Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[precice strider]

These are some things I would ideally like to achieve after LL.

Tower over most children and middle schoolers.
Taller than most females.
The same height as most Asian males (I'm Asian).
Within standard distribution of all males.

I've heard others actually want to try to be taller than everyone else, and that would be great. But that's not essential and I'd be more than happy being average height.
What do you need to have in order to be satisfied with your post-LL height?

[BelowTheMean]

The only thing I want is to not think about how being a couple of inches taller would be nice all the time.

[AppleFanBoy]

The only thing I want is to not think about how being a couple of inches taller would be nice all the time.

This.

Not to have to think about height again. This would also be overall goal as well, based on the points you listed. If you were average you wouldn’t think about those points.

[Body Builder]

I always wanted to be at least 4-5 cm taller than most of women with heels (high ones like 10-12cm) on.
So that means I should have been about 1.80  without shoes.

That would be the ideal for me to feel completely cinfident with all of them. I don't care about other men especially their heights. I only feel intimidated with more muscular men than me, not taller ones especially since most of them are skinny or generally small framed, especially the new generations.

That said, what you want is much more important than my superficial dream and I really hope you'll achieve your goal and feel free to ask me anything you want to know about LL, although my experience with internal nails is not much, except from what I read from other llers and some talks with some doctors I did.

Keep strong.

[dreamingtall]

I would like the 6'2 and up population to not find me laughable

[F_99]

since most of them are skinny or generally small framed, especially the new generations.

I don't think so. The newer generations are taller with proportional upper frames. Late teens and early 20s may appear to have smaller back, chest, less broad shoulders because they haven't build enough muscle yet. Plus their shoulders' width probably haven't reached max. Ossification of the clavicles doesn't occur until 25 for many and happens certainly after the long bones'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossification#Timetable_for_human_ossification

[HeightGain]

That link doesn't go to any actual research paper. Without the paper it is impossible to say if is true. I agree with body builder, younger generations do seem to be in worse shape generally

[Body Builder]

I don't think so. The newer generations are taller with proportional upper frames. Late teens and early 20s may appear to have smaller back, chest, less broad shoulders because they haven't build enough muscle yet. Plus their shoulders' width probably haven't reached max. Ossification of the clavicles doesn't occur until 25 for many and happens certainly after the long bones'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossification#Timetable_for_human_ossification

They are not.
Most.young guys are genetally very slim, tall and less masculine than previous generations.
A lot of hormones from foods make boys have more estrogens which make them taller but less built. It is really hillarious that nowadays most young men (25 and less) have almost the same arms as girls at their age.
Even if they work out, they have fit bodies but their muscles without roids are a joke. I see them everyday in my gym. On the other hand, the shorter ones (5.11 and less) most of the times are.much more built and manly.

So the men nowadays are taller but less masculine than before, thats for sure.
The same happens with many girls too, without plastics they have less curves than ever.
I believe that the next generations will have almost identical bodies the boys and the girls, with some small differences, nothing compared to the past were the men had broad shoulders and strong arms and women relatively big chest and ass (curves generally).

Thats why I don't care about tall young guys, because most of them look really bad and small even at 6.3.
Built young men with wide shoulders and strong arms at more than 5.11-6 ft are very very rare.

[Hagane]

post physique

[F_99]

Plus their shoulders' width probably haven't reached max. Ossification of the clavicles doesn't occur until 25 for many and happens certainly after the long bones'

Correction; I should have written ossification of the clavicles doesn't occur until 20 for many, 25 for few and happens certainly after the long bones'

That link doesn't go to any actual research paper.

You can use Google then. Here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280866723_The_lateral_clavicular_epiphysis_fusion_timing_and_age_estimation

Without the paper it is impossible to say if is true.

Bodybuilder also said that newer generations have smaller frames, without providing any sources or papers, but you didn't question it.

They are not.
Most.young guys are genetally very slim, tall and less masculine than previous generations.
A lot of hormones from foods make boys have more estrogens which make them taller but less built. It is really hillarious that nowadays most young men (25 and less) have almost the same arms as girls at their age.
Even if they work out, they have fit bodies but their muscles without roids are a joke. I see them everyday in my gym. On the other hand, the shorter ones (5.11 and less) most of the times are.much more built and manly.

So the men nowadays are taller but less masculine than before, thats for sure.
The same happens with many girls too, without plastics they have less curves than ever.
I believe that the next generations will have almost identical bodies the boys and the girls, with some small differences, nothing compared to the past were the men had broad shoulders and strong arms and women relatively big chest and ass (curves generally).

Thats why I don't care about tall young guys, because most of them look really bad and small even at 6.3.
Built young men with wide shoulders and strong arms at more than 5.11-6 ft are very very rare.

BroScience lvl 100.

[ZUCC420]

BroScience lvl 100.

He sure does live up to the stereotypical dumb gym rat preaching broscience.

[Kal el]

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.

[Kal el]

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.😒

[MakeMeTallAF]

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'

[HeightGain]

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.

[ZUCC420]

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.

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.

[F_99]

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.

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.

[HeightGain]

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.

[F_99]

That 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?

You 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.

I 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.

[Body Builder]

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.

[Tartar]

I said that generally speaking, taller men, especially from new generations, are slim with narrower shoulders.

Absolutely true.
In every population the height increase in these last 100 years is due for the most for limbs length. It’s a fact everybody can check about. And it’s a fact that shorter people tend to have an higher height/limbs ratio.

[HeightGain]

Does the paper state growth, or just ossification?

How does growth vary with the onset and termination of ossification?

What is the distribution, the mean, the detailed ranges, the interquaetiles etc.?

Are the individuals from distinct genetic lineages?

Is the method of analysis the gold standard?

You do know that the link you are relying is so low impact factor that reputable scientists wouldn't rely on it?

Have you read the actual paper or just the abstract?

I have researched and can find no quality evidence to support your statement that 'shoulder width has not reached max' in this population

Please can you provide a quality source that substantiates your claim. I hope you aren't a scientist or in the medical profession as that would be the nadir.

[F_99]

Does the paper state growth, or just ossification?

How does growth vary with the onset and termination of ossification?

What is the distribution, the mean, the detailed ranges, the interquaetiles etc.?

Are the individuals from distinct genetic lineages?

Is the method of analysis the gold standard?

You do know that the link you are relying is so low impact factor that reputable scientists wouldn't rely on it?

Have you read the actual paper or just the abstract?

I have researched and can find no quality evidence to support your statement that 'shoulder width has not reached max' in this population

Please can you provide a quality source that substantiates your claim. I hope you aren't a scientist or in the medical profession as that would be the nadir.

Pretty sure you already have read my reply but for some reason chose to respond now. Read the papers, I am not going to answer all of your questions. You demand scientfic papers for my claim while I arleady provided a source and when the other guy claims that foods lead to younger genrations with smallers frames without any source, you say nothing.

I hope you're not a scientist because your stupidity seems outstanding.

[HeightGain]

Just read your response, some people don't live on this site. You haven't answered any of the questions.

You have not substantiated your claim and obviously can't. It is obvious you haven't read your resource link, you looked at an abstract.

When researching papers you look at the quality of the research journal, then you scan the abstract then read the results section. When you understand the paper you quote it in the work you are doing.

[F_99]

Just read your response, some people don't live on this site.

Yeay, yeah, the rest do live on this site.

You haven't answered any of the questions.

And I don't have to; When you ignore bs BB's BroScience like new gen males with smaller frames and females with less curves because of 'food' and then complaining about research papers with questions like you belong to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, why would I take you seriously?

You have not substantiated your claim and obviously can't. It is obvious you haven't read your resource link, you looked at an abstract.
When researching papers you look at the quality of the research journal, then you scan the abstract then read the results section. When you understand the paper you quote it in the work you are doing.

What are you even talking about? Scroll down, it's below the abstract. The point is, my and ZUCC420's claims about clacivle ossification age are correct, and you're arguing for the sake of argument.