Limb Lengthening Forum

Community Hangout => Off Topic => Topic started by: IwannaBeTaller on December 07, 2016, 10:46:42 AM

Title: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on December 07, 2016, 10:46:42 AM
What's your opinion on giving boys with normal, albeit short final height, human growth hormone?

Personally, as with surely everyone in this forum, I wish I had been given HGH during my teenage years, to reach a higher final height and be more satisfied with my height, since I'm absolutely not satisfied with my current height. However, should children who are at a normal, shorter height be presented with this option, even if they are not unhappy with their height? My opinion is that HGH can never solve the problem of height neurosis and the inequality of male heights on a societal level, no matter how much of it we could distribute to kids. Even if we could administer HGH to every boy who is projected to reach less than 170 cm as final height, as a result, the average height would rise and now 170 cm kids would suffer from height neurosis more. If we would administer it to every boy with a final height of less than 175 cm, the 175 cm kids would feel more short and develop height neurosis, and so on and so forth. And even with HGH, some would not reach those heights. A boy with the genetic potential of 165 cm might never reach 175 cm, even with HGH and optimal nutrition.

So in conclusion, HGH can only help boys on an individual, specific level, and even then it's only "passing on the suffering to someone else", since other kids/men will feel short as a result. A society can impossibly solve the problem of men suffering from height neurosis with HGH, even if it would be successfully given to all kids. The only solution of solving height neurosis is psychological help, surgery (again, only on an individual level) or a way to restart human growth after the growth plates fuse, such as with stem cells, artificial growth plates, and other futuristic solutions. Another important aspect for society is to value and cherish shorter men more, since height variation is a natural thing and mo matter how tall people are, there will always be shorter men and women.

Your thoughts?
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: The Kaiser on December 07, 2016, 02:08:04 PM
What's your opinion on giving boys with normal, albeit short final height, human growth hormone?

Personally, as with surely everyone in this forum, I wish I had been given HGH during my teenage years, to reach a higher final height and be more satisfied with my height, since I'm absolutely not satisfied with my current height. However, should children who are at a normal, shorter height be presented with this option, even if they are not unhappy with their height? My opinion is that HGH can never solve the problem of height neurosis and the inequality of male heights on a societal level, no matter how much of it we could distribute to kids. Even if we could administer HGH to every boy who is projected to reach less than 170 cm as final height, as a result, the average height would rise and now 170 cm kids would suffer from height neurosis more. If we would administer it to every boy with a final height of less than 175 cm, the 175 cm kids would feel more short and develop height neurosis, and so on and so forth. And even with HGH, some would not reach those heights. A boy with the genetic potential of 165 cm might never reach 175 cm, even with HGH and optimal nutrition.

So in conclusion, HGH can only help boys on an individual, specific level, and even then it's only "passing on the suffering to someone else", since other kids/men will feel short as a result. A society can impossibly solve the problem of men suffering from height neurosis with HGH, even if it would be successfully given to all kids. The only solution of solving height neurosis is psychological help, surgery (again, only on an individual level) or a way to restart human growth after the growth plates fuse, such as with stem cells, artificial growth plates, and other futuristic solutions. Another important aspect for society is to value and cherish shorter men more, since height variation is a natural thing and mo matter how tall people are, there will always be shorter men and women.

Your thoughts?

Its a stupid idea. I will not risk life of someone because of 1 or 2 not guarantee inches. Their are many possible side effect of HGH
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bigpoppapump on December 20, 2016, 11:20:50 PM
There's are no proven long term health effects of human hormone especially if taken at sensible dosages. HGH gets a bad rap because provbodybuilders abuse it along with several other drugs as well.

Put it this way HGH is a far safer way to combat a persons height than sawing legs apart then stretching and permanently damaging your body anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Taken in sufficient quantities as well you will get 3-4" out of it possibly more depending on the person. And that's 3-4" that wont destroy your bodies joints, ankle mobility, knees etc
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: YourSpaceBoyfriend on December 20, 2016, 11:24:43 PM
Put it this way HGH is a far safer way to combat a persons height than sawing legs apart then stretching and permanently damaging your body anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

what a comparison....

Everyone would prefer to use HGH over LL, problem is 1 method still works when your growth plates fuse and the other one doesn't.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bigpoppapump on December 20, 2016, 11:29:24 PM
I meant tackle the problem before it's too late with HGH

Leg lengthening is fine for those who simply want to be taller who are willing to risk long term problems with their joints and walking in the future.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on December 21, 2016, 11:17:23 AM
There's are no proven long term health effects of human hormone especially if taken at sensible dosages. HGH gets a bad rap because provbodybuilders abuse it along with several other drugs as well.

Put it this way HGH is a far safer way to combat a persons height than sawing legs apart then stretching and permanently damaging your body anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Taken in sufficient quantities as well you will get 3-4" out of it possibly more depending on the person. And that's 3-4" that wont destroy your bodies joints, ankle mobility, knees etc

Obviously probably everyone here wishes they had been given HGH in a proper manner when they still had the chance. That's not the argument here. Although I'm still doubtful if 3-4 inches can really always be achieved. How can this even be mesured? We have no way of knowing how much a child might have grown without his HGH doses, and likewise we can never know how much a child might have gained with them. Even predictions by doctors are only predictions. And of course once must be aware that the timeframe where HGH can be administered is very short and it's also a time where most kids are still under the guidance of their parents and caretakers - they are not really adult and able to make wise, rational decisions or know how important height will be for them later.

But nonetheless, my question was
Quote
What's your opinion on giving boys with normal, albeit short final height, human growth hormone?

Should we give a boy with a predicted height of 5'7'' HGH? How about 5'8''? 5'9''? Where do we draw the line? As long as it's an established dogma that taller men are better and short men are undesirable and less worthy, there will always be men who will suffer immensely because of their height. Even if we give every boy below average height HGH, we would only shift the problem around, there would still be shorter men who are unhappy. HGH is not a solution for this, and LL isn't either, at least not on a societal level. The only solution, as I said, would be either scientific achievements to allow us to restart natural growth, or a societal approach to value men of shorter stature more.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on December 21, 2016, 11:59:24 AM
Hgh cant make you tall or average if you are not genetically destined to be one... My half brother took it and ended up 168-170cm. A guy here took it and is 171. Messi took it and is 168. This hgh debate is null and stupid
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Whereintheworld? on December 21, 2016, 01:44:56 PM
Hgh cant make you tall or average if you are not genetically destined to be one... My half brother took it and ended up 168-170cm. A guy here took it and is 171. Messi took it and is 168. This hgh debate is null and stupid

Case closed.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: midnightninja on December 21, 2016, 03:28:02 PM
If you take HGH before your growth plates are closed it will make you taller 100%.
The drug literally increases the dosage of growth hormone that your body produces, growth hormone is what fuels your bones to grow as well as your muscles and organs. Your brother was probably going to be a lot shorter than what he is now. The drug works if your plates are not closed and lots of wealthy families throughout America and Europe use it under doctors supervision to increase the height of their children. Growth Hormone is also given to children who are likely to be under 5feet with an average growth increase of 4-6inches.

Edit: I'm 5'6.5" and I was able to go on growth hormone but I had the unfortunate scenario of having my growth plates closed. I live in Australia which is a country well known for their high standards of medical care and treatments.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on December 21, 2016, 03:31:58 PM
If you take HGH before your growth plates are closed it will make you taller 100%.
The drug literally increases the dosage of growth hormone that your body produces, growth hormone is what fuels your bones to grow as well as your muscles and organs. Your brother was probably going to be a lot shorter than what he is now. The drug works if your plates are not closed and lots of wealthy families throughout America and Europe use it under doctors supervision to increase the height of their children. Growth Hormone is also given to children who are likely to be under 5feet with an average growth increase of 4-6inches.

Average growth increase is between 0-8cm. Dont know from where you pull this data... Also, how do you know that alll the rich families use GH for their children? Show me evidence for this claim please... About the kids who are below 5', GH to GH defficient children does help and give dramatic results since they lack it... Kids without GH defficiency are not getting these results (again 0-8cm growth according to research articles). No one gets tall from this.

But, if you want to invent a reason to feel sorry for yourself or hate your parents for not giving you a drug that wouldnt have helped you, be my guest
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: midnightninja on December 21, 2016, 03:42:33 PM
Average growth increase is between 0-8cm. Dont know from where you pull this data... Also, how do you know that alll the rich families use GH for their children? Show me evidence for this claim please... About the kids who are below 5', GH to GH defficient children does help and give dramatic results since they lack it... Kids without GH defficiency are not getting these results (again 0-8cm growth according to research articles). No one gets tall from this.

But, if you want to invent a reason to feel sorry for yourself or hate your parents for not giving you a drug that wouldnt have helped you, be my guest

I can tell you for a fact that HGH makes you gain height if taken as a child before the bodies growth plates are fused. I have four friends who where geneticly predicted to be short and their parents put them on Human Growth Hormone and they are now 6-8 inches taller than their parents and siblings.  I am talking about my friends parents all four of them who are the same height of 5'2" - 5'5" and have a kid 8 inches taller than them due to this growth hormone. I was just too late to the party and missed the growth train.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: midnightninja on December 21, 2016, 03:47:42 PM
Messi was 4'2" when he was given Human Growth Hormone by his soccer league which he was signed to. He is now 5'7" He would have been legally a midget if he had not taken the Growth Hormone. His height was increased dramatically.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1492546-lionel-messi-and-hgh-the-truth-about-the-best-footballer-in-the-world


Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on December 21, 2016, 03:51:42 PM
Messi was 4'2" when he was given Human Growth Hormone by his soccer league which he was signed to. He is now 5'7" He would have been legally a midget if he had not taken the Growth Hormone. His height was increased dramatically.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1492546-lionel-messi-and-hgh-the-truth-about-the-best-footballer-in-the-world

He was a midget so he lacked in GH so of course GH would have helped him
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on December 21, 2016, 04:00:37 PM
I can tell you for a fact that HGH makes you gain height if taken as a child before the bodies growth plates are fused. I have four friends who where geneticly predicted to be short and their parents put them on Human Growth Hormone and they are now 6-8 inches taller than their parents and siblings.  I am talking about my friends parents all four of them who are the same height of 5'2" - 5'5" and have a kid 8 inches taller than them due to this growth hormone. I was just too late to the party and missed the growth train.

While all the people I know who took GH are not tall at all.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on December 21, 2016, 04:28:46 PM
lots of wealthy families throughout America and Europe use it under doctors supervision to increase the height of their children.

That's a pretty bold claim...would love to see any evidence for that.

Quote
I have four friends who where geneticly predicted to be short and their parents put them on Human Growth Hormone and they are now 6-8 inches taller than their parents and siblings.  I am talking about my friends parents all four of them who are the same height of 5'2" - 5'5" and have a kid 8 inches taller than them due to this growth hormone.

Short parents get tall children all the time...we will never know how tall those kids might have ended up without HGH. Again, predictions are only estimations.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: midnightninja on December 21, 2016, 06:14:48 PM
I study BioChem at the University of Melbourne but of course you all know more than me. lol.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on December 21, 2016, 06:27:41 PM
I study BioChem at the University of Melbourne but of course you all know more than me. lol.

ן graduated med school a month ago.. But what do I know
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bigpoppapump on December 21, 2016, 06:45:00 PM
HGH administered at proper dosages works the dosages given are typically too low to make much difference

No offence guys just because you went to med school doesn't make you HGH experts. I know guys who have done years learning sports science and they still don't know how to train people in the gym after it.

If HGH made no difference to people's heights then those with pituatory gland problems who excrete large amounts wouldn't grow tall either but they do and typically end up a lot taller than their parents. It is dosage dependent and 1-2ius every other day will do fk all for a short kid hence the poor results.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bigpoppapump on December 21, 2016, 06:47:41 PM
Messi was 4'2" when he was given Human Growth Hormone by his soccer league which he was signed to. He is now 5'7" He would have been legally a midget if he had not taken the Growth Hormone. His height was increased dramatically.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1492546-lionel-messi-and-hgh-the-truth-about-the-best-footballer-in-the-world

Exactly
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: YourSpaceBoyfriend on December 21, 2016, 08:54:42 PM
ן graduated med school a month ago.. But what do I know

I talked with several specialists here and they were saying exactly the same thing.

HGH is not a magical recipe to get taller, unfortunately.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on December 21, 2016, 09:27:34 PM
If HGH made no difference to people's heights

Nobody said this anywhere. Can we please stick to the topic?
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Zaney on December 22, 2016, 02:13:16 AM
There's are no proven long term health effects of human hormone especially if taken at sensible dosages. HGH gets a bad rap because provbodybuilders abuse it along with several other drugs as well.

Put it this way HGH is a far safer way to combat a persons height than sawing legs apart then stretching and permanently damaging your body anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Taken in sufficient quantities as well you will get 3-4" out of it possibly more depending on the person. And that's 3-4" that wont destroy your bodies joints, ankle mobility, knees etc

This is pure nonsense. Broscience at its worst. If you are so educated on this subject, as you like to make yourself out to be, then provide 5 separate peer reviewed journal articles that back up these ridiculous claims...

There are literally hundreds of LL articles that have been written by highly educated doctors that prove you, the uneducated, wrong.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Overdozer on December 22, 2016, 06:15:16 PM
HGH is one thing. There is also Aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which will slow down fusion of the growth plates under the estrogen hormones. HGH administered at higher than average dosages combined with AIs can grow giants. Search pubmed and study it.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 12, 2017, 08:28:49 AM
HGH is one thing. There is also Aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which will slow down fusion of the growth plates under the estrogen hormones. HGH administered at higher than average dosages combined with AIs can grow giants. Search pubmed and study it.

Just wanted to respond to this, because I actually searched for scientific articles regarding AIs and HGH, and I haven't found a case of children "growing giants" with them.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 23, 2017, 11:37:18 PM
It does not grow giants. However, you can grow 1-8 inches from the treatment depending on when you start it and how long you do it.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: YourSpaceBoyfriend on June 23, 2017, 11:50:32 PM
It does not grow giants. However, you can grow 1-8 inches from the treatment depending on when you start it and how long you do it.

8 inches lol, barely anybody on HGH treatment grows more than 3-4 inches.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
8 inches lol, barely anybody on HGH treatment grows more than 3-4 inches.

It depends if you have growth hormone deficiency or not. A lot of people who are short have undiagnosed growth hormone deficiency like I did.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on June 24, 2017, 12:04:05 AM
It depends if you have growth hormone deficiency or not. A lot of people who are short have undiagnosed growth hormone deficiency like I did.

 You didn't have a growth hormone defficiency because you ended up 5'8.
  And no.. It is impossible to diagnose GH problems after the end of puberty.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: YourSpaceBoyfriend on June 24, 2017, 12:06:21 AM
It depends if you have growth hormone deficiency or not. A lot of people who are short have undiagnosed growth hormone deficiency like I did.

5% of short stature people have growth hormone deficiency. Besides my friend that was on HGH therapy grew from 5'7 to 5'10.

Don't lie to yourself that HGH therapy would give you 8 inches more. You guys finally need to accept that in the most part you got screwed on genetic lottery.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 12:07:28 AM
You didn't have a growth hormone defficiency because you ended up 5'8.
  And no.. It is impossible to diagnose GH problems after the end of puberty.

I had blood-work done and I do have a growth hormone deficiency. It has nothing to do with whether I was 5'8 or not.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 12:08:19 AM
5% of short stature people have growth hormone deficiency. Besides my friend that was on HGH therapy grew from 5'7 to 5'10.

Don't lie to yourself that HGH therapy would give you 8 inches more. You guys finally need to accept that in the most part you got screwed on genetic lottery.

5'7 to 5'10 is a huge difference let's not joke around here. I never said that it would have given me 8 inches or more but in some cases it has. I probably would have gotten at least an inch.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on June 24, 2017, 12:12:47 AM
I had blood-work done and I do have a growth hormone deficiency. It has nothing to do with whether I was 5'8 or not.

 How do you know you have a GH defficiency? Have you done multipile measuring during the day? Or did you do the GH stimulus blood test?
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 12:20:17 AM
How do you know you have a GH defficiency? Have you done multipile measuring during the day? Or did you do the GH stimulus blood test?

I had an igf1 test which was below reference range. I heard that is the more accurate test but I never had the GH stimulus test/assay
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on June 24, 2017, 12:25:54 AM
IGF1 test is an accessory test which is usually coupled with GH test. The most accurate one is GH stimulus test.

 You should ask your GP for a GH stimulus test. Read about it on the internet so you can describe the symptoms of GH defficiency in adulthood to your GP
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 24, 2017, 12:18:47 PM
5'7 to 5'10 is a huge difference

It isn't.

Next question please.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 12:24:31 PM
It isn't.

Next question please.

lol you are you serious??? it is a huge difference in the eyes of women
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 12:25:20 PM
IGF1 test is an accessory test which is usually coupled with GH test. The most accurate one is GH stimulus test.

 You should ask your GP for a GH stimulus test. Read about it on the internet so you can describe the symptoms of GH defficiency in adulthood to your GP

I will speak to my doctor about further testing thanks for the help.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: YourSpaceBoyfriend on June 24, 2017, 01:06:36 PM
You guys need to keep it in mind that HGH therapy very often doesn't work at all.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: YungGud on June 24, 2017, 01:30:12 PM
HGH can help you when you are 13-14 but older?no guarantees
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 24, 2017, 04:14:16 PM
lol you are you serious??? it is a huge difference in the eyes of women

For some women it's relevant, but do you only care about women?  3 inches is a noticeable but in no way huge difference.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 07:27:54 PM
For some women it's relevant, but do you only care about women?  3 inches is a noticeable but in no way huge difference.

3 inches is a huge difference period....
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Body Builder on June 24, 2017, 09:09:36 PM
It isn't.

Next question please.
3 inches for a 5.2 man will make him more normal but still 5.5 he would considered short .
But becoming 5.10 from 5.7 is makes not just a big difference, it makes a lifechanging one.
From 5.6 to 5.8 initial heights, these 3 inches makes a huge difference, more than any other initial height.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 24, 2017, 11:02:04 PM
3 inches for a 5.2 man will make him more normal but still 5.5 he would considered short .
But becoming 5.10 from 5.7 is makes not just a big difference, it makes a lifechanging one.
From 5.6 to 5.8 initial heights, these 3 inches makes a huge difference, more than any other initial height.

Yes going from 5'7 to 5'10 is like going from short to going to a great height.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: LLSouthAmerica on June 24, 2017, 11:37:39 PM
Praise the Bell Curve!
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 25, 2017, 11:35:21 AM
3 inches is a huge difference period....

It simply isn't.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bander72 on June 25, 2017, 12:14:06 PM
It simply isn't.

Dude how tall are you? Unless your super short 3 inches will make a world of difference. You have never tried lifts.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 25, 2017, 05:19:01 PM
Okay, let me clarify. 3 inches can be a huge improvement of your self-perception and personal happiness, there's no denying that. I however dispute that 3 inches are a huge difference when you see two random guys on the street.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: LLSouthAmerica on June 25, 2017, 08:41:09 PM
Okay, let me clarify. 3 inches can be a huge improvement of your self-perception and personal happiness, there's no denying that. I however dispute that 3 inches are a huge difference when you see two random guys on the street.

As a LL veteran, I lengthened 6 cm and it is a very big difference and undeniably noticeable.

3 inches for a 5.2 man will make him more normal but still 5.5 he would considered short .
But becoming 5.10 from 5.7 is makes not just a big difference, it makes a lifechanging one.
From 5.6 to 5.8 initial heights, these 3 inches makes a huge difference, more than any other initial height.

What BB said is correct. However, if you are next to your past self, you would notice a big difference. I know because my brother is as tall as I was and now I look much taller than him. Now if you are very short, population wise it will not make a huge impact, but compared to your past self 3 inches is a lot.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 25, 2017, 09:39:25 PM
As a LL veteran, I lengthened 6 cm and it is a very big difference and undeniably noticeable.

Noticeable? Yes. Very big/huge? Not in my opinion.

Of course, after having went through LL, which is a very serious procedure, you like to think that the change you made is big, and it undoubtedly is big, as your self-perception and well-being should skyrocket - it's a big dream after all, to become taller for many guys here. And LL can fulfill that dream, with a noticeable height boost. The physical and mental changes go hand in hand. But apart from the very unique experience of LL and height neurosis, I just don't think there's a "very big" difference between a guy who's X cms tall and a guy who's X+6 cms tall. I just don't. "Very big difference", "huge difference" that would be Peter Dinklage standing next to LeBron James or something. My two cents.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on June 25, 2017, 10:05:18 PM
Noticeable? Yes. Very big/huge? Not in my opinion.

Of course, after having went through LL, which is a very serious procedure, you like to think that the change you made is big, and it undoubtedly is big, as your self-perception and well-being should skyrocket - it's a big dream after all, to become taller for many guys here. And LL can fulfill that dream, with a noticeable height boost. The physical and mental changes go hand in hand. But apart from the very unique experience of LL and height neurosis, I just don't think there's a "very big" difference between a guy who's X cms tall and a guy who's X+6 cms tall. I just don't. "Very big difference", "huge difference" that would be Peter Dinklage standing next to LeBron James or something. My two cents.

You are completely wrong in your assertion and 3 inches is not only a big difference but also a huge difference in the eyes of society. 5'7 and 5'10 cannot even be comparable just fking lol at your delusions.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: TIBIKE200 on June 25, 2017, 10:17:26 PM
Noticeable? Yes. Very big/huge? Not in my opinion.

Of course, after having went through LL, which is a very serious procedure, you like to think that the change you made is big, and it undoubtedly is big, as your self-perception and well-being should skyrocket - it's a big dream after all, to become taller for many guys here. And LL can fulfill that dream, with a noticeable height boost. The physical and mental changes go hand in hand. But apart from the very unique experience of LL and height neurosis, I just don't think there's a "very big" difference between a guy who's X cms tall and a guy who's X+6 cms tall. I just don't. "Very big difference", "huge difference" that would be Peter Dinklage standing next to LeBron James or something. My two cents.

I sorry but you are really mistaken....
  Take us both at 170-171cm and a 180-183 guy. The difference between us is 9-12cm. Do 5-6cm the difference becomes those "only" 6cm or even 3cm which you say are not noticable.

Think about it for a sec. The difference between someone who is even 6' and someone who is 5'7 is 5 inches. If you do 3 it becomes those unnoticable 2 inches you say someone can hardy see. Even do 2-2.5 inches, and the difference is basically 2.5 inches.
 
2 inches is a lot 3 inches is even more (obviously). Try 2 inches lifts and you will be amazed at how much of a change those 5cm make.

P.S It was thanks to lifts that I was able to calm down from my height neurosis as I was able to see that people aren't really all 185+ but most are in the 175-180 range. You will really be amazed at how much those small 5cm add up in POV
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: LLSouthAmerica on June 26, 2017, 01:17:48 AM
Noticeable? Yes. Very big/huge? Not in my opinion.

Of course, after having went through LL, which is a very serious procedure, you like to think that the change you made is big, and it undoubtedly is big, as your self-perception and well-being should skyrocket - it's a big dream after all, to become taller for many guys here. And LL can fulfill that dream, with a noticeable height boost. The physical and mental changes go hand in hand. But apart from the very unique experience of LL and height neurosis, I just don't think there's a "very big" difference between a guy who's X cms tall and a guy who's X+6 cms tall. I just don't. "Very big difference", "huge difference" that would be Peter Dinklage standing next to LeBron James or something. My two cents.

Well that depends on what you consider to be very big/huge. For me, it is when you can tell from afar that someone is undeniably taller no matter the stance, how open the legs are, etc. In other words, you take both people and you can say this one is notoriously taller. My self-perception and well-being are as good as before, it wasn't a big dream for me to become taller. I am not as height obsessed as many people here. I think if you do the surgery you would compare yourself to your past self and you would also agree with me that it is a big difference.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on June 26, 2017, 09:41:58 AM
You are completely wrong in your assertion and 3 inches is not only a big difference but also a huge difference in the eyes of society. 5'7 and 5'10 cannot even be comparable just fking lol at your delusions.

I completely disagree and resent the notion that 3 inches are a "huge" difference. You are very wrong that society sees a massive, enormous difference between a 5'7'' and a 5'10'' man, one of them is somewhat short to short - depending on who you ask - while the other one is average to a bit below average, again depending on who you ask. You are very wrong here IMO.

Well that depends on what you consider to be very big/huge. For me, it is when you can tell from afar that someone is undeniably taller no matter the stance, how open the legs are, etc. In other words, you take both people and you can say this one is notoriously taller. My self-perception and well-being are as good as before, it wasn't a big dream for me to become taller. I am not as height obsessed as many people here. I think if you do the surgery you would compare yourself to your past self and you would also agree with me that it is a big difference.

You are 170 cm after your surgery, which means you are still at least shortish. Depending on where you live, a lot of men (perhaps even the majority) will be at least 5 cm's taller than you, since a lot of men are at least 175-180. So according to you own view, even after your painful surgery which will leave you with lifelong athletic disadvantages, you will still be a person towered by only average dudes. Not only a short person, but one who is shorter than a lot of men by a "very big difference". And that is not even accounting for tall people, but average ones who are just 175 cm will still tower you by your own definiton. Is that a definitoin that you like? You have do decide for yourself, but I personally believe that I like to live in a world where I'm about the same height as average dudes.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Knik on December 08, 2017, 06:36:30 PM
So what is the final answer ? efficiant or not ?
Probably not but the opinion of people who made medical studies like tbike is interesting because I see many people outside trying to give their son a therapy.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: myloginacct on December 20, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
So what is the final answer ? efficiant or not ?
Probably not but the opinion of people who made medical studies like tbike is interesting because I see many people outside trying to give their son a therapy.

It certainly works, but it's no magical recipe that will turn a fated 165cm youngster into a 183cm (6 feet) one. That is, unless they have a tumor or hyperplasia in their pituitary gland. Then they may well grow to be over 200cm/7 feet, and also have other health problems.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Knik on December 21, 2017, 09:30:41 AM
Damn no ! I've shared a very serious study showing that growth hormone is giving only 3-4 cm in average. So that will not turn 5'5 boys into 6ft in most of the case. And not even sure it will give even one centimeters. GH are mostly used on very short stature, may have an unexplained reason for that stature.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: extremis on December 26, 2017, 11:53:05 PM
I completely disagree and resent the notion that 3 inches are a "huge" difference. You are very wrong that society sees a massive, enormous difference between a 5'7'' and a 5'10'' man, one of them is somewhat short to short - depending on who you ask - while the other one is average to a bit below average, again depending on who you ask. You are very wrong here IMO.

You are 170 cm after your surgery, which means you are still at least shortish. Depending on where you live, a lot of men (perhaps even the majority) will be at least 5 cm's taller than you, since a lot of men are at least 175-180. So according to you own view, even after your painful surgery which will leave you with lifelong athletic disadvantages, you will still be a person towered by only average dudes. Not only a short person, but one who is shorter than a lot of men by a "very big difference". And that is not even accounting for tall people, but average ones who are just 175 cm will still tower you by your own definiton. Is that a definitoin that you like? You have do decide for yourself, but I personally believe that I like to live in a world where I'm about the same height as average dudes.

You must be joking.

The entire bolded paragraph is a non-sequitur based on linguistic semantics. Whether a person "likes" a "definition" or not is irrelevant. Whether the surgery was "painful" and "leaves you with lifelong athletic disadvantages" or not is irrelevant.

He was EXTREMELY short before the surgery, then increased his stature by 6 CM, and now he is LESS short. He was towered by 175-180 CM tall men before and is still towered by them after the surgery, yes.

All of this is irrelevant. 3 inches is a BIG difference. Do you think if you put on 3 inch lifts and walked up to people you know, they wouldn't notice you're MASSIVELY taller than before? You must be joking.

Based on the underlined sentence, It sound more like the one who has an issue with "definitions" is you. You choose to tell yourself that 3 inches isn't a big difference because you want to consider yourself as being in the "average range" of male height. That's a coping mechanism, and if that's the way you want to live your life, then it's fine, but don't pretend everyone else is delusional and you're in the right when it's the other way around.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on December 27, 2017, 12:10:38 PM
^ The most horrible poster in this forum (next to MrHandsome, who is just an idiot) showing up again, digging up 6 month old posts.

Honestly with that post I just wanted to understand the guy's personal reality. To do this intense surgery and still feel towered by just average dudes seems like a pretty bad situation to me...I wanted to understand how he "coped" with it, so to speak. But perhaps this is not such a bad situation for everyone? Perhaps he feels fine with it? Perhaps I'm too negative? I haven't gotten a response from him.

What can I say, except that I just don't feel that 2-3 inches is a "massive, big difference" ? Perhaps that is a way of coping, but it's in no way worse or more "delusional" than saying it is a "massive, big difference". Something like this is (https://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/News/Modules/Bilder/Wladimir-Klitschko-l-und-Lothar-Matthaeus-zu-Gast-beim-g918993.jpg) more what I would call a massive difference, even though I would not use that word personally. And yeah, living in one of the taller countries on earth, I still see hundreds of dudes around my height while in a big city, so I kinda see the point of the "average range" thing, ya get it? What can I say except...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

..and add that you, as a poster here, haven't brought anything of positive value to this forum.

And that just sucks, dude.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: MrHandsome on December 27, 2017, 01:16:11 PM
^ The most horrible poster in this forum (next to MrHandsome, who is just an idiot) showing up again, digging up 6 month old posts.

Honestly with that post I just wanted to understand the guy's personal reality. To do this intense surgery and still feel towered by just average dudes seems like a pretty bad situation to me...I wanted to understand how he "coped" with it, so to speak. But perhaps this is not such a bad situation for everyone? Perhaps he feels fine with it? Perhaps I'm too negative? I haven't gotten a response from him.

What can I say, except that I just don't feel that 2-3 inches is a "massive, big difference" ? Perhaps that is a way of coping, but it's in no way worse or more "delusional" than saying it is a "massive, big difference". Something like this is (https://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/News/Modules/Bilder/Wladimir-Klitschko-l-und-Lothar-Matthaeus-zu-Gast-beim-g918993.jpg) more what I would call a massive difference, even though I would not use that word personally. And yeah, living in one of the taller countries on earth, I still see hundreds of dudes around my height while in a big city, so I kinda see the point of the "average range" thing, ya get it? What can I say except...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

..and add that you, as a poster here, haven't brought anything of positive value to this forum.

And that just sucks, dude.

2-3 inches is a massive difference. That is the gain that people will achieve with leg lengthening surgery. You are the worst poster on this forum hands down.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: extremis on December 27, 2017, 05:06:39 PM
^ The most horrible poster in this forum (next to MrHandsome, who is just an idiot) showing up again, digging up 6 month old posts.

Honestly with that post I just wanted to understand the guy's personal reality. To do this intense surgery and still feel towered by just average dudes seems like a pretty bad situation to me...I wanted to understand how he "coped" with it, so to speak. But perhaps this is not such a bad situation for everyone? Perhaps he feels fine with it? Perhaps I'm too negative? I haven't gotten a response from him.

What can I say, except that I just don't feel that 2-3 inches is a "massive, big difference" ? Perhaps that is a way of coping, but it's in no way worse or more "delusional" than saying it is a "massive, big difference". Something like this is (https://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/News/Modules/Bilder/Wladimir-Klitschko-l-und-Lothar-Matthaeus-zu-Gast-beim-g918993.jpg) more what I would call a massive difference, even though I would not use that word personally. And yeah, living in one of the taller countries on earth, I still see hundreds of dudes around my height while in a big city, so I kinda see the point of the "average range" thing, ya get it? What can I say except...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

..and add that you, as a poster here, haven't brought anything of positive value to this forum.

And that just sucks, dude.

1. You are easily among the worst posters in ANY forum I've ever been on, so you really don't have the right to say anything about other posters.

2. He probably "copes" with it the same way you "cope" by telling yourself you'll be in the "average" range of male height in your country after your surgery rather than facing the reality that you'll still be shorter than average by 5 cm. Of course, you didn't realize that, because you're a solipsist and can only see things from your delusional point of view.

3. You have ZERO right to accuse me of not "bringing anything of positive value to this forum", because you haven't either.
 
I'd be more than glad to discuss emerging technologies that are relevant to height increase, such as research like Dr. Eben Alsberg's which deals with epiphyseal plate regeneration and transplantation. As I write this, there's a thread at the top of the Height Increase Discussion board about a new application of nanotechnology to wound/organ healing that was posted yesterday evening.... and it still has zero responses.

So I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by "anything of positive value". Maybe you mean I'm not joining the idiotic, irrational "positivity" crew of posters like you that spam idiotic feel-good posts about how being short "isn't so bad" and all other sorts of bull****, all the while they're posting on a board where people plan to suffer an excruciatingly painful surgical procedure just to increase their height by 2 or 3 inches?

If that's the case, then yeah, I definitely haven't "brought anything of positive value". I'm not here to verbally circlejerk and play at licking each other's wounds and talk about how it isn't so bad. Last I checked, this board isn't about group therapy. It's about getting taller.

I'd be more than glad to engage in discussions about height increase research, experimental procedures, emerging technologies, and the like, but it seems like everyone else either isn't interested, or is more interested in dumb drama like the kind you're trying to stir up, "celebrity gossip"-tier/wannabe "inspirational" threads about short athletes, and sociological discussions about height, the latter of which seems the most pointless of all to me, since there's nothing to discuss - yeah, heightism exists. Yeah, it's really serious and affects every aspect of your life. Everyone knows this already. What else needs to be said?

News flash: the Male Pattern Baldness community HAS their solution now. A South Korean lab developed a procedure that can effectively cure balding.

https://www.reddit.com/r/tressless/comments/7fax04/a_south_korean_lab_actually_discovered_the_cure/

This in spite of the fact everyone viewed balding as being as "incurable" and "unfixable" as short stature, and "normal"/"positivity" people like you encouraging them to "accept themselves" and cope in other stupid ways constantly.

Know why? It's because their community actually engaged in meaningful discussions about possible ways to FIX their balding, talked about research, got together in groups to contact scientists researching the condition, and so on. They actually RAISED AWARENESS.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: IwannaBeTaller on December 28, 2017, 12:06:15 PM
I've been engaged with quite a number of posters in this forum both in threads as well as per PM, and several of them have thanked me for my contributions, as well as for reaching out to people who posted about their depression. Can you say the same, extremis?

So engaging in the thought process that being in the average range while being 5 cm below the height average, is "solipsist" and "delusional"....then tell me, what would be the alternative? Just giving up, lying down and rot, like the incels like to say? Because in your hypothetical situation, the person has already done LL, so that choice is out of the window. Surely you must see the positive side of focusing on other things than your height in that situation, and concentrating on improving your life in other ways, no? Or what would be the alternative outlook you are proposing? Hmm?

As I've already told you, I'm very interested in height increase research, but I haven't seen anything of value come from you in that regard either. Perhaps you could start with that, instead of the toxic garbage that you have given us so far. I'll be waiting.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: jexus on December 28, 2017, 05:02:07 PM
I used HGH for 1,5 year under doctor control and when I started my growth plates were almost closed.

The first three months, every day I swam for 3 hours, eat incredibly healthy, took protein supplies, hung my legs, did pull-ups and incredible stretching every day. I smoked 3-4 cigarettes a day. There was a difference I guess but not much maximum 1-2 cms maybe no difference at all. But I had huge muscles like I used steroids.

If you're going to use HGH I would suggest you do it earlier.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: RealTrump on December 28, 2017, 05:36:17 PM
I've been engaged with quite a number of posters in this forum both in threads as well as per PM, and several of them have thanked me for my contributions, as well as for reaching out to people who posted about their depression. Can you say the same, extremis?

Has anyone thanked you for convincing them that 3 inches is not a lot of height?

Cuz you sure convinced me man.. I was looking at a ruler earlier. 3 whole inches.. nahh not enough. Better do 6 inches.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Nathond1 on January 22, 2018, 10:31:21 AM
3 inches is a huge increase in height.

I work at a hotel, so I check people's ID's all the time.

It's no so much 3 inches, but it's the added stature and overall frame too.

I regularly see guys, 5'10-5'11 (I'm 172 cm) who tower over me. NOT because they've got an entire head on me, but because they've got half a head on me AND 50 pounds.

You're looking at a ruler seeing 3 inches, about the measure of a finger, no big deal. But what you're missing, is an overall 30 pounds of mass, aswell as almost half a head(most heads around 8 inches).

That IS a big deal, and again, one that I experience see in real life all the time. I'm a 5'7 guy, and 5'10-5'11 guys dominate me in stature all the time. It IS a big difference. Wear lifts if you think not.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bigpoppapump on January 22, 2018, 11:34:32 AM
That’s very true

It irritates the fk out of me when tall skinny guys claim it’s their height that stops them from building muscle. It’s a ridiculous myth! They have more frame size to put muscle on and it’s far easier to have an overall larger body weight which is a huge boost for playing contact sports. The reason they can’t put muscle in is because they train like girls and eat like sparrows.

Every tall guy I know who trains thinks ‘I’d be huge if I was 6” shorter’ they wouldn’t theyd be built proportionate to their height 6” shorter!!!!!!
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Body Builder on January 22, 2018, 12:46:08 PM
That’s very true

It irritates the fk out of me when tall skinny guys claim it’s their height that stops them from building muscle. It’s a ridiculous myth! They have more frame size to put muscle on and it’s far easier to have an overall larger body weight which is a huge boost for playing contact sports. The reason they can’t put muscle in is because they train like girls and eat like sparrows.

Every tall guy I know who trains thinks ‘I’d be huge if I was 6” shorter’ they wouldn’t theyd be built proportionate to their height 6” shorter!!!!!!
Tall people have a hard time to bulk because they must eat all day and train very hard because they have long arms and legs that are harder to bulk than short ones.
And most of them tend to be ectomorphs which means that they have skinny body that can really bulk.

Average height men have the benefit to bulk easier than tall men and look much better than muscular short guys who seem even shorter than they are.

The vast majority of top bbers in the world are less than 1.80. That means a lot.
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: Bigpoppapump on January 22, 2018, 04:10:48 PM
It’s rubbish

The vast majority of professional strongmen are all 190cm+. The biggest records for lifts are also held by men of above average height

Ectomorphs of any height will struggle to build muscle it won’t matter if you are 160cm or 200cm.

I get a laugh getting advice on bodybuilding from guys who are half my size. I’ve forgptten more about muscle building than most will ever know. I struggled to build muscle as a short guy yet eventually ended up with 18” calves 28” thighs 18.5” arms (curling 85lb dumbbells)

Bodybuilding or muscle building questions folks pm me and il answer them
Title: Re: The case of growth hormones
Post by: .. on August 21, 2020, 11:46:11 AM
You must be joking.

The entire bolded paragraph is a non-sequitur based on linguistic semantics. Whether a person "likes" a "definition" or not is irrelevant. Whether the surgery was "painful" and "leaves you with lifelong athletic disadvantages" or not is irrelevant.

He was EXTREMELY short before the surgery, then increased his stature by 6 CM, and now he is LESS short. He was towered by 175-180 CM tall men before and is still towered by them after the surgery, yes.

All of this is irrelevant. 3 inches is a BIG difference. Do you think if you put on 3 inch lifts and walked up to people you know, they wouldn't notice you're MASSIVELY taller than before? You must be joking.

Based on the underlined sentence, It sound more like the one who has an issue with "definitions" is you. You choose to tell yourself that 3 inches isn't a big difference because you want to consider yourself as being in the "average range" of male height. That's a coping mechanism, and if that's the way you want to live your life, then it's fine, but don't pretend everyone else is delusional and you're in the right when it's the other way around.

Oh man, even an inch would be life-changing at this point. Let alone 2-3.

What a cruel world we're living in. Building a 300 metre building is far easier than getting 1 inch of height.