Quote from: IwannaBeTaller on May 26, 2018, 09:07:28 PMA couple of posters insist that shorter guys are less attractive because of their smaller frames and also because their head looks too big compared to their body ("bobble heads" as someone called it).
Those "couple of posters" are partially correct. One of the reasons short men are attractive is that they have smaller frames on average
However, the idea that short men are unattractive because their "head looks too big compared to their body" is absurd. Head size IS proportional to stature, just like all your other extremities (see my response to your next paragraph). Short "bobblehead" men, like short men with wingspans 2"+ greater than their height, are statistical outliers. Every short guy is not Daniel Radcliffe.
MOST short men are completely proportional in every way. "Bobbleheads" are neither a common occurrence nor a major detractor from short men's looks. The fact that women have to crane their heads down 45 or more degrees to look them in the eye is.
QuoteAs far as I can remember, head size is often pretty much the same among people, and does not have a significant correlation with height (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
Sure, here you go:
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v30n1/art28.pdf
QuoteSUMMARY: Anthropometric indices that are indicators of nutrition status in children and adults can be affected by racial and
geographic factors. The aim of present study was to investigate the relation of skull size and brain volume of Arak University of Medical
Sciences students with their age, weight, height and body mass index. The present study was a cross-sectional study on 18-26 years old
students of Arak University of Medical Sciences (150 female and 136 male) in 2009-2010 educational year. Sampling methods were
probability and multi-stage methods which were performed using students’ educational file and interviewing the subjects. Questions
regarding anthropometric data (height, weight, age, body mass index and skull index) were included in the personal questionnaires. Data
was analyzed and evaluated statistically using SPSS statistical software. Mean height was 177.27±6.41 cm in males and was 166.61±5.35
cm in females. Mean weight of males was 73.33±9.11 kg and mean weight of females was 55.55±7.28. Mean BMI was 23.20±2.43 and
21.27±2.69 in males and females, respectively. Mean skull index was 1.99±0.26 in males and 2.20±0.3 in females. Mentioned data were
significantly different between males and females. Also mean age of females was less than males. Positive relations were found between
skull volume and height, weight, age and BMI in both sexes and this relation is stronger regarding BMI. The present study, supporting the
other studies in this field, confirms the relation between skull index and body mass index and indicates the effect of race. Considering the
studied population which are students of Arak University of Medical Sciences and are from different regions of the country, similarities
between results of this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25552209
QuoteRESULT:
The findings of the present study were significant correlation between height and head circumference (r = 0.443, p < 0.01 for male, r = 0.302, p<0.01 for female, and r = 0. 398, p < 0.01 for combined (male and female). The regression equation for height and head circumference was found to be Y = 1.734X + 70.36 (R2 = 0.196) for male, Y = 0.916X + 106.8 (R2 = 0.091) for female, and Y = 1.648 X + 71.69 (R2 = 0.158) for combined (male and female), where Y is the height of Individual and X is the Head Circumference.
QuoteI'm also a little skeptical with the argument that wrist and feet size is important in any way. Sure, some guys probably wish they had biggger wrists because it makes them look more manly, but I've never heard a woman say that it matters in any way,
With all due respect, I'm not surprised you've never heard it, because most "positive" male posters on height-based forums like this one or reddit's r/short only hear what they want to hear when it comes to height (anything negative about being short on r/short gets downvoted/banned immediately, for example). Most acknowledge that height matters, but they try to undermine or downplay its importance, so I'm not surprised you're not aware of the importance of gross bone mass ("frame").
With that being said:
https://www.koreaboo.com/buzz/difference-male-female-idol-hand-sizes-heart-fluttering/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/05/yes-donald-trumps-hands-are-actually-pretty-small/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ec5f489dae0
QuoteAccording to data from Ergonomics Center of North Carolina, the average American male’s hand is 7.61 inches long. Trump’s hand sits at the 15th percentile mark. That is, 85 percent of American men have larger hands than Trump. As do a third of women.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/donald-trump-small-hands-hurricane-relief
If it were really so inconsequential, would articles like these exist where people point out the "heart fluttering" hand size difference between a man and woman, or how the hand size of the "most powerful man in the U.S." is in the Xth percentile?
Not to mention the hundreds of pictures on social media of teenage girls (and older women) where they're doing something like this with their boyfriends:
I'm sorry to say height & bone mass/"frame" is probably 70% of the attraction equation, with the other 30% being facial aesthetics. Height, frame, etc are disqualifying characteristics. Think of it like a pastry. Height and bone mass are the "cake" itself while facial aesthetics are the "garnish" i.e. sprinkles, whipped cream, icing, etc. Plenty of people would eat cake without toppings on it (pound cake, sponge cake, etc), but RARELY will anyone eat sprinkles or icing by itself.
Quotenor have I seen studies that it does play a role in attractiveness. Same with feet.
Sure you have - you just didn't realize it. I've posted them myself. Any study that mentions "dimorphism" or "masculinity" or "dominance" involved measurements of bone mass (to which height happens to contribute the majority).
QuoteI would also argue (not that it really matters, since hardly anyone will abuse HGH for that long) that acromegaly sometimes creates unattractive facial features (Tony Robbins...).
Tony Robbins? You mean this guy?
If this is the guy you're talking about, he isn't deformed or ugly. He isn't a male model by any means, but he isn't particularly unattractive either. Sure he has a big head, but his entire body is big, not to mention that if he DOES have acromegaly, he's on the VERY VERY LOW END of it (Google says he's 6'7" which means he BARELY qualifies as acromegalic). In the pictures where he's standing with women, his head doesn't look deformed or misshapen at ALL - it just looks like normal dimorphic deviation.
I hate to burst your bubble but this guy wouldn't be considered unattractive by most women his age or even 10-20 years younger, which is GREAT considering he looks to be in his 40s or 50s.
The bottom line is he isn't deformed. Here are some pictures of what deformation due to acromegaly looks like:
It's also possible for "acromegaly" to occur WITHOUT deforming a person (as I mentioned in my previous post), such that their skull/extremities just happen to grow a bit:
If Tony Robbins does have "acromegaly", this is the type he has.
QuoteOr would these facial features only develop if the HGH exposure happens during puberty?
It's not about the timing of the exposure. It's about the chronicity of use and the dosage. Having CONSTANTLY AND EXTREMELY ELEVATED levels of serum HGH/IGF-1 for VERY PROLONGED PERIODS (as you've seen, changes in facial structure are measured over DECADES, not months or 2-3 years) of time result in acromegaly. This isn't something you can happen "by accident" with a few months of 10 IU of chinese HGH off Alibaba.
Quote from: Johnson1111 on May 26, 2018, 09:15:36 PM I see with the hand and shoe growth. However the con side is that the size of his heart and brain also were grown well beyond the size they should in his autopsy?
The primary cause of Rich Piana's cardiomegaly was not his use of HGH, it was his use of androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768197/
QuoteWhether of local or systemic origin, endogenous steroid hormones appear to drive LV growth. Systemic glucocorticoid excess is associated with significant hypertrophy. This action is more likely to be direct, rather than mediated through an elevated pressor burden,2 with aldosterone having similar effects.3 Local myocardial renin-angiotensin systems (RAS) play a role in regulating LV growth,4 and at least part of the hypertrophic responses to steroid hormones may be mediated through upregulation of local RAS expression.5 Anabolic/androgenic steroids (AAS—primarily comprising testosterone and its synthetic derivatives) are likely to share such influences on the LV hypertrophic response through actions on the androgen receptor (AR), a transcriptional regulator.6,7 Indeed, ARs are almost ubiquitously expressed, being found not only in skeletal muscle cells, but also on cardiac myocytes. Several lines of evidence also implicate endogenous androgenic pathways in the development of cardiac hypertrophy, including the demonstration of raised 5α reductase, aromatase, and AR expression in hypertrophic hearts of both humans and mice.6
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909423/
QuoteMethods & Results
We performed 2-dimensional, tissue-Doppler, and speckle-tracking echocardiography to assess left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV systolic strain, and conventional indices of diastolic function in long-term AAS users (n=12) and otherwise similar AAS non-users (n=7). AAS users (median [Q1,Q3] cumulative lifetime AAS exposure 468 [169–520] weeks) closely resembled non-users in age, prior duration of weightlifting, and current intensity of weight training. LV structural parameters were similar between the two groups. However, AAS users had significantly lower LV ejection fraction (50.6% [48.4, 53.6] versus 59.1% [58.0, 61.7]; p = 0.003 by Wilcoxon rank sum test, two-tailed); longitudinal strain (16.9% [14.0, 19.0] versus 21.0% [20.2, 22.9]; p = 0.004), and radial strain (38.3 [28.5, 43.7] versus 50.1 [44.3, 61.8]; p = 0.02). Ten of the 12 AAS users showed LV ejection fractions below the accepted limit of normal (≥55%). AAS users also demonstrated decreased diastolic function compared to non-users, as evidenced by a markedly lower E′ velocity (7.4 [6.8, 7.9] versus 9.9 [8.3, 10.5]; p = 0.005) and E/A ratio (0.93 [0.88, 1.39] versus 1.80 [1.48, 2.00]; p = 0.003).
Conclusions
Cardiac dysfunction in long-term AAS users appears more severe than previously reported, and may be sufficient to increase the risk of heart failure.
Countless similar studies can be found easily. Again, chronicity of use, plus the fact that Rich Piana (like all IFBB bodybuilders) often stacked SEVERAL different compounds of varying potency at astronomical doses (2g+ of testosterone esters + 1g of Trenbolone Acetate per week, plus 50mg+ of Superdrol/Anadrol/some oral steroid) was the PRIMARY reason for his LVH. HGH was a factor, but it was a miniscule one relative to the AAS.
QuoteThe problem with doses of GH for long periods of time is that beyond therepeutic dosages the GH does not discriminate and will grow everything including the parts we do not want.
I already knew this and alluded to it in my post (I mentioned no one here can afford enough pharmaceutical grade HGH to induce such effects in themselves)
QuoteThings like left ventricular hypertrophy are linked to longer time periods on GH at high dosages.
Addressed above
QuoteIs a therapeutic dosage in the safe range of GH really going to be enough for a otherwise healthy 20-30 year old man to grow in stature after their growth plates have fused...when they have already good levels pulsating through them at that age? Just seems like a waste of money to me. I do not see the angle.
No. No amount of HGH will do that.
Did you even read my post? Here is what I said regarding this matter:
QuoteALSO, regarding OP and the topic of this thread: Notice he does not say ANYTHING about height increase whatsoever, because he didn't get taller. Neither has any other bodybuilder who has used as much or more rHGH (Dorian Yates, Jay Cutler, basically ANY IFBB pro) Michael's hypothesis about rHGH overstimulation is just that, a hypothesis, one that is almost certainly FALSE. rHGH will NOT make you grow even a picometer after your epiphyseal cartilage has ossified.
QuoteGenetics play a factor as well. Very high levels of IGF are linked to higher risk of cancer developing and developing faster. If you are already prone you can run into trouble.
Genetics are 90% of the game insofar as cancer is concerned, like everything else in life. Obviously if you've got a family history of cancer, HGH/AAS/etc are inadvisable.
QuoteI think it is admirable to try but it is a fools errand at the end of the day. It is not the answer. I am familiar with rich and I believe he was on extremely high doses of pharm GH when he was competing in his late teens/early 20’s. He ONLY grew outwards. Same with all the young 18-19-20 bodybuilders who are on cktails of hormones including GH at 5’6”-5’7” and they do not grow vertically at all. If they did it would be well documented all over the youtube fitness channels. The simple science of the ways in which GH , IGF-1 grows children with their growth plates open would not logically work on adults with them closed. The same actions that trigger and speed growth would not be able to take place
Yes, that's what I just said in my last post.
Quote from: myloginacct on May 26, 2018, 09:59:56 PMIf Teplyashin's research hasn't resulted in another available form of cosmetic stature increase (even if only to millionaires) in 10 years, I'm afraid we'll be running out of options.
Like I always say that 10 years could be much less if only this issue had some impetus behind it like male pattern baldness does. Literally the EXACT same technology curing baldness (Shiseido/Replicel's induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-based implants coming out 2020) can be and already has been used by both Dr. Teplyashin and Dr. Alsberg to produce epiphyseal cartilage for implantation, and every day new potential "scaffolds" for implantation are designed and tested
https://futurism.com/3d-printed-sugar-scaffold-bioengineering/
QuoteAfter growing tissue around a printed sugar scaffold, as Bhargava suggests above, the sugar would simply dissolve, leaving behind a self-sustaining organic structure. When the sugar dissolves, it leaves behind a series of inter-laced tubes and tunnels that can be used like blood vessels to transport nutrients or to create channels in certain medical devices. The team hopes to develop special coatings to control when and how fast the structures dissolve, similar to coatings that surround medicine in pills. Though it may still be a while before sugar scaffolds are used to 3D print human organs or in hydrogel-based medical devices, the technology is promising, and marks another sweet victory for the future of medicine.
Unfortunately most short men are too busy coping/deluding themselves on boards like r/short instead of posting on boards like this. Short stature is the worst of all the aesthetic flaws a man can have. I'd trade short height for balding in a heartbeat, at least they have something to hope for.
small growth with HGH after growth plates "officially "fused
I hope this technology which could potentially cure dwarfism comes to fruition in at least 10 years, wishful thinking I know, by then I would be 30 and won't be too old to experience life with tall stature. CLL isn't effective for men who are >5'7" let's not delude ourselves, sure these short men could become taller than they were but still it wouldn't be enough to justify the exorbitant fee and the agonizing months spent in an unfamiliar location or hospital.
@extremis I strongly empathize with you regarding short men with "manly syndrome" that are presumably trying to lift weights, buying new clothes, bragging on the internet "r/redpill" about how many holes they have filled (yes i know that site doesn't represent all short men, but it isn't unfeasible for surmise) or in |short| 
"coping" as they say instead of starting a campaign in search of a solution, where millions of men are getting acknowledged for the plight they've endured for the rest of their life, then the stemcell research concerning height would gain traction and the flawed CLL method would be btfo'd.
I hope to god if he exists to make it a reality soon, so that we and our short brethren that are in the untreatable zone with current technology can live well and prosper in the near future. Amen.
I really hate reading posts of men who are not ok with their heights to brag like sissies about a magic solution that will make them taller without any risk or complication.
LL now with the arrival of Stryde is better than ever. All these people should be thankful that there IS a solution to make us taller without losing months on bed and without terrible "cages" in our legs.
So things are better than ever now. If someone want a gene therapy or some other miracle to become tall easily and safely then he should wait for many many years and lose his life only because he is not brave enought to change his life and taking the risks for doing that, which are less than ever.
Personally I am more than thankful that we have up to tech nails like stryde and I only want to gather all the money for using it.
Anything else is bs for me and farytales for the cowards.
@Body builder First of all, don't take offence at the lifting remarks which was meant to mock those stereotyped compensating short men that are e bragging.
I get what you are saying and I am not disagreeing with you but you have to think about height holistically, there are men that are below a certain threshold that cannot be treated by just elongating the legs, these men mostly ranging less than 5'7" have subpar torso, arms, shoulders, frames,etc. I am one of them and IMO getting through the double surgery consisting of femur and tibia isn't enough to to fix my "problems",which by the way is limited since lengthening more than 3" will probably look odd unless you have a disproportionately long torso which is rare.
I have thought this through, the highest I can reach with CLL may be 5'8" without looking like a spider and paying 200k doesn't justify it a bit because I am not a fool nor a millionaire.
Quote from: Body Builder on May 27, 2018, 05:22:10 AMI really hate reading posts of men who are not ok with their heights to brag like sissies about a magic solution that will make them taller without any risk or complication.
LL now with the arrival of Stryde is better than ever. All these people should be thankful that there IS a solution to make us taller without losing months on bed and without terrible "cages" in our legs.
So things are better than ever now. If someone want a gene therapy or some other miracle to become tall easily and safely then he should wait for many many years and lose his life only because he is not brave enought to change his life and taking the risks for doing that, which are less than ever.
Personally I am more than thankful that we have up to tech nails like stryde and I only want to gather all the money for using it.
Anything else is bs for me and farytales for the cowards.
Look mate, if you have some problem with me then just insult me straight up instead of being passive-aggressive about it and indirectly alluding to me using idiotic beat-around-the-bush terminology like this. It's laughable to call someone a coward when you do this.
I honestly don't give a sh*t about Stryde. Is it an improvement to the distraction osteogenesis technique? Sure. But it doesn't solve my (and many other people's) problems with distraction osteogenesis, which is the permanent loss of athletic ability and the risk of permanent complications. Both those problems still exist and you stand a very real chance of facing them whether you go to Dr. Paley or "Sarin the butcher" as you like to call him.
It's not a matter of pain or death. I'm not the least bit afraid of either. If these were the only "risks" implicated in CLL, I would be first in line to get it done. I need my athletic ability and cannot afford to have it hampered, which is why CLL is not an acceptable proposition for me. Plenty of others are in the same boat. Still others are not okay with risking ending up like one of the several posters (such as unicorn) whose lives were ruined by distraction osteogenesis.
Despite the fact that I regularly speak about attraction and its ramifications on this board, I'm not interested in getting taller so I can attract women. I'm not interested in sex or relationships and haven't been for a long time. Getting taller is purely about overcoming my PHYSICAL (and to a lesser extent, social and workplace) limitations, not about peacking.
You look like a luddite imbecile when you spout garbage about "miracles" and "fairy tales" regarding novel technologies. If you don't understand the science, why criticize it? Especially when the relevant technology ALREADY EXISTS (induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) and the principal part of the procedure (generation and implantation of artificial epiphyseal cartilage) has ALREADY BEEN DONE and successfully shown to work in animal models.
If your problems with your height were purely about attracting women then sure, CLL can fix it for you. Get it done and move on. Back to your squat rack to cope with your bullsh*t weights.
Quote from: extremis on May 27, 2018, 12:44:28 AMLike I always say that 10 years could be much less if only this issue had some impetus behind it like male pattern baldness does.
I think it's harder to change the impetus in the "short community" because they haven't really researched and digested the emerging science that could be used to treat short stature; most will never will.
However, I do think it's possible to show investors, venture capitalists, maybe even big pharma, the potential profit that lies behind an alternative form to distraction osteogenesis. We may just need R&D from a huge company at this point. Doctors like Paley have what, over 100 cosmetic patients a year? His minimum price is about 90.000 dollars, and you spend a minimum of 6 months as a couch potato, with pain levels that can spike to 8, 9/10, and a recovery time that can put your career in jeopardy in the case of complications. That's how much people with money want to get taller...
Yes.
Do you know when growth plates in spine are closing?i mean its seems that they are the last to be closed
I don't know tbh if that would work for everyone(everyone is different)... I tried HGH(jintropin) at 4iu per day when i was 20, I did it for 3 months. all i got was a giant gain of water weight within a week or 2. entire face was swollen thanks to the water i gained in a short period of time.
what i think ,as if you use HGH ,better doing it with European,Scandinavian one .You were injected Chinese one ,the cheaper variant,also to get some results,we need to make it clear ,that such small dose doesn't make any noticeable difference (side effects with water just an exception)We need shock the body,to get something like growth of the hands ,foots,head ,and mainly to gain a bone density .I going to make an experiment with high doses of expensive HGH ,for a few months
By the way ,i have seen you were talking in other topic that you can shrunk to around 5 ft 8 ,this is means that you are not 5 ft 10 ,because you not holding this mark till night time
You must be logged in to post a reply.