Limb Lengthening Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?  (Read 7066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NewHeights

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« on: January 17, 2015, 08:51:21 PM »

Hi all.

A lot of height dysphoria/neurosis comes from labeling ourselves into these height "ranges". First off, how would you assess my perceived numerical height ranges and their qualitative equivalents:

Very short     <5' 5"
Short              5' 5" to 5' 7"
Shorter than average 5' 7" to 5' 8"
Average         5' 8" to 5 10"
Taller than average 5' 10" to 5' 11.5"
Tall.                5' 11.5" to 6' 3"
Very tall.         >6' 3"

Second question.... why do so many of us feel we need to be in the final two categories? I would be the happiest man in the world to be in the taller than average category
Logged
177CM/176CM morning/evening :( Wingspan 178 CM :( Inseam/Height 47.7% :( BPEL 7.5" :)
Option 1: Inversion and Glucosamine to 177+CM :)
Option 2: CLL to 180 CM :)
"Be the best version of yourself"

endomorphisme

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2015, 08:57:58 PM »

Because being tall feels so good ? (Feeling of being very confident and superior)
Logged

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2015, 12:02:42 AM »

My natural height before having my growth stunted was 6'1-6'2, so that's why I'm trying to make it to that category.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

Uppland

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1562
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2015, 12:58:28 AM »

<160CM is extremely short

160-165CM is very short

165-170CM is short

170-175CM is kind of short

175-180CM is below average

180-185CM is average

185-190CM is above average

190-195CM is tall

195-200CM is very tall

200CM+ is extremely tall

Yes I am scandinavian.
Logged

Blackhawk

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 405
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2015, 02:08:50 AM »

Hi all.

A lot of height dysphoria/neurosis comes from labeling ourselves into these height "ranges". First off, how would you assess my perceived numerical height ranges and their qualitative equivalents:

Very short     <5' 5"
Short              5' 5" to 5' 7"
Shorter than average 5' 7" to 5' 8"
Average         5' 8" to 5 10"
Taller than average 5' 10" to 5' 11.5"
Tall.                5' 11.5" to 6' 3"
Very tall.         >6' 3"

Second question.... why do so many of us feel we need to be in the final two categories? I would be the happiest man in the world to be in the taller than average category


I think those ranges are pretty accurate for the US.  I am in the short range, 5'6".  I just want to move up 1 or 2 ranges.  6'2" would be awesome, but I can appreciate being around 5'10".
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 03:28:30 AM by Blackhawk »
Logged

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2015, 03:02:13 AM »

I would also edit the ranges lightly from a statistics point of view:
Under 5'5: short
5'5-5'7: shorter than average
5'7-5'11: average (normal)
5'11-6'1: taller than average
Over 6'1: tall
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

ForcedPuberty

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 513
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2015, 09:58:26 AM »

the original poster got it right.

newheights23 pay no attention to these stupid people, they exaggerate the averages because they have mental conditions called height neurosis.
Logged
Nope, 20cm is just nope.

"because FP's the hero LL Forum deserves, but not the one is needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. because hes not the hero. He's a silent gardian, watchfull protector. The Dark Knight."

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2015, 06:22:00 PM »

the original poster got it right.

newheights23 pay no attention to these stupid people, they exaggerate the averages because they have mental conditions called height neurosis.

Do you even know what statistics are? The standard deviation of height is 2 inches, so my post is correct.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

TomD

  • Private
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2015, 07:02:49 PM »

Hi all.

A lot of height dysphoria/neurosis comes from labeling ourselves into these height "ranges". First off, how would you assess my perceived numerical height ranges and their qualitative equivalents:

Very short     <5' 5"
Short              5' 5" to 5' 7"
Shorter than average 5' 7" to 5' 8"
Average         5' 8" to 5 10"
Taller than average 5' 10" to 5' 11.5"
Tall.                5' 11.5" to 6' 3"
Very tall.         >6' 3"

Second question.... why do so many of us feel we need to be in the final two categories? I would be the happiest man in the world to be in the taller than average category

I guess the dividing lines are subjective but fall into a relative category.

I am a white american so I can only speak for other white males

5ft to 5ft 5 is extremely short.

5ft6 to 5ft9 is short

5ft 10 to 6ft is normal size

6ft1 to 6ft3 is tall

6ft4 and beyond is NBA candidate or NFL lineman.
Logged

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2015, 07:18:53 PM »

I guess the dividing lines are subjective but fall into a relative category.

I am a white american so I can only speak for other white males

5ft to 5ft 5 is extremely short.

5ft6 to 5ft9 is short

5ft 10 to 6ft is normal size

6ft1 to 6ft3 is tall

6ft4 and beyond is NBA candidate or NFL lineman.

From a statistics perspective, 5'7-5'11 is going to be considered "normal"--containing 68% of the population. The standard deviation in height statistics tends to be about 2 inches; that's why medical experts consider those four inches below or above 5'9 (about the American average), to be of short or tall stature (ex: 5'5 and below is short, and 6'1 and above is tall).
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

Blackhawk

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 405
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2015, 07:30:55 PM »

From a statistics perspective, 5'7-5'11 is going to be considered "normal"--containing 68% of the population. The standard deviation in height statistics tends to be about 2 inches; that's why medical experts consider those four inches below or above 5'9 (about the American average), to be of short or tall stature (ex: 5'5 and below is short, and 6'1 and above is tall).

I agree with this^^

the original poster got it right.

newheights23 pay no attention to these stupid people, they exaggerate the averages because they have mental conditions called height neurosis.

ForcedPuberty sure has a lot of insults.  Calling people incorrect, ignorant, stupid, etc.  He sounds like an immature, know-it-all, punk kid.  FP, can you try to make an argument without sounding like a complete @sshole??
Logged

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2015, 07:51:15 PM »

Yeah, Ikr? What's the deal with that guy? He presents no arguements when it comes to anything. He's a bitter little bitch.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

GeTs

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 737
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2015, 10:14:06 PM »

Morning height or late night? I always wondered if these studies did morning or night, either way I should be 183 late night, which i would love to be, i have a thin muscular build,76 cm arm length, and short tibias, i've been doing sports which involved My lega as i result i developed longer femurs from adapting to it.
I'm currently 177.4 night, and its not a bad height at all, just not the dream height which I think it's 6'1 cause in my book its the maximum for "tall but not to tall", which is less imposing but more attractive than a 6'5
Logged

TomD

  • Private
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2015, 10:17:17 PM »

From a statistics perspective, 5'7-5'11 is going to be considered "normal"--containing 68% of the population. The standard deviation in height statistics tends to be about 2 inches; that's why medical experts consider those four inches below or above 5'9 (about the American average), to be of short or tall stature (ex: 5'5 and below is short, and 6'1 and above is tall).

You could be right. I am thinking about it from a more personal point of view that affects us in our society.

5ft 7 is viewed as short. I know. I am 5ft 7. I am treated differently than those who are 5ft 10 . Noticeably.

I am treated the same as those guys 5 ft 6 and 5ft 8 , even 5ft9 to a moderate degree

I am treated better , and taken more seriously than a guy 5ft 5 or 5ft 3 and so on.

So this is what I have seen in the real world. However, I am white. A chinese guy who is 5ft 7 may very well attract the better looking asian babes (lucky guy)

In Denmark a guy 5ft 10 is picking up the fat chicks. So its all relative to how we are perceived I guess  :)
Logged

endomorphisme

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2015, 10:22:03 PM »

167-194 cm is the most common height i see on a daily basis at university with 173-187 being super common
Logged

crimsontide

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1162
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2015, 11:00:11 PM »

5'7 guy is not treated the same as a 5'9 guy


and 5'10 guys if handsome are not picking up the fat chicks

i think nordic countries are in denial
Logged

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2015, 11:49:02 PM »

You could be right. I am thinking about it from a more personal point of view that affects us in our society.

5ft 7 is viewed as short. I know. I am 5ft 7. I am treated differently than those who are 5ft 10 . Noticeably.

I am treated the same as those guys 5 ft 6 and 5ft 8 , even 5ft9 to a moderate degree

I am treated better , and taken more seriously than a guy 5ft 5 or 5ft 3 and so on.

So this is what I have seen in the real world. However, I am white. A chinese guy who is 5ft 7 may very well attract the better looking asian babes (lucky guy)

In Denmark a guy 5ft 10 is picking up the fat chicks. So its all relative to how we are perceived I guess  :)

idk, man. I'm 5'7 and not really treated any differently than anyone else.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

ForcedPuberty

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 513
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2015, 03:28:14 AM »

Quote
idk, man. I'm 5'7 and not really treated any differently than anyone else.

rubbish. if you were not treated any differently than anyone else you would not be on this forum about to snap your freaking legs in half and undergo the most painful surgery for 2 full years for tibia and femur.

your here because you ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

 you lie to yourself a lot readrothbard.
Logged
Nope, 20cm is just nope.

"because FP's the hero LL Forum deserves, but not the one is needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. because hes not the hero. He's a silent gardian, watchfull protector. The Dark Knight."

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2015, 03:36:33 AM »

rubbish. if you were not treated any differently than anyone else you would not be on this forum about to snap your freaking legs in half and undergo the most painful surgery for 2 full years for tibia and femur.

your here because you ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

 you lie to yourself a lot readrothbard.

Lol

I'm here because I want to be exceptional in every part of my life--including height. I've never been treated differently because of my height.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

ForcedPuberty

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 513
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2015, 03:48:14 AM »

Asperger's, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication,

you don't understand how people treat you if you really have this condition.
Logged
Nope, 20cm is just nope.

"because FP's the hero LL Forum deserves, but not the one is needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. because hes not the hero. He's a silent gardian, watchfull protector. The Dark Knight."

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2015, 04:02:42 AM »

That could be true, but my psychologist tells me that I've made enough progress to understand most social interactions.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

ForcedPuberty

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 513
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2015, 04:09:14 AM »

then why do you always insist that your an expert on social psychology and evolutionary based psychology.

surely you know that you are only restating your opinion so forcefully because you so desperately want to stick to your belief system? so that you don't have to think of yourself as inferior?

after all if the girl from a psychological perspective has the problem.......... then that means the problem is not with you..... doesn't it?

Logged
Nope, 20cm is just nope.

"because FP's the hero LL Forum deserves, but not the one is needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. because hes not the hero. He's a silent gardian, watchfull protector. The Dark Knight."

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2015, 04:38:02 AM »

then why do you always insist that your an expert on social psychology and evolutionary based psychology.

surely you know that you are only restating your opinion so forcefully because you so desperately want to stick to your belief system? so that you don't have to think of yourself as inferior?

after all if the girl from a psychological perspective has the problem.......... then that means the problem is not with you..... doesn't it?

I suppose you're a psychologist, too, my friend!
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

Uppland

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1562
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2015, 05:28:19 AM »

That could be true, but my psychologist tells me that I've made enough progress to understand most social interactions.

Do you have aspergers?

People with psychological syndroms are overrepresented in the LL community from what I can tell.
Logged

ReadRothbard

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1735
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2015, 06:08:10 AM »

Do you have aspergers?

People with psychological syndroms are overrepresented in the LL community from what I can tell.

Yes, and unlike many others, I was clinically diagnosed.

Also, your observation would make sense. People with psychological disorders and/or syndromes will tend to be more obsessive over their perceived flaws. I don't necessarily view my height as a "flaw" per se, but I would like to personally be taller.
Logged
“If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

172 cm in the morning (67.8"); 170 cm (67”) at night; Sitting Height: 96 cm (37.8”); Goal: 184.5 cm (6'0.7"); Ultimate Goal: 192 cm (6’3.5) morning height, 190 cm (6’3) “night” height
Future space tycoon

ItsMyLife

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1287
Re: numerical height ranges. accurate assessment?
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2015, 12:30:17 PM »

imo, in a country where average is 172 (statistics do lie, I think the average is higher?)

short <168
below average < 170
average 170-175
above average 175 -178
tall 178 -185 ( there are many such people here)
very tall > 185

I did a count of people in a shopping mall with shoes of 180cm (meaning my height was about 178). I was 10th percentile-15 th percentile.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up