Quote from: Penguinn on October 12, 2015, 04:23:02 AMDubai and Singapore are indeed awesome and first-worldesque. But what's the average height there?
I have no idea. But they were definitely shorter than the average in Australia.
Quote from: microman on October 12, 2015, 02:44:08 AMwell my point still stands, if you think 6cm is not worth anything, then why move to a shorter country in the first place, is it to test out what it's like to be 6cm taller? if so then that's a actually a good idea.
I already answered that. Obviously you don't "gain" any amount of height by travelling - but your value in the dating/professional game can go up because your attributes are, relatively speaking, more desirable. Height neurosis makes you zero in on height as the be all and end all. But as I keep saying, 2 inches doesn't make much of a difference.
Think of it another way, if you really must focus solely on height. If you're 5'8, and the average in your country is 5'10 ... you "gain" just as much by moving somewhere with an average height of 5'8, as you would do by doing 2 inches of LL and staying at home - because in both cases you become right on the average. Except one doesn't cost tens of thousands, ruin your athletic ability and leave you crippled for in a good case a year, in a bad case for life. And in one example you actually gain money, as your $$$ go further abroad. You speak English, which could be a big advantage professionally. And you're exotic, which further adds to your dating value. I could go on ...
Edit: I missed your last sentence. Yes! Exactly. Going abroad would (potentially, if you're in the 5'6 and above range) give you a taste of what it's like to be of average height or even above average. The average height in Malaysia must be really short by western standards, I'm a giant there at 5'11. Surely this is a wise move before going all in and doing LL!?
By the way, the South African doctor that posts here disagrees with your claim of 6cm. So I'm gonna go back to saying 2 inches.
QuoteI think the debate around CLL goes wider. I suppose it has to do with cosmetic surgery in general. The reality is surgery is invasive and never perfectly safe. Up till recently we have not really had devices that were reliable, reproducible and predictable for femoral lengthening. Now with Precice we have that. In addition, the desired length is important. Anything beyond 4-5cm per segment becomes really problematic in terms of complication rates. Realistically the cost is almost prohibitive to go through a 4 segment lengthening, which means most patients end up with 5 cm either femoral or tibial. With this in mind, we have to ask whether the patient will really be happy with gaining 5 cm.
Having said all this, I realise very well that there are individuals who benefit greatly (physically and psychologically) from CLL, and it is this select group that I believe are the ideal patients.
As you can see this leaves us with a small group of patients who can a) afford it and b) be happy with it c) are healthy enough and d) are appropriate candidates (2 standard deviations shorter than the population average).
Once we've met all these criteria, there are few patients left.
From a doctor's perspective there are really 3 issues: patient safety, medicolegal risk and lastly a potential increased arthritis risk after CLL.