Where do you think it stems from? Is it just the fact that it's the closest round measurment beyond the 5 foot heights and so has come to signify the standard of tallness? I've heard that in European countries, 180cm is the standard for that reason.
I mean, do people even know what six foot looks like? Can they distinguish it from other heights? I certainly can't tell if someone is six foot or not -- only that they are relatively tall. I don't think I'd be able to guess someone's height within about an inch either side of six foot; and that degree of accuracy I put down to being nearish average height myself.
In this case, it must be way harder for women to actually deduce what six foot looks like. So perhaps 5'11 and 6foot are basically the same thing.
I'm 5'8.5, and could potentially lengthen tibias to get to six foot and achieve a 1:1 tibia/femur ratio. Obviously, there's the recovery implications for lengthening that much, which I'm heavily considering, but ignoring that for the movement and focusing on the context of this discussion; is it in anyway worth pushing for six foot and not just going for 5'11?
With such a big operation, it's easy to have anxiety about pushing for as much height as you can get without it being exponentially detrimental, and to be able to get to 5'11 relatively easily, it's hard not to wonder weather pushing for that extra inch (the maximum) is worth it or not.
Thoughts? Thanks!
I'm still researching this before I reply properly, but I preface first by saying that Dr. Giotikas himself did tell me during my consultation that external tibias were technically the safest methods. Dr. Solomon in Russia also told me via email that external methods were the safest option for limb lengthening.
Also, we haven't talked any about the relative risks of pulmonary/fat embolism with each method, which is obviously a determining factor when trying to quantify the safety of one method versus another. It's important obviously crucial to consider the seriousness of an infection versus other things that can go wrong. As has been pointed out, life threatening infections are extremely uncommon -- maybe they're more uncommon than the risk of death from embolism? We'd have to crunch the numbers. I mean, those that have died have died due to complications with internal methods.
I should also be cautious about putting too much weight on this study the arthritis study that keeps being banded around (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26398436/). When I've checked, I don't have access to the full paper with my University login, and I highly doubt anyone else has read the full paper to be able to really analyse what the results mean. For example, we don't even know what method was used for the lengthening -- what if it was LON? In which case, the arthritis may be attributed to having the patella split, and isn't so relevant to the fully external methods.
It's also not like this paper is the only one to investigate the arthritis issue. Here's a paper which suppose risk of arthritis with femoral lengthening: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8231406/ .
You must be logged in to post a reply.