Quote from: O_99 on October 22, 2020, 12:13:13 PMBroScience lvl 100.
He sure does live up to the stereotypical dumb gym rat preaching broscience.
For that u must be above 180....and thts a great height and well accepted by more then 95% females around the world.....and if u stay in decent shape at that height then u definitely gonna be a chad.
Yeah yeah yeah.....u got a gifted body so shut ur hole up....u aint the chadest guy anyway..like height bone structure is also genetic so it dsnt matter if u r built or not....just get to ur max. Muscle Potential..no one here wants to be the rock or ronnie coleman....go stick ur muscles in some chicks bunghole..dont speak abt ur gifted genetics here no one here is coming for that....and other then ur body there are a lot of other aspects of life to think of.😒
I just want to be average height in the US, which is 5'9 (I'm 5'7)
So for me 2 inches is good enough and safe.
I think that if you're 5'9, your height won't really hold you back in most cases. If anything you can wear lifts to get closer to 6'
From that link it appears clavicle ossification is not dissimilar from that of height. I didn't think there was any scientific evidence to suggest that shoulders matured significantly later than height that's why I questioned your point.
Bodybuilders point was anecdotal, that can only really be questioned with scientific support, which I can't find. My observations are anecdotal, I can not support it with scientific evidence.
Quote from: HeightGain on October 22, 2020, 09:05:11 PMFrom that link it appears clavicle ossification is not dissimilar from that of height. I didn't think there was any scientific evidence to suggest that shoulders matured significantly later than height that's why I questioned your point.
Bodybuilders point was anecdotal, that can only really be questioned with scientific support, which I can't find. My observations are anecdotal, I can not support it with scientific evidence.
It's the last bone to finish ossification.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806601/
"The clavicle has the honor of being the first bone to start the ossification process and the last to finish it" - from the study.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26253853/
"The earliest age at which fusion began was 15 years (n = 1), but the majority began fusing between 17 and 20 years. "
"Most individuals (98.5 % of the sample) aged >24 years had fused lateral epiphyses. "
So it seems it fuses in your 18-20s and for most it closes before 24.
Hence what O_99 said is correct while bodybuilder in making arguments uses what is considered the nadir of evidence in reasoning which is anecdotal evidence and as a result because of superior substantiating methods is proved to be blatantly wrong.
Quote from: HeightGain on October 22, 2020, 09:05:11 PMBodybuilders point was anecdotal, that can only really be questioned with scientific support, which I can't find. My observations are anecdotal, I can not support it with scientific evidence.
How exactly the claim that newer generations have smaller frames is anecdotal? He needs scientific/statistical evidence to support it. The burden of the proof is on the claimant.
With your logic my point (clavicle ossification) is anecdotal too, since I've seen males after 18, even after 20+ getting wider shoulders including myself (which is indeed the case), and I don't have to provide evidence for it.
That is the definition of anecdotal. His claim is not based on scientific fact but no-one has offered scientific proof to refute it.
You have your opinion and he has his - both anecdotal. I was calling out your link which doesn't substantiate your claim.
Quote from: HeightGain on October 23, 2020, 09:46:52 AMThat is the definition of anecdotal. His claim is not based on scientific fact but no-one has offered scientific proof to refute it.
How do you know that? Did you search for new generation smaller frames and you could not find evidence to refute it? Saying the new generation males are skinnier is anecdotal. You can't really distinguish smaller frames based on what you see and call it anecdotal.
You also wrote "Without the paper it is impossible to say if is true."
Why you didn't reply that to Body Builder's claim?
Quote from: HeightGain on October 23, 2020, 09:46:52 AMYou have your opinion and he has his - both anecdotal.
Didn't you read the papers that got linked in this thread? It's not my opinion. It's a fact. Whereas his is an unsupported claim.
Quote from: HeightGain on October 23, 2020, 09:46:52 AMI was calling out your link which doesn't substantiate your claim.
You repeat this for the 3rd time. We're not talking about the wiki - link anymore. And at least I provided a source. Moreover, you could easily find a research paper about clavicle ossification with a quick Google search.
I said that generally speaking, taller men, especially from new generations, are slim with narrower shoulders.
Thats what I see everyday in gyms and real life.
Average men, even young ones, tend to have more manly bodies with broader back.
That happened always but the last 5+ years the difference seems to be bigger than before.
Also, of course what I say is anecdotal mainly.
But that average height men are usually more built than tall ones is generally accepted and the proof is that in bbing, the only sport where muscles count, there are hardly ever really tall men. The vast majority are men 5.6 to 5.10 and at keast 90% of athletes are less than 5.11.
That is the proof that average or even shorter than average men can become much more muscular and have wider frames than tall men.
And it is what I see inside gym too. Most tall men, even theyneork out for years, have minimal results compared to average height men.
Tall height is a disadvantage into building muscles both genetically most of the times and practically always.
You must be logged in to post a reply.