New generations are taller, it's science (and Italians overcome Americans!)

Edit Post

Quote from: crimsontide on May 04, 2017, 02:20:09 AMpeople do not shrink   between 40 and 59. very rare

so the study  shows caucasian americans are getting taller

right now it would be  between 179 and 180. might even be 180.

bodybuilder, The vast majority of people   do not  consider Mr Olympia  aesthetics to be appealing.  Most of these guys are around  171 and 172 cm and weigh around 120 kilos with 2% bodyfat.

The men with the most pleasing physiques are swimmers and water polo players. Both are  quite tall on average

So what exactly are you proposing? Should we all get on our knees and hail tall people as our new gods? Because they're superior in every imaginable way? or what else should be the purpose of what you're trying to say?

Edit Post

Quote from: crimsontide on May 04, 2017, 02:20:09 AMpeople do not shrink   between 40 and 59. very rare

so the study  shows caucasian americans are getting taller

right now it would be  between 179 and 180. might even be 180.

bodybuilder, The vast majority of people   do not  consider Mr Olympia  aesthetics to be appealing.  Most of these guys are around  171 and 172 cm and weigh around 120 kilos with 2% bodyfat.

The men with the most pleasing physiques are swimmers and water polo players. Both are  quite tall on average

Crimsontide I refered to bbers to show that the most improved bodies, even with drugs, are the ones of about average heights.
Even in more aesthetic categories like fitness and all these most men are hardly ever more than 6ft.

Tall men most of the times have skinny or disproportionate bodies (too long feet etc) and also have the drawbacks I mentioned before about food, space and all these.
In no way I don't believe that tall men is the evolution of human race.

Edit Post

Quote from: TIBIKE200 on May 04, 2017, 01:08:46 AMBolt is a mistery as being 6'4.5 is considered a disadvantage to sprinting (best heights were always 176-185 which are average and normal tall heights).

Comparing normal humans to elite athletes is wrong since elite athletes are not the norm.
  Just like not all short guys can be elite gymnastics, not all tall guys can be good at basketball and play in the NBA.
Although it seems many NBA players are just there because they are tall (the low tier teams) and nothing else

So what you are saying is people can be athletic or not regardless of height and that some people are naturally talented, I agree. Comments such as;

Quoteif you are so taller you have disadvantage in this adaptation, in the sports and others situations, you are slower, clumsy, etc.
The height can,t go much more 5'11 because the nature is wise.

...are ridiculous. Muhammad Ali was 6'3", was he clumsy or slow? No. The top tier NFL players are all well over 6 feet and incredibly athletic, running 60M sprints and setting world records. While there may be some athletic drop with height, it's certainly not locked in at 5 feet 11 inches. It would be easier if people didn't say people above 5'11" are xyz and other unproven generalizations. I assume that this persons goal is 5 feet 11 inches and wishes to feel positive about the height.

Edit Post

Quote from: 682 on May 04, 2017, 12:44:10 PMSo what you are saying is people can be athletic or not regardless of height and that some people are naturally talented, I agree. Comments such as;

...are ridiculous. Muhammad Ali was 6'3", was he clumsy or slow? No. The top tier NFL players are all well over 6 feet and incredibly athletic, running 60M sprints and setting world records. While there may be some athletic drop with height, it's certainly not locked in at 5 feet 11 inches. It would be easier if people didn't say people above 5'11" are xyz and other unproven generalizations. I assume that this persons goal is 5 feet 11 inches and wishes to feel positive about the height.

yep. He wants to get to 5'11 as anything above isn't better in terms of looks, functionality or whatever. A totally scewed view on life and reality.

 That doesn't mean I believe that someone who is 6' or 6'2 or even 5'11 is better than someone who is 5'10 as I want to do LL as well. But my view is that height as only effect on dating and once someone reaches the 5'9 range his dating pool is big enough (It's not the max height I can get with one operation. With 1 LL I can get to 5'10.7 but I dont see any real benefit for being taller than average with the majority of women.. I do see that being average is better than being short or below average since the negativity of those two far outweighs the immaginary positivity that comes with tall stature)

Edit Post

Quote from: Body Builder on May 04, 2017, 01:28:08 AMNot crap at all.

The men with the most athletic bodies are always average height or just 1-2 inches more than average.
Basketball players is an exception of course because height in this sport is very important.

Any source for this? Have you ever thought that you have seen more people at this height with athletic bodies is because on average most people are these heights? Now look at the NFL, combat sports etc. big men are equally as athletic. Was Ali slow and clumsy, the current heavyweight boxing champions, Tom Brady, NFL players, Shaq, Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson? Big men can and are as athletic as average height men. People can be athletic or not regardless of height and that some people are naturally talented. Why would basketball players be an exception, by this logic they should be clumsy, slow and unathletic because they are tall.

QuoteIn bodybuilding where there are athletes from every height, almost all the mr Olympias weere from 5.7 to 5.10.
That means a lot for men's aesthetics.

So you chose the one 'sport' where athleticism is irrelevant. Bodybuilders aren't athletes. Most bodybuilders aren't athletic and wouldn't succeed in sport. Aesthetics are utterly irrelevant to athleticism as hypertrophy doesn't automatically mean athletic. Modern day bodybuilding favors shorter men as they appear much more muscular because they are short, not because they are more athletic.

The reality of top level pro bodybuilding now is you have to be "huge" to have a chance of winning, and a really tall guy just won't be able to look as "huge" as a short guy. It all comes down to the square cube law. Basically, as someone's height increases linearly, for them to have a proportional physique, their weight would have to increase as the cube of their height. So, a guy at 5'6" and weighing 270 would be proportionally as huge-looking as a 6' guy weighing 350 pounds (source: 270 / 5.53 * 63), which is way over what most people can handle at a stage-worthy level of leanness. So being shorter has the advantage here but how does this mean tall men are clumsy, slow and unathletic? Shorter people do better in gymnastics too, but how does this mean tall men are clumsy, slow and unathletic?

But your generalization doesn't hold true always as there are tall bodybuilders, for example;

Arnold - 6'2", Lou Ferrigno - 6'5",  Paul Dilett - 6'2", Mike Katz - 6'2", Ralf Moeller - 6'8" etc. and Arnold actually won Mr Olympia.

Now let's look at weight lifting sports - strongmen, the champion power lifters. Usually 6 feet +.


QuotePaco is absolutely right. Tall people is not the future because they need more food, more space, they live less, they have more injuries and they are more clumsy.
Always average height to just a little more (5.10 to 6ft) will be the ideal height for men in every aspect and nature won't let the average man be more than that.

I agree average height will stall but not because 'they are more clumsy', I thought we were discussing Paco's post stating 'if you are so taller you have disadvantage in this adaptation, in the sports and others situations, you are slower, clumsy, etc.' and I've provided countless examples proving otherwise.  It would be easier if people didn't say people above 5'11" are xyz and other unproven generalizations.

Edit Post

682, there were short basketball players like mugsy bogues.  But it is insane to not understand why basketball is not a proof that very tall men are as athletic as more average ones, because in this sport you should put the ball in a basket which is  10 feet from the ground!
If this basket was 4 feet from the ground the best basketball players would have been short men.
So basketball can't really be a proof about the athletic abilities of tall men.

You mentioned boxers. You forgot the heavyweight champion and one of the best of all times boxer Mike Tyson who is less than 5.10.
Also, the best MMA fighter alive, Conor Mc Gregor, who is 5.8 and the richest and undefeatable boxer, Floyd Mayweather who is about 5.7.

Also, in a sport that height really doesn't matter and is the most commercial in the world, football, the best player now is the less than 5.7 ft Messi and the best player ever was for the majority of people Diego Maradona, a 5.5 man.

So if you want to talk with names, I can mention much more.
But my point is not that all tall men (6.2 and more for most sports) are bad at sports, but that more average height men have more benefits in the majority of sports because they have most of the benefits of tall and short men without the drawbacks they both have.

As it is hard for a short man to be competitive in most sports, the same happens with very tall men.

Edit Post

Though you have to admit many of those shine because of weight classes. Being taller means being able to be heavier and longer reach of the arms. The best fighters are taller than average. I think that it would be near impossible for a 5'11 man to beat a 6'3 man if they are equally trained and equally built

Edit Post

At the end of the day people just say whatever height they want to lengthen to is ideal.

Most studies that have been done put the average and above average range as ideal.

Like the yougov survey in the UK, one by Swami, Graziano. They all put it as exactly average to a couple of inches above.

In the west that is probably 5'10"-6'2" where your dating pool is biggest. In that range you can get women of most heights. Probably the middle of it is the sweet spot.

Basically don't be short and don't be too tall, and you're fine.

I think objectively the people that probably really need this surgery for a better quality of life are like under 5'7". Maybe 5'7"-9" or whatever won't be perfect, but it's not bad. As for ideals, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whatever. But stop trying to say "my post-LL height is the perfect one"!

Also the Swami study put 6'2" and 5'8" at a similar level of attractiveness. (6.5 and 6.4 points out of 9 respectively). 5'10" and 6'0" got exactly the same amount, 7.2 points.

Edit Post

Quote from: Jack1066 on May 04, 2017, 04:20:59 PMBut stop trying to say "my post-LL height is the perfect one"!

Also the Swami study put 6'2" and 5'8" at a similar level of attractiveness. (6.5 and 6.4 points out of 9 respectively). 5'10" and 6'0" got exactly the same amount, 7.2 points.

Any study that puts 5.8 and 6.2 as the same in attractiveness and tells that heights like 6.5 are more attractive than 6.2 are totally nonsense for me.
6.5 is way taller than average and too tall for the majority of women.
Hardly any girl would have said that 6.5 is better aesthetically than 6.2.

I would say that this survey was not so fault if it compared 6.5 to 5.8 as both heights being not very attractive.
But saying than enormously tall heights like 6.5 are more attractive than 6.2 is insane.
Almost in any study suggests that above 6.2 height starts to become a negative and this study says that 6.5 is better. Maybe in Scandinavia, nowhere else in the world. And even there it is very weird for me. But after all Scamdinavian men are not famous for their attractiveness. 

But you mentioned that anyone thinks that his height post LL is the best.
Who said that?
Personally, I believe that my current height is the best for bbing the ideal height for a man's attractiveness is 6 to 6.1 ft and for the majority of sports the best is 5.10 to 6.1ft.
My post LL height will be about 5.11.
Am i some of the ones you mentioned about post LL height?

Edit Post

Why on the hell a 5'10 ( or almost ) guy would like to do LL . I'm sorry to say that but you are just aiming for the luxe to become taller that is not a neccesity cause height neurosis at this height is simply ridiculous . Trust me don't take this way just focus on the other parts of your life become a better person and never come back on this site . 5'10 is a very good height the one who says the opposite is complete idiot and probably has a crapty life and just try to reassure him-self .