Print

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

[GeTs]

Didn't want to spell it correctly as google tracks it and makes LL more and more popular each day, but found that the perfect height is slightly taller than average which is 5'10 for a british 18+, it's 5'11
but the coolest to be is 6'1


95% of girls fall between 5'0 and 5'11
94% of men fall between 5'4 and 6'3

So i guess the best height to be is above 75% with 85%-95% being the sweet spot, but women prefer 75% and 85% over 95%, as they repute it too tall, while men repute over 95% the best height.


This data also explains that since more than 60% of people are around 5'10, they'd round up to 6'0, making 6'0 being claimed by 80% of the whole population, which is why 6'0 has lost its meaning.



My conclusion is that the best height is 186cm and here are my reasons:
-its on the tall side for everyone
-you become 6'2 for fun/special occasions with a 1cm insole
-the average will never go beyond 6'0 in the future
-it looks amazing in suit

[GeTs]

Having said that I'd need 8 cm to reach that, it's out of my reach so I'd settle for 6'0, as being 6'0(lowest) should make me happy to regain my athletic ability after LL, to make me normal proportions wise, I currently have 76cm arm length and I have very short tibias due to the fact I have bow legs and I played football from young age

[ReadRothbard]

I'm thinking 6'1 to 6'2. That's the 90-95th percentile.

[GeTs]

I'm thinking 6'1 to 6'2. That's the 90-95th percentile.

more than that isn't that necessary, important is to break the 6'0 mark at night, anything more is welcomed but not essential

[Moubgf]

more than that isn't that necessary, important is to break the 6'0 mark at night, anything more is welcomed but not essential

nah 5'10 at night is sweet and sound. and 6'0 during the day,

[Arnoldolly]

I read and feel so much fun. Share this again

[ItsMyLife]

I read and feel so much fun. Share this again

What fun?? Why? So you went from the other thread to this thread, and read it, all this in 16 seconds. are you a robot??

[Puertoricanwasp123]

I thought I posted here. Ideal height is 6'2" max in Western hemisphere.

[KiloKAHN]

5'10 for me. Tall enough to avoid the wanton height discrimination and short enough that it isn't too difficult to bulk up.

[Puertoricanwasp123]

5'10 for me. Tall enough to avoid the wanton height discrimination and short enough that it isn't too difficult to bulk up.

Your torso won't grow so bulking the upper body should be simple in theory for a LLer but for real people yes it's hard but not impossible to bulk like Hulk with the help of roids.

[ItsMyLife]

Your torso won't grow so bulking the upper body should be simple in theory for a LLer but for real people yes it's hard but not impossible to bulk like Hulk with the help of roids.

True.. upper body shd be the same. I also wanna be taller so I can eat more (more cells = higher metabolism)

[Puertoricanwasp123]

True.. upper body shd be the same. I also wanna be taller so I can eat more (more cells = higher metabolism)

You stole my words, I have that same metabolism desire but we probably can have more calories but foods like peanut butter which is small but with plenty of calories.

[ItsMyLife]

You stole my words, I have that same metabolism desire but we probably can have more calories but foods like peanut butter which is small but with plenty of calories.

Yup but the human body is a crazy thing. For eg, if you have 1 million fat cells and you suction out 0.1 million, you will find that (if you continue the same lifestyle and eating habits as before), the no of fat cells goes back to 1 million (when it shd be 0.9!). In other words, the human body tries to maintain status quo: the no. of fat cells. As much as possible, the body will go back to its own equilibrium

I don't know what will happen if we grow taller. but I do hope the body just accepts it instead of altering itself such that our metabolism remains the same as before.

[Puertoricanwasp123]

Yup but the human body is a crazy thing. For eg, if you have 1 million fat cells and you suction out 0.1 million, you will find that (if you continue the same lifestyle and eating habits as before), the no of fat cells goes back to 1 million (when it shd be 0.9!). In other words, the human body tries to maintain status quo: the no. of fat cells. As much as possible, the body will go back to its own equilibrium

I don't know what will happen if we grow taller. but I do hope the body just accepts it instead of altering itself such that our metabolism remains the same as before.

The bones will be longer so they have to be fed somehow, the body must adapt and allow more calories, it has to if the evolution theory is true.

[Shor7Guy]

What you need to realise is, for short term females prefer more masculine men, hence they will have even taller than 95th percentile as ideal for short term. For long term, they like less feminine men, and when questioned on male attractiveness females ALWAYS think in terms of long term. I saw a statistic graph, the height that had the most kids was 6foot6. So it depends, if you want to be ideal boyfriend = 95th percentile, if you want to be the ideal short term player = 6foot6 (is USA, if average height is higher or lower in your country then add or subtract cm from 6foot6 same as average height difference)

[Puertoricanwasp123]

What you need to realise is, for short term females prefer more masculine men, hence they will have even taller than 95th percentile as ideal for short term. For long term, they like less feminine men, and when questioned on male attractiveness females ALWAYS think in terms of long term. I saw a statistic graph, the height that had the most kids was 6foot6. So it depends, if you want to be ideal boyfriend = 95th percentile, if you want to be the ideal short term player = 6foot6 (is USA, if average height is higher or lower in your country then add or subtract cm from 6foot6 same as average height difference)

Short term players don't need to be as hot as a husband, if you hit on all the chicks you encounter you will score eventually unless you can't carry a macho image properly.

[ForcedPuberty]

from itsmylife

Yup but the human body is a crazy thing. For eg, if you have 1 million fat cells and you suction out 0.1 million, you will find that (if you continue the same lifestyle and eating habits as before), the no of fat cells goes back to 1 million (when it shd be 0.9!). In other words, the human body tries to maintain status quo: the no. of fat cells. As much as possible, the body will go back to its own equilibrium

I don't know what will happen if we grow taller. but I do hope the body just accepts it instead of altering itself such that our metabolism remains the same as before

prove this. I was taught different. im giving you the possible benefit of the doubt that medicine has been updated since I was educated.

[ForcedPuberty]

from Shor7Guy

What you need to realise is, for short term females prefer more masculine men, hence they will have even taller than 95th percentile as ideal for short term. For long term, they like less feminine men, and when questioned on male attractiveness females ALWAYS think in terms of long term. I saw a statistic graph, the height that had the most kids was 6foot6. So it depends, if you want to be ideal boyfriend = 95th percentile, if you want to be the ideal short term player = 6foot6 (is USA, if average height is higher or lower in your country then add or subtract cm from 6foot6 same as average height difference)

females ALWAYS think in terms of long term

all your assertions are wrong. im not going to say why it would take to much effort.

do you want to know why.

hormones. when a male has a baby his testosterone lowers so that he can be a better father figure and not go around having sex with all the bitches, when a women has a baby her hormones alter so that she is attracted to a man with less testosterone. it has nothing to do with height or manliness, its all hormones. even a 6"5 man with a crap load of muscle will undergo this biological change. this is evolution at its finest to implement the family structure.

when women are on the pill it fks up this evolutionary development by altering preference to abnormally sexual selection desires.

also :  for short term females prefer more masculine men,............. For long term, they like less feminine men

do you understand the definition to paradox.

height that had the most kids was 6foot6

completely incorrect. it is 5"9'5 which has by far the number of kids.

[ItsMyLife]

prove this. I was taught different. im giving you the possible benefit of the doubt that medicine has been updated since I was educated.

When I was finding information on this probably I am outdated too.

2011 study: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01kolata.html?_r=0

But... I just found this

2012 ASPS: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/past-press-releases/2012-archives/fat-cells-don%E2%80%99t-return-to-treated-or-untreated-areas-after-liposuction-asps-study-finds.html

[ForcedPuberty]

from Hallijah

Didn't want to spell it correctly as google tracks it and makes LL more and more popular each day, but found that the perfect height is slightly taller than average which is 5'10 for a british 18+, it's 5'11
but the coolest to be is 6'1


95% of girls fall between 5'0 and 5'11
94% of men fall between 5'4 and 6'3

So i guess the best height to be is above 75% with 85%-95% being the sweet spot, but women prefer 75% and 85% over 95%, as they repute it too tall, while men repute over 95% the best height.


This data also explains that since more than 60% of people are around 5'10, they'd round up to 6'0, making 6'0 being claimed by 80% of the whole population, which is why 6'0 has lost its meaning.



My conclusion is that the best height is 186cm and here are my reasons:
-its on the tall side for everyone
-you become 6'2 for fun/special occasions with a 1cm insole
-the average will never go beyond 6'0 in the future
-it looks amazing in suit

ok I don't even know where to start with this 1.

for starters the average is 63.5 inches with a standard deviation of 2.5 inches which brings the 2nd standard deviation to 68.5inches. 173.99cm for the 95 percentile and under.  this makes the 95% percentile 5"8.5 not 5"11. im fairly sure my maths is correct. if im wrong please show me. but as it stands if this is correct then you have manipulated the data.

http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/sd.htm

second 85% of women are less than 66 inches, this is 5"5, the method of manipulation you are employing is to use a larger standard deviation size, for example if there was 1 women in the world who was 10 foot tall it would be accurate to say that 100 percent of all women who don't have disease are between 4"11 (for arguments sake) and 10 foot. while a true statement it is a manipulation to skew the statistics by including such a tini minority of women to drag up the averages for the bulk of the data. to focus on a valid conclusion you can not include the total poluation as height and preference is largly a probability orientated desire.


I can not criticize any of your other points because they are based on emotions with zero logic and just because you have a feeling. in short they are assertions based on no logic with no actual reason. your just making statements with no backing, trying to adhere to colloquial accepted non truths for your validation.

for example. everyone lies about their height so now it has lost all meaning and now all heights that don't agree with my assertion are invalid.

you cant just say things are invalid because you want them to be invalid.

[ForcedPuberty]

from itsmylife

When I was finding information on this probably I am outdated too.

2011 study: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01kolata.html?_r=0

But... I just found this

2012 ASPS: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/past-press-releases/2012-archives/fat-cells-don%E2%80%99t-return-to-treated-or-untreated-areas-after-liposuction-asps-study-finds.html

both articles agree with each other. the way the body works is that the fat cells are definitive in number, after the fat cells are full the body recruits more fat cells. genetics determines where the fat cells will appear when you need more. although it is characteristic (usually to appear) for fat to appear on males and females by comparison differently ie as an example abdomen on men, and thighs and but for women. its genetic /probability based.

basically after you remove the fat cells if your fat cells are not full then you will not gain more fat cells, you will only continue to fill the existing fat cells.

fat will accumulate to the areas where the persons genetics have placed the most fat cells. and also to where the body genetically decides to send new fat cells.

an area where fat cells have been removed can indeed gain new fat if the area had empty fat cells that were not sucked away. which will refill if you consume excess calories. this will make it appear as though you are gaining weight in the liposucted area even though your fat cells around your body are not full.

the best method for the best results is to get liposuction followed by a hardcore diet and training routine to loose 5+kg after surgery. this ensures target fat is removed, and then existing fat cells are depleted. giving you a buffer from the body deciding to build more fat cells which could be sent to the liposucted area.

[ItsMyLife]

both articles agree with each other. the way the body works is that the fat cells are definitive in number, after the fat cells are full the body recruits more fat cells. genetics determines where the fat cells will appear when you need more. although it is characteristic (usually to appear) for fat to appear on males and females by comparison differently ie as an example abdomen on men, and thighs and but for women. its genetic /probability based.

basically after you remove the fat cells if your fat cells are not full then you will not gain more fat cells, you will only continue to fill the existing fat cells.

fat will accumulate to the areas where the persons genetics have placed the most fat cells. and also to where the body genetically decides to send new fat cells.

an area where fat cells have been removed can indeed gain new fat if the area had empty fat cells that were not sucked away. which will refill if you consume excess calories. this will make it appear as though you are gaining weight in the liposucted area even though your fat cells around your body are not full.

the best method for the best results is to get liposuction followed by a hardcore diet and training routine to loose 5+kg after surgery. this ensures target fat is removed, and then existing fat cells are depleted. giving you a buffer from the body deciding to build more fat cells which could be sent to the liposucted area.

old study: fat cells not definite in number after adulthood. after liposuction,fat cells can increase in numbers but in other areas - one study said it grew back as visceral fat.. (related study: when participants exercised, fat did not redistribute to other areas; if they did not exercise, fat went to non-liposuctioned areas)

new study: fat cells do not return to treated or untreated areas after lipo: "The new study refutes a report published last year in Obesity, which concluded that fat returns to untreated areas of the body, especially the abdomen, shoulders, and arms within one year after liposuction. In a follow-up story, the New York Times featured a caricature of a distorted woman, looking trim in the lower body, but like the Incredible Hulk in the upper body. This disturbing image was widely publicized on the Internet."

problem with the study? they only studied results at 3 months. the old study studied results at one year. and a related exercise/diet study studied results (I think) around one year later.

at 3 months you do not get much redistribution.

and where did you get the idea that males put fat at the abdominal area? females have stubborn fat at the abdominal area which is why when surgeons do fat transfer, they take it from the abdomen for females.and which is why I don't like most females cos' they have fat at the abdomen (reason: adaptation for childbearing)

[ForcedPuberty]

DALLAS — May 18, 2010 — The age-old question of why men store fat in their bellies and women store it in their hips may have finally been answered: Genetically speaking, the fat tissue is almost completely different.

  “We found that out of about 40,000 mouse genes, only 138 are commonly found in both male and female fat cells,” said Dr. Deborah Clegg, assistant professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center and senior author of the study appearing in the International Journal of Obesity. “This was completely unexpected. We expected the exact opposite – that 138 would be different and the rest would be the same between the sexes.”


Deborah Clegg
 
Dr. Deborah Clegg and colleagues have discovered that fat tissue, by gender, is almost completely different genetically. Their finding helps explain why men store fat in their bellies and women store it in their hips.
 


The study involved mice, which distribute their fat in a sexually dimorphic pattern similar to humans.

“Given the difference in gene expression profiles, a female fat tissue won’t behave anything like a male fat tissue and vice versa,” Dr. Clegg said. “The notion that fat cells between males and females are alike is inconsistent with our findings.”

In humans, men are more likely to carry extra weight around their guts while pre-menopausal women store it in their butts, thighs and hips

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/news-releases/year-2010/belly-fat-or-hip-fat-it-really-is-all-in-your-genes-says-ut-southwestern-researcher.html


its not really disputed. its quite common knowledge that men store fat on the abdomen.

[ForcedPuberty]

this post was read. so I removed it as it was long.

signed fp

my intention was to post the explanation then delete it.

[ForcedPuberty]

this post was read. so I removed it as it was long.

signed fp

[ItsMyLife]

You are right that conventional medical understanding is that once you reach adulthood the no. of fat cells is the same. UNLESS you put on so much weight, the body will make new fat cells. That is the orthodox medical understanding.

Yup if you critically analyse the first study (I also came to the same conclusions), there are two possible explanations for the uneven redistribution of fat:
1. When the people gained fat, they gained new fat cells in the other areas where they are predisposed to have more fat cells. The equilibrium theory which I proposed, which is that the body fights to keep the number of fat cells constant.
OR 2. When the people gained fat, they gained an increase in volume of the fat cells in those other areas BECAUSE genetically, they are predisposed to fat in those area (different receptors). Eg, if you liposuctioned your abdomen, you might find the fat came back to your arms because the arm fat cells became larger; the fat did not go to your face due to genetics. (different receptors for different adipose cells)

The second study, I did not read it. Did the fat come back, but was evenly distributed?

Re, abdominal fat. I do not have much abdominal fat. Always had a six pack. So I do not know why people say that men put on fat at the abdomen. I am just challenging the common understanding. I am saying that not every male puts fat at the abdomen. Women put on more fat on the abdomen - look at most porn stars (which aren't my type). so fat at the abdomen. (women also have a higher body fat percent, but it is unacceptable for a girl to be fatter than me at the abdomen)

Irregardless, this is off-topic (yes irregardless is  a word according to Merriam-Webster). What module did you take In university? Also let me know your thoughts about doing 8 cm tibia.

[ForcedPuberty]

Also let me know your thoughts about doing 8 cm tibia.

I think it is important to get femur done if you get tibia done.

I believe in keeping the biomechanics as close to normal as possible.

I believe 6cm on tibia + 5cm on femur is perfect. both are within safe limits and the overall increase in leg length is desirable for a lot of people.

I believe you are doing 8cm on tibia to negate needing to do femur. while I can understand your reasoning I think its better to get a little less on tibia and balance the biomechanics with a surgery for femur. overall you will have less soft tissue stress per leg segment, more length overall, and better biomechanics.

[Shor7Guy]

all your assertions are wrong. im not going to say why it would take to much effort.

do you want to know why.

hormones. when a male has a baby his testosterone lowers so that he can be a better father figure and not go around having sex with all the bitches, when a women has a baby her hormones alter so that she is attracted to a man with less testosterone. it has nothing to do with height or manliness, its all hormones. even a 6"5 man with a crap load of muscle will undergo this biological change. this is evolution at its finest to implement the family structure.

when women are on the pill it fks up this evolutionary development by altering preference to abnormally sexual selection desires.


do you understand the definition to paradox.

completely incorrect. it is 5"9'5 which has by far the number of kids.

i meant less masculine not less feminine, type mistake. IK when men have babies their testosterone lowers, but this doesnt work on players. When most fertile women prefer masculine men, when not fertile feminine men. and o 6foot6 reproduces has the most babies not 5foot9.

[tallerbetter]

I don't understand this thread with so many off topic posts and many deleted posts.

[GeTs]

ok I don't even know where to start with this 1.

for starters the average is 63.5 inches with a standard deviation of 2.5 inches which brings the 2nd standard deviation to 68.5inches. 173.99cm for the 95 percentile and under.  this makes the 95% percentile 5"8.5 not 5"11. im fairly sure my maths is correct. if im wrong please show me. but as it stands if this is correct then you have manipulated the data.

http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/sd.htm

second 85% of women are less than 66 inches, this is 5"5, the method of manipulation you are employing is to use a larger standard deviation size, for example if there was 1 women in the world who was 10 foot tall it would be accurate to say that 100 percent of all women who don't have disease are between 4"11 (for arguments sake) and 10 foot. while a true statement it is a manipulation to skew the statistics by including such a tini minority of women to drag up the averages for the bulk of the data. to focus on a valid conclusion you can not include the total poluation as height and preference is largly a probability orientated desire.


I can not criticize any of your other points because they are based on emotions with zero logic and just because you have a feeling. in short they are assertions based on no logic with no actual reason. your just making statements with no backing, trying to adhere to colloquial accepted non truths for your validation.

for example. everyone lies about their height so now it has lost all meaning and now all heights that don't agree with my assertion are invalid.

you cant just say things are invalid because you want them to be invalid.

do u think women use logic when attracted or emotions?

[tallerbetter]

They use both, but they are vastly very logical when choosing a long-term partner or husband.