Quote from: BruceWayne on November 18, 2017, 07:15:09 PMI meant to say that 163-164cm is 3-4cm shorter than my current height. As much as I despise my current height, I must admit that if I was 164cm then it'd be game over. Now at 167cm, the situation is like a shattered glass that is not yet broken. I'm 2" under male decent height (of 5'8").
And one more thing, I've been wearing lifts for years. It DOES HELP to mask my lack of height, but it DOES NOT SOLVE the problem. A 178cm guy can also wear lifts to get to 183cm.
Right, the 164 guy is just an example. But the principle still applies: If only 4 cm are really "a huge difference, a life changer" to you then that must mean your life would be turned around 180 degrees and change completely, if you were 171 instead of 167. When in reality, it's just a negligible height difference and the life of two random people who are 4 cm apart will not be extremely different.
Case in point, there are quite a lot of people of your "desired height" wishing to do LL. And there are some people who are at around 168 who say they decided not do LL or don't think about it because their lives are fine. So it's clearly not an objective, big difference between 171 and 167 but to your specific situation (which your mental state plays a huge part in) it is.
So if your "desired height" is all you want, go ahead and plan for your surgery. As I said, 4 cm can be done with relatively controllable risks and you should be fine. But don't think that your life and your physical appearance will be 100% better and different than it is now. It won't.
5 people that are significantly shorter than their fathers
Height is complex because we have to talk about percentiles, location, culture, etc. A 4cm jump is much bigger for someone going from 164 to 168cm than someone going from 167 to 171cm. It is also basically negligible for a man to go from 150 to 155cm or 155 to 160cm if they're living in predominantly white countries, whereas the situation would change in some Southeast Asian countries. Likewise, to go from 190cm to 194cm would also be negligible; you'd already be taller than the vast majority of anyone who even looks at you - they would barely notice a difference.
Quote from: IwannaBeTaller on November 18, 2017, 11:19:23 PMRight, the 164 guy is just an example. But the principle still applies: If only 4 cm are really "a huge difference, a life changer" to you then that must mean your life would be turned around 180 degrees and change completely, if you were 171 instead of 167. When in reality, it's just a negligible height difference and the life of two random people who are 4 cm apart will not be extremely different.
Case in point, there are quite a lot of people of your "desired height" wishing to do LL. And there are some people who are at around 168 who say they decided not do LL or don't think about it because their lives are fine. So it's clearly not an objective, big difference between 171 and 167 but to your specific situation (which your mental state plays a huge part in) it is.
So if your "desired height" is all you want, go ahead and plan for your surgery. As I said, 4 cm can be done with relatively controllable risks and you should be fine. But don't think that your life and your physical appearance will be 100% better and different than it is now. It won't.
While not quite a life changer, if I was 4cm, it'd make a good difference for me and I regret losing it to a fked up upbringing.
I still think the benefit of 4-5cm wouldn't outweight the loss of getting crippled as a martial artist.
Unfortunate but it can always be worse
Interesting read, though they do rely too much on American concepts of race:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/
This is anecdotal evidence and by no means something serious, but I was wondering if the poster who said most of your height comes from your mother could be right. All the people who are shorter than their fathers that I know of (including myself) have some pretty decently short mothers. Whereas I have friends with fathers around 170cm but their mothers were very close in height to the father (~166cm+) and they all grew to be taller than their fathers - with most reaching 180cm, give or take a couple centimeters.
It's probably just the genetic lottery, though.
Found out that Daniel Radcliffe is shorter than his father. He's 5'5 (~165cm) while his dad looks 5'7 (170cm).
Bonus pics of Bill Gates and his parents.
I also hope this helps put an end to the bs I see keep being posted on these forums as to how taller people = being from wealthier and "nobler" "bloodlines". No, height is just a genetic trait like any other.
Radcliffe's mother is Jewish while his dad isn't, so you can figure where he got his height from.
Quote from: IwannaBeTaller on January 21, 2018, 10:43:09 PMRadcliffe's mother is Jewish while his dad isn't, so you can figure where he got his height from.
I knew she was Jewish, but are Jews known for being shorter in Europe? I thought the average in Israel was around 176cm for males.
His mother doesn't even look that short, either. She looks like she's around 160cm. It seems he just got screwed by genetics.
Quote from: myloginacct on January 21, 2018, 08:52:54 PMFound out that Daniel Radcliffe is shorter than his father. He's 5'5 (~165cm) while his dad looks 5'7 (170cm).
Bonus pics of Bill Gates and his parents.
I also hope this helps put an end to the bs I see keep being posted on these forums as to how taller people = being from wealthier and "nobler" "bloodlines". No, height is just a genetic trait like any other.
Great post! I included them in my list.
You must be logged in to post a reply.