View Single Post
Old 03-21-07, 11:31 AM
  #25  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,148
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1587 Post(s)
Liked 1,226 Times in 620 Posts
Here's the ratio I recall reading a while back in something by a sports doc (it was cycling-related): for males, dividing total height by true (cycling) inseam (bare feet/floor to pubic bone) will typically give a number somewhere between 2 and 2.2. 2 is long legs, 2.2 short (both relative to total height). My case: 174.5 t/h, 84 cm inseam gives 2.07, so tending slightly toward 'long legs for height/short torso.'
badger1 is offline