If we're really measuring ROI, couldn't LL still be a bigger benefit at a shorter starting height? I'm just doing a veeery rough assessment here, but at 5'8'', you are taller than most women. With some forum posters saying at 5'8'', they just claim 5'10'' and girls believe them, I tend to think that height is more important in your career, confidence and feeling good next to other men than being attractive to women. (Perhaps that's just my biased view though lol) At 5'4'', you are as tall or even shorter than most women, and I think the majority of them want to date men that are at least a bit taller than them. Of course many wold prefer if a guy were taller, but a 5'8-5'9 dude who has his s*it together can be a great catch to a lot of girls. A 5'4''er has it harder (although I will say you can definitely make it at that height, and some have done so phenomenally - looking at you, InFullStryde).
Lots of variables here that are subjective and dependent on many different factors unique to the individual. With respect to our careers, confidence, and feeling good next to other men, it's all relative and really depends on what your purpose and goals are as a man and your environment. For example, let's say you are of average height with goals of working towards a leadership position in a large organization. The average height of Fortune 500 CEOs in the US is ~ 6 ft, and the average height of US Presidents is somewhere around 5'11 (all 45 dating back over a hundred years ago before campaigns could benefit from height amplified through media.) For someone like myself, who is working towards a leadership position in the corporate world, going from average to tall is a huge change.
At the same time, there may be a short individual who is not interested in those leadership positions, for example maybe he is a very successful programmer where height isn't valued nearly as much, but has suffered from identity discrimination as a "short" person all his life....so going from short to average and freeing himself from discrimination is just as huge of a positive change for him as well.....bottom line it's all relative and incomparable from man to man.
In terms of women, I tend to agree and think a rationale point of view would be for women to desire a man who is taller than her, in proportion to her height (e.g. a 5'4 girl should be happy with a 5'6 guy)....however, I've seen many short women have a height minimum requirement of a man of 6 ft. This is where that
binary view of "6 ft and up" comes up....it really is bizarre to me seeing a 5'4 woman demand that, but I've seen it countless times......My only theory to that is these women have a biological desire to get a tall man's genes so her children will be tall, that primal instinct is stronger than simply finding a man who is proportionally taller than her. Also, women have an innate biological desire to be with a man who makes her feel secure, in a pool of men, the taller man in the 6 ft + range is going to do that for her, that trumps proportions. Think back to our caveman days where women relied on men for food and protection, she wants the alpha, the idea of hypergamy, the desire to find the best possible mate, the alpha, has evolved over thousands of years, it's a biological strategy for survival.
Again the above is an over generalization of sexual gender dynamics, it isn't an eternal truth (i.e. there are short men with high sexual market value that attract many women)
Also, are you measuring the time and money spent on LL, and how a facial plastic surgery or 100k+ extra in the bank of an average guy could be more attractive to many women than a guy without the money or better face, but taller?
My measurement is based on all things equal (face, lifestyle, wealth, career, etc.)
It's great that you could cure your neurosis with LL. Isn't that a dream that many on this forum have, and isn't it inspiring that it's possible to do? To play devil's advocate though, if it was just neurosis that lead you to your decision (and not also vanity or the wish to be tall, which are both very human), why did you lengthen that much?
Interesting question. I just went back to my diary and I remember now, at the onset of this journey I had no quantitative goal of hitting 8 cm. My goal was qualitative, simply curing my height neurosis. I think I cured my height neurosis at around 6 CM, I was at a height I was comfortable with and my view was anything above 6 CM would be a bonus, at that point I prioritized functionality over height. However, I continued lengthening because my body allowed it because I worked hard. Dr. Paley, Dr. Robins and all the physical therapists said I was in the top 5% of CLLers in terms of range of motion, flexibility, and strength and the Dr's said I could make it to 8 CM without any sacrifice in functionality. Keep in mind that once you go through this, you take pride in the work and effort it takes to push through, it's not easy, through the entire distraction phase I stretched 5x a day and put hundreds of hours into physical therapy, I was very proud of that, so I proceeded to 8 CM because I believed I earned it through hard work. Was there vanity involved from 6CM to 8 CM? Sure there was, I'm human. But a larger role in me maxing the nail out was the pride I had in the work I put in to get there.
Author
Topic: What do you think is the best starting height for LL to get the most returns? (Read 1247 times)