vote in a poll ;).
But, this is probably ONLY TRUE FOR YOUR HEIGHT which is quite tall. Since taller people have a tendency to have proportionally longer legs for their height. While shorter people have proportionately shorter legs to their torso/sitting height.
So, perhaps your Cormic Index is slightly high for your height which typically has a really leggy low Cormic number, but higher than average for the rest of the population.
Averages are a tricky business depending on who you're measuring. I've seen the Pheasant (1986) reference. But, the average of .52 is on the leggier side of average. I think it's because it includes the Indo-Mediterranean populations. All the research I've read says that Europeans have subtropical bodies/proportions compared to tropical Africans.
And Indo-Mediterraneans who live in hot climates may have proportions that reflect that difference, according to Bergman's and Allen's Rules of the effect of climate on limbs and bodies.
To illustrate that I'm not just making this stuff up, I thought you may like to look at the statistical norms for the Dutch in a study that shows averages and ranges for leg lengths, sitting height, and the Cormic index. Maybe, even post the tables/graphs here so people can say where they fall.
http://www.stefvanbuuren.nl/publications/Nation-wide%20age%20references%20-%20ADC%202005.pdf
The Dutch are one of the tallest group of people on the planet. And as you can see from the study, their average Cormic index is almost .53 so higher than Pheasant (1986) average of .52. If you look at the graphs you can see unequivocably that women have a higher Cormic Index (i.e. shorter legs proportionately and absolutely) than men.
And your leg length and sitting height are almost dead on average. I wish I had those proportions!
If you look at the graphs and are American, just multiply the number of inches you want by 2.54 to get the equivalent in cm.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I remember correctly from high school math about bell curves, statistical deviations.... The majority of the population falls within plus or minus one standard deviation (SD) from the mean (or 0). And you fall farther and farther out of the norm as you head towards - or + 2 SD from the mean.
If anyone with more of a math/statistical background can explain better than me, please do so.
All of this I think is a reality check that you may or may not be as disproportionate as you think. As some of us, well perhaps like women in general, seem to have a dusting of Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Especially, if we are comparing ourselves to someone like Nicole Kidman.
And maybe, you don't really want to know. But, if you do here it is.
"However I do not entirely understand how the sitting height can be used as a torso height, as it includes the neck and head as well?"
ReplyDeleteI think it's because the Cormic Index is trying to get at a leg length ratio (i.e. leg length to height) without having to invasively measure thousands of people's inseam as you need to do to come up with these statistical norms. And with the men, it gets even trickier because they have things in the way that make measuring leg lengths or inseams that are flush with the body like you do with women more difficult. If you know what I mean.
And, it's much easier to measure sitting height than torso height. People tend to slouch or are unable to place their shoulders straight since many people through bad posture have developed a permanent rolled shoulder or hunched backs.
Lots of these studies just subtract your sitting height from your height in order to come up with your leg length. It's a lot easier and as long as everyone does it the same way, it's pretty accurate.
Are the three post above all by one person? Well regardless if you are one reader or three, you are very knowledged on this matter, I am entirely impressed, how is it so? How do you know so much?
ReplyDeleteI´m surpresed. Your legs-torso's ratio is very ok, you are average.
ReplyDeleteLucky you! 47% leg ratio here. So slightly under average, I am 170cm. Not surprised though, possibly even relieved it's no worse! I wear 4inch heels all the time now though, so no one really knows, and people think I have long legs... hah!
ReplyDeleteoh, BTW your title reads "measuerments & proprotions" instead of "measurements and proportions":-p
ReplyDeleteHey 'Lucky You',
ReplyDeleteAren't you above average if you're at 47% leg and the average woman is at least 45%? I mean you're just one percentage of the 'preferred 48% and above'.
How is everyone measuring their leg length? Are you just measuring your inseam, or are people subtracting sitting height from height?
ReplyDeleteOh you are right, my title was a total mess up with the spelling. Funny, well I fixed it now. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYes I do think my legs in themselves are indeed normal in fact longish due to my overall height. And when I buy regular jeans they are a bit short.
However I know for a fact my torso is LONG, my chiropractor told me so, and I was once measured by a pattern maker and she said my torso and arms are longer then normal. I think she said about one or two inches longer, than they should be for my height.
And yes the leg measurements are done by subtracting the sitting height from the total height.
Hi Lady Short Legs, can you offer some advice on the best sneakers to wear for our figures? I consider myself to be pretty fashion savvy but cannot for the life of me figure this one out. Every athletic footwear I've tried makes me look really stubby!
ReplyDeleteI look forward to hearing your thoughts! - Diana
Thanks for the positive feedback, and I guess you're right 47% is slightly under the ideal 48 or more, but about average generally. Still, as Lady Short legs points out, if she has a long torso for her height, well I have an extra long one, since my torso measurement is nearly the same, but I am 5cm smaller overall. My gynecologist pointed it out to me, as my womb is long apparently... hum hum. I've learned to dress accordingly though over the years, and it has been a big help realising I am none the less pretty. That may sound vain, but I suffered a lot as a teenager from not knowing why I thought there was something off about my body. I'm really glad you set up this website, LSL, kudos to you:-)))
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking, all of you that have 48 and up cannot complain! I got a 46. I AM the Lady Short Legs. All of you are just... posers.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am so sadly jealous. I hate the way I look. :(
Well, 46 is about average too. Slightly less than the "ideal", which we would all hope to be, if we're honest. But I guess it's easier to be long-torsoed than short-torsoed. All you need to do is focus on your assets, and wear heels:-) At least we'll always have our nice abs and elegant posture! It takes time to like the way you look, took me 10 years....
ReplyDeleteMy measurements are:
ReplyDeleteHeight: 157cm
Torso: 85cm
Legs: 72cm
I'm a white an curvy girl.
Hi LSL,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I wrote those 3 long posts. I guess it was something that bothered me a lot so I read up on it.
Reading the comments above....
I don't think 45% leg ratio is average. I think it's the bottom of the low end of the low range. A 45% leg ratio means you have -approximately - a Cormic Index of 55% (or 100-45). This is a very high index, it means you have very short legs and a long torso. You're 2 standard deviations from the mean.
Not many people fall into this area. It's the exact opposite of Nicole Kidman who falls on the other end of the bell curve where there are very a just a few very tall, very leggy people in a population.
If you're at 54% like the 157 cm, you're below average, or +1 SD from the mean but you're still fall with the range of proportions of the majority of the population. BUT, if we only included short people who are your height, you'll probably find a lot of people with your proportions. Because short people tend to have a high Cormic (or long torso/short leg) index.
While Lucky with a 47% leg ratio has a 53% Cormic Index (100-47). She is almost dead on average. And this is compared to the Dutch who are the tallest people on the earth, and as the tallest, they probably have a pretty high average Cormic. Average for the Dutch is approximately 52.7% Cormic or for you ladies doing the leg ratio 47.3%.
So, when you do this think of 52.7% sitting height/height ratio as average or 47.3% as average. Not 45%. Although this average may be slightly higher or lower if you're African or Asian.
And to "Hate how I look", just remember that it's how you put yourself together. I've often heard guys say that such and such girl is more attractive than you would think, a case of the 'whole being greater than the sum of it's parts'. It's how we dress, wear our hair, demeanor, personality, talent, interests, etc.
To the very articulate and well-informed-about-stats Anonymous commentator:
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should rephrase myself: I hate who I am. Because, yes, the way a person *looks* can be altered on a superficial level with clothing and the like. And if you ask a lot of people, they'd say I'm cute and attractive and all this (because I hear it a lot). Because they're out of shape and I'm not--and that is what it boils down to in their eyes. But when it's all stripped down for ME, I cannot change my proportions--they could change their hair, lose weight, firm up, whatever. They have a choice with that. So, because I don't have a choice with this matter of being disproportionate--which is such a big issue for me--I don't like who I am. And a part of it, I think, is because my legs are a bit crooked too from issues at birth. Not to go on about it all... but it made me cry when I did the torso/leg measurements thing Lady Short Legs posted. It made me realize I feel like I've hit a wall that I can never overcome. I'm stuck. And I hate it.
Granted, so many other things in life are so much more important than this (torso:legs) but... it's such a sensitive issue for me. This is the only place I can say anything and have people sort of understand where I'm coming from.
--"Hate the way I look"
To be honest I think leg length proportions are judged more on their relation to waist to shoulder length rather than waist to head. I don't think some one with a nice, long elegant neck would be seen as taking away from otherwise long legs, it's more about the body as a whole, than the body plus neck and head. Torso is just that, 'torso', it excludes head and neck.
ReplyDeleteMy measurements are:
ReplyDeleteHeight: 166cm
Torso: 90cm
Legs: 75cm
I'm asian.
oops, I meant
ReplyDeletelegs: 76cm
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for saying I was articulate and well informed. Often, after clicking Send Post, I only see my typos, punctuation, grammatical glitches….
Like I wrote before, everyone’s got their kryptonite.
At 46% leg, or 54% Cormic your proportions are exactly the same or similar to many others here. That is what you should take away from the discussion here. Not that you didn’t meet the average leggy Cormic of the Dutch. Let it sink in: the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
We may want or like long legs, but let's not give them importance beyond their due. Australian aborigines and some select African populations may have one of the leggiest Cormic ratios in the world, but no one goes around saying they’re so beautiful because of that one physical attribute alone.
And it's not just the absolute length of legs that is important. I had asked a guy once whose insight and judgement I valued about whether he liked long legs and tall girls. He said yes, but then he became more reflective and said that it wasn't just the length, it was more the shape of the leg he liked when he liked a girl's legs. The shapeliness of the ankle, calf thigh etc. Sometimes, long legs on tall girls can look like sticks.
Then he quoted Seinfeld, "Why would you think I'm a leg man? I've got legs". And he's right, they're just legs, everyone's got them. And for a lot of men, while they may like legs, there are other parts of woman that are sexier to them, and without them even long legs don't get you very far.
To Hate How I Look,
ReplyDeleteBecause I am one of those people who likes to know for sure, objectively, before I get really depressed about something, I read up on the matter. And like you, some tears were shed. I wailed at the wall so to speak. But there was also some relief too. At having finally figured it out, and quantifying it. That it wasn’t something I had imagined. And then I put all my energy, all my analysis into what I could do about it. I stopped fighting it and hurting myself on that wall.
Life is 10% what you make of it, and 90% how you react to it.
I was ruthless. I cancelled all my subscriptions to magazines. I stopped shopping with people who said I looked good in everything. And more with people who had “an eye” and most importantly would be constructively critical. I started doing research on dressing for my body type, and coloring. I figured out a few silhouettes, and only bought clothing consistent with that. I started reading bloggers like the Sartorialist, Garance Dore, Copenhagen street style/all the street style bloggers Tokyo, Stockholm, Paris, etc. Bloggers who take pictures and capture how non model type people translate fashion and style into their own wardrobe. And I started following people/celebrities who had either my body type or exhibited ‘the look’ I wanted. Which is how I found this site.
Inspiration not Aspiration.
People say clothing, hair style, etc is superficial, but I don’t agree. I think clothing and style is an unspoken language that says who we are, where we came from, our orientation, and also very importantly our function in the world.
The difficulty is conveying the message, speaking the language. Being more aware of my body type, I stopped thinking I had to buy clothing in petites. Petite pants were sometimes the right length, BUT they were not the right length in the rise. And petite shirts while slim enough were not long enough. So, I thought more about FIT or CUT whether I bought in petites or regular. And I found a tailor. I started buying vintage here and there because the clothes were cut slimmer, and often ageless in style. And I focused my money and attention I where I could be more expressive about who I was in jackets, vests, coats, necklaces, shoes, and BAGS. I love BAGS. They were investment pieces.
Anyway, we're all a work in progress. I don't have it all figured out. At all. But, I hope the small practical advices helps refocus on what you can change.
By the way, I'm Audrey (wrote the last 2 comments). I always mean to write my name, but by the time I finish I forget :).
ReplyDeleteInteresting, all of this.
ReplyDeleteI have a 92 cm sitting hight, 172 cm height, and therefore 80 cm legs. I am of East Asian heritage.
However I have a high hip bone (and this is the widest part of my body) and then my thighs are pretty straight, slender and long, so I give the appearances of being somewhat leggy (people think I am leggy because I thin, tallish, show off my legs, and am bow legged, which makes each leg look thinner. I also have a very long neck.
My trick is to emphasize the waist (belts are your friend!), wear shorter hemlines (2" above the knee is still professional), stick to skirts and dresses, 2" heels (comfy, but elongating), and shorter, cropped jackets. Match boots to your pants/leggings/tights. I live in NYC and see models all the time, but I still get loads of compliments.
Don't hate your body or yourself!
I have a suggestion Lady Short Legs. How about we also post pics of short women with relatively long legs? Kylie Minogue and Sarah Jessica Parker come immediately to mind, but I am sure there are loads more. I know it's not the theme of your blog, and I understand if you think it doesn't help, because after all this is about lamenting proportionally short legs, but I think it would be interesting, especially to show that height itself is pretty irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't mean lamenting, as in we think it's awful and our bodies can't be nice. Just that we might all prefer an extra inch or two :)
ReplyDeleteAudrey,
ReplyDeleteI just want to say thank you for your heartfelt comments... I do know what you're saying. And to tell you the truth, my husband says he likes my legs like this, he's happy with how I look. (Ha, if I was proportionate like I'd like to be I'd actually be a bit taller than him, which fact I don't think he'd be as pleased with!) And I do get complimented a lot on having *nice* legs--again, I keep well in shape--so I know that the majority of this angst is just coming from the inside. But there have been the "Oh my goodness, I just realized how short your legs are!" moments from friends and such that cut so deep. But, yeah, I'm happy that I have legs at all; that I have my health; that I have a husband who loves me. It's just some days it's harder to keep things in perspective. Sigh.
But, actually, I too have gone on the quest for knowledge for the ultimate wardrobe makeover. It's helped a lot. (And LSL has certainly assisted that process--thank you!) Still, some days those stubbly little legs of mine are all I can see.
...I should break all my mirrors. :P
Thanks for listening,
Karen
45% is the average. I've looked this up before ever finding this blog. Most women have legs that make up 45% of their total height. If you are above 45% you are not short-legged at all. Those who have legs above 45% shouldn't complain at all. So what if you fall short of 48% which is IDEAL. It's not like everyone can be a beauty queen. What about ppl who really have short legs compared to their bodies. How should they feel?
ReplyDeletewhoops sorry for the double post...something happened to my server...
ReplyDeleteActually I think we always perceive body parts as being either long/short or big/small, but we never think in terms of average. We feel we have short legs (which is why we're on this website, whether we have 48%, 47% or 46% legs), which means our legs probably are shorter than we would like, because we women are idealists and very picky with our bodies. Take breasts for instance: either they're big or small, but there is no such thing as medium or average (which I find really annoying!!)..
ReplyDeleteAs Lady SL herself has said many times, having shorter legs isn't the end of the world, because lots of other assets make up for this. It would be harder to have super long legs and a really short torso. I have to admit I am always drawn to elegant torsoes, so I am really quite happy with my body shape overall... Obviously some days more than others, but that's life, girls!
I think the whole purpose of this post is clarify what is average from ideal and how we fall in the scope of things realistically. If you have a link or source which you can add to the discussion that says 45% is AVERAGE leg length, then could you share it?
ReplyDeleteAnd, when someone says that “the average woman has legs AT LEAST 45% of height” it might not mean that 45% is average. It may just mean most women have legs AT MINIMUM 45% of their height.
I read somewhere that one of the basic needs of human beings is to be understood. When someone listens, sees and gets you.
According to the information we have here some of us DO have short legs proportionally. And, some of us have very long torsos or sitting heights of 89/90 cm or 35 inches, that even with average-ish proportions, makes them longer than 50% of the rest of the female population. So, this is how some of us feel about it. Statistically we see it, socially we sometimes hear it, and this is a good place to express it, and vent a little. Let the steam off. Share some tips. To see, that we’re not so alone in our feelings, or proportions whatever they may be.
Nobody's talking about being a beauty queen.
Audrey
Height: 154.94
ReplyDeleteSitting height: 82.1
Legs: 72.8
ihave 47% legs. i always thouht they were short. thanks!
I'm 5'3. Some people say I'm not short, but I always hated my hieght and short legs. Some girls who're shorter than me don't seem bothered. Yet, some do because I see they wear heels all the time. Like commenter said, the feelings are the same. No matter height or proportions.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas?
ReplyDeleteMy heigh: 175 cm
ReplyDeleteTorso: 95
Legs: 80
Am I short legged? Please answer.
I've always been told I had a long torso and short legs. And.. I do. Probably one of the "worst." I fall in the 45% ratio for legs compared to the rest of my body (torso, neck & head) Focusing on my legs never made me feel comfortable, but having a long torso is a good thing!
ReplyDeleteOne of my friends pointed out that she wished she was long like me for the sake of getting pregnant and the baby not having anywhere to grow, but outwards! I was pregnant with my son a little over a year ago and everyone always thought I was "little." But my son was actually on the bigger side! I didn't gain any stretch marks and I credit that to my long torso :)
If we could just find something positive about having short legs ;)
We're all lovely no matter what.
Lady Short Legs
ReplyDeleteIt would seem from your above calculations that you don't have short legs at all, relative to your overall height.
I've been thinking though, I think there are there factors apart from mere leg to torso ratio that influence whether a person's legs appear long or not. I mentioned before that I think some one whose legs are somewhat short from crotch to knee, but long from knee to foot will give the impression of having longer legs than some one who is vice versa. I also think it helps if your legs have that kind of V shape from knee to crotch, so that there is a space, and the thighs end further apart than if they just go straight up and kind of end together (as mine do :O). I suppose the bone is actually longer in that case, although you would be shorter than if they just went straight down. Also the shape of the hips and how the leg meets into them. The shape and turn of the ankle as well.
I don't think the V shape of the thighs you're talking about doesn't have anything to do with longer bones, but the shape of the pelvis/hips. Women in general, and some women in particular, are much curvier through the hips and pelvis and waist than others. This gives women the illusion of longer legs than men (and other less curvier women) because the angle of the pelvis makes it seem as if the legs go up further extending into the hips/torso.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, shorter people also have a shorter shin/thigh ratio, or tibia to femur ratio than taller people. Proportionally longer tibias or shins give the illusion of greater height or longer legs because we see that portion of the leg more, such as in skirts, shorts, and dresses. How often do we see someone's whole thigh and leg? In addition, since taller people have proportionally longer tibias or shins we just mentally assume they have longer legs when they really don't.
To clarify I mean the greater wideness of the hips on women make it seem like a V shape because the thighs start farther apart from the hips and then come together as they go down to the knees. It's not longer thighs or bones. It's a visual illusion.
ReplyDeleteRussel Crowe is another guy with short legs. He looked great in Gladiator.
ReplyDeleteWait, this can't be an accurate measure of your torso compared to your legs... I have an incredibly long neck and with a small 5'2 frame this would probably significantly skew my measurements since Cormic Index fails to accomodate neck lengths
ReplyDeleteJust think of it as another indirect way of measuring your leg length ratio. Subtract your CI from 100 to get your leg length ratio.
ReplyDeleteI too have a longish neck, but in many ways the sitting height is what people see when they see you sitting down at a table. They don't see you as headless, and neckless torso :).
Come to think of it, since you brought up necks.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people I see with short necks, they kind of look like their shoulders are always permanently hunched upwards if you know what I mean.
And it does seem like there's a tendency for long necks to go on people with long torsos...?
I mean short necks with short waisted, and long necks with long torsos. It's not so bad, a long neck is rather like Audrey Hepburn's long swan neck.
ReplyDeleteNice comments about the whole 'neck' thing, I never thought about the possibilities of a long torso/long neck correlation. I have a VERY long torso and short legs :( but a lovely long neck. My hubby is leggy but short-waisted and he has almost no neck. I love him anyway, haha, but the line of a longer, elegant neck can be a very attractive thing...
ReplyDeleteHillary Duff's a prime example, short neck, short waisted. And not the hourglass shirt waisted but straight almost no waist.
ReplyDeleteFor example.
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2009/06/24/hilary-duff-in-bikini-bliss/
5'4 woman. I feel like a giant sitting down! A lady thought I was over 6 feet beccause she's almost 6 ft & she commented that I was taller than her sitting. 92 cmabout 36 in. sitting & inseam 28 in. I feel so bad. People say I'm pretty & but I feel ugly & abnormal!
ReplyDeletehey im im 5ft6 with 29.5 inch inseam so im like 44% and no one has ever said i have got short legs, even though i have for my height so everyone else dont worry you are all alot longer legged than me!
ReplyDeleteMy height: 175cm(69in)
ReplyDeleteTorso: 94cm(37in)
Legs: 81cm(32in)
Well... my legs are 32in from crotch to floor. My inseam(from crotch to ankle) is only 78-79cm(30-31in). I wear "regular" length pants. Yikes! But even if you do count crotch to floor I BARELY make the average at 46%.
The strange thing is, many people think I look proportionate and feminine. All I see is a huge, manly, stubby-legged thing in the mirror. Maybe they expect tall people to ALWAYS have long legs, so they make themselves see that in me when it's definitely not there. *shrugs*
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=21cie09&s=7
ReplyDeleteI tried to explain the ideal inseam issue.
Height: 5'4" (64"/ 163cm)
ReplyDeleteTorso+neck and head length: 32in (81.3cm)
Leg length: 32in (81.3cm)
My ratio came out as .5, so I guess I'm about 50% leg...
"If you're below .52, then you have very long legs for your torso. Usually, only some select Africans and Aborigines from Australia have ratios below .52"
That part is pretty interesting to me. Maybe my leg length has something to do with me being half black.
I measured my legs, and got a leg/height ratio of 46%. However, I am ackomanied by Audrey Hepburn and Kate Moss so I can't complain:)
ReplyDeleteMy measurements are:
ReplyDeleteHeight: 162cm
Torso: 85cm
Legs: 77cm
Hey! Thanks for your help on properly measuring and calculating our leg-torso ratio!
ReplyDeleteMy leg ratio is 47.5%, which leaves my torso ratio to be roughly about 52.5%! Yay, good to see that I'm in the normal range :D
LOL I've always thought that my legs are way shorter than my torso..guess that's because I feel slightly "tall" when I sit beside my friends on the bus...but then again, I am taller than they are!
This blog is a breeding ground for Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Believe me, I know, as I suffer from the dreaded disorder and can recognize the triggers from a mile away. Thankfully I am in recovery and am aware that my negative self image is distorted.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough I never gave my leg length a second thought until I came across vertical and horizontal body shape types online. For some reason I suddenly became obsessed with my legs and began worrying that they are thick and short. After poring over various sites I have learned that my disorder is doing the talking.
There are a number of narcissistic and outright dishonest people online. Going onto a jeans forum I became disheartened when women spoke of needing a 34"-36" inseam at 5'7". Later I discovered (based on scientific papers and observation) that if they were telling the truth, she would be extremely anatomically incorrect. In fact, it is rare for even the leggiest adult to have legs that comprise 50% of their height. And more is almost unheard of for most ethnicities.
Based on the Wroclow studies, women have an average leg-to-body ratio of 45.3%. Which is a mean average, so there are normal women with shorter legs and normal women with longer ones, and they amalgamated the results to get 45.3%. As a side note, men averaged a slightly higher leg to body ratio compared to women. This makes sense since top heavy people generally have longer legs and guys are usually top heavy compared to us.
Anyway, my main point is that what you see on billboards is innaccurate! Take my word for it as I have suffered at the hands of the media to an extent that bacame clinical. Fashion adulterates already underweight, leggy ruler type bodies and photoshops them. If that's what you're comparing yourselves to, no wonder you all think you have short legs!
I would like to add (I wrote the previous comment) that you can't believe everything you read. Someone above left some ridiculous comments in reference to cormic index and that 45% is the lowest of the low. BS. Look at most of the celebrities on this site (and then look all around you) and you will see that many people have legs that are clearly shorter than 45% of their total height. In fact, it looks like if you doubled Christina Ricci's legs there would still be room for her entire head. And even though her legs are short, she still looks like a normal, healthy person. That's going by pictures that are shot from straight ahead. Not the unflattering above shots.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, there are many people with less than 45% legs. And no, they aren't freaks. If 48% is considered "preferred" by fashion standards, then 45% isn't far off. I rank in at 47% or something like that and when I did the vertical body measurements - which involves measuring from the hipline to the floor and comparing that to total height, I was balanced. The hipline is where your femur and pelvic girdle join. Roughly 2.5 inches above the base of the crotch on women.
I will rely on accurate measurements and common sense over some gullible naysayer.
That said, I still believed I was out of proportion despite the numbers and the science and the numerous suggestions to model that I have received. But that's the body dysmorphic disorder talking as I am becoming more aware of. Sites like this that compare body parts and abalyze lengths, widths, etc, along with the obsessive comments, are strongly indicative of BDD.
If anyone is reading this and has been exhibiting those behaviours, please seek help, as the condition can progress and become dangerous.
Furthermore, you must realize that the mirror can fool you. If you look in the mirror your legs look shorter because of your vantage point. My suggestion is to stop following celebrity trends. These women are no physically different or more special than the next person, aside from the fact that they are heavily scrutinized and therefore devote unhealthy amounts of time into their appearances. Billboards and fashion magazines are fake! Even movies are doctored heavily. Look into all the alterations done on any given photo or cosmetics ad. It's scary stuff! Don't give in to the lies. Everyone has a body type and with each type comes its own advantages and challenges. There are just as many short legged women out there as there are long legged ones :)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean that Nicole Kidman is 1.4%??
ReplyDeleteI do not comment, but after reading through a few of the responses on
ReplyDelete"measurements & proportions". I do have 2 questions for you if it's okay. Could it be just me or do some of these comments look like they are written by brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are writing at other online social sites, I'd like to keep up with everything fresh you have to post.
Could you make a list of every one of your shared sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
My website: direct download movies
Lady Short Legs: it would seem evident from your numbers that your legs are totally normal. It seems like you have a severe case of body dysmorphic disorder. My leg ratio is barely 46% , my torso equals many 6 ft men when I'm sitting down and I'm only slightly over 5 foot 7. To make things worse, my shins are very short, giving the illusion of even shorter legs. As I've been obsessing about this off and on for years (and especially after finding this blog) I'm realizing that that there's nothing I can do about it. These short legs have carried my long torso around for 50 years and will hopefully continue for another fifty. The universe gave me big boobs, an attractive face, beautiful blue eyes, a high IQ and an even bigger heart. I now realize that all this obsessing is definitely BDD. Yes, my legs are short, but so is life. I need to try to concentrate on all my attributes, not my supposed defects.
ReplyDeleteAnd just a little info: I'm canadian, 51, with a Dutch father and my mother was of Scottish descent. Being Dutch didnt help these legs!! My Scottish mother had long legs, but that didnt help me either. My twin sister is at least one inch taller and her legs are 2 inches longer. My daughter is 5 foot 10 with a long torso like me, but also very long legs; hence, the 3 inch height difference between us. We must accept what we've been given.
ReplyDelete