One of the most common ideas that is proposed by the evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology branch is the claim that men can be separated into two major groups, the alphas and the betas. The Alphas are the bigger, more dominant, more assertive group. It seems that in a recent set of studies, we find a clear endocrine correlation. From the study “The role of sex hormones in the kinetics of chondrocytes in the growth plate. A study in the rabbit.” We find that the subject rabbits who are castrated (have sex organs removed) had lower levels of chondrocytes in their epiphyseal plates, have less chondrocyte proliferation, and increased levels of apoptosis. From this study, we can say that there is a positive relation to the amount of male sex hormones, the endrogens, but mainly testosterone, and the height they reach.
If I integrated these studies together, I would argue that while estrogen, (and testosterone) is clearly needed for optimal height, it must be kept at only an above average level, and never taken to the extreme. Too much testosterone is know to lead to violent, aggressive behavior and tendencies, something which was socially acceptable thousands of years ago when the world was rules by force, but now that rules is no longer socially allowed. Plus, I suspect that too much testosterone would cause the earlier onset of puberty, and lead to shorter final height. This might help explain the tongue in check term “Napoleon Complex”. The Short Men complex which results in below average stature men being aggressive, and trying too hard to prove themselves, and overcompensate for everything, may actually be of an endocrine origin, where there is an extreme level of testosterone level within their system. This shows that the evolutionary biology ideas are based on biological hormonal data where the bigger male is on average more aggressive than smaller males, but there is a smaller subset of males who are small but are very aggressive who has very high levels of testosterone.
Despite the continued presence of growth plates in aged rats, longitudinal growth no longer occurs. The aims of this study were to understand the reasons for the cessation of growth. We studied the growth plates of femurs and tibiae in Wistar rats aged 62–80 weeks and compared these with the corresponding growth plates from rats aged 2–16 weeks. During skeletal growth, the heights of the plates, especially that of the hypertrophic zone, reflected the rate of bone growth. During the period of decelerating growth, it was the loss of large hydrated chondrocytes that contributed most to the overall decrease in the heights of the growth plates. In the old rats we identified four categories of growth plate morphology that were not present in the growth plates of younger rats: (a) formation of a bone band parallel to the metaphyseal edge of the growth plate, which effectively sealed that edge; (b) extensive areas of acellularity, which were resistant to resorption and/or remodeling; (c) extensive remodeling and bone formation within cellular regions of the growth plate; and (d) direct bone formation by former growth plate chondrocytes. These processes, together with a loss of synchrony across the plate, would prevent further longitudinal expansion of the growth plate despite continued sporadic proliferation of chondrocytes.
This reveals something which I have always been confused and seems to resolve. The studies done by Zhang and Yokota were done on this lab MICE, NOT RATS. However, I as a laymen can’t see any difference between the anatomy and physiology of rats and mice so I would assume that the growth rate and endochondral process of rats and mice are very similar. The first sentence from the study is what really is interesting. It seems that even in aged rats, their physis/growth plates never completely disappear. However, the rats don’t grow any bigger or taller. The researchers state there are 4 reasons, bone bridges, loss of cellularity and problems with resorption of the non-organic material, non-organic bone material encroaching in on the cellular areas, and the chondrocytes turning into bone. If I was to guess, the reason why the growth plates never go away may be from the fact that the load on the cartilage of the limbs are not that high which means that the cartilage were never loaded to the point of accelerated ossification to the point where the rate of cartilage proliferation was overwhelmed by the cartilage to bone process. However, that is only my uneducated guess at this point. This means that the reason why the frequency loading was effective on the mice, even at advanced age can cause some longitudinal growth. I often imagine the dynamic loading at a lateral direction like a hand pushing on on the most sensitive region of a hard cylinder, with a hard region on the top and bottom, but the middle area, where the compression is done, is more sensitive and flexible to external stimuli.
If this is the case, that means that the entire LSJL theory based on the Yokota & Zhang studies is invalid for humans, and should not work on adults with their plates closed. On the LSJL forums there seems to be only one member who has gotten results. st.it, and I wonder whether at the age he started doing the LSJL he still had at least an epiphyseal line. I remember from my old university mechanical engineering and physics courses the application of dynamic loading in in high frequency in the form of shocks or hits done to objects to see what would be the result. Material science says that any hard hit would cause any fractures or defects already in the material being hit to break and fracture, especially along the lines or areas where the material is the weakest. Maybe the LSJL dyanmic loading caused not epiphyseal cartilage, but closed epiphyseal lines to be split open slightly and leading to new cartilage formation. I note that for men, the age range for growth plate closure and final height age is very large. It could be that the few people who have seen the biggest results were people who still had a slight line available for fracture/distraction to allow the MSCs inside to aggregate and go through one last push in height increase. Due to how the bone remodels and get harder, the only way to possibly lead to more growth, would be to using far higher loads, at higher frequencies, using shorter time intervals, while putting a sharp edge on the most sensitive area to cause a possible horizontal fracture line inside.
One idea that I can give from my Tesla Coil building says is that each type of material in the world has it’s own specific resonance frequency. If the external piezoelectric device can be applied to the bone and it is osscilating at the right frequency, the resonance frequency of the cortical bone, it might cause the bone to shake enough to reveal it’s most weakest areas, and lead to small fractures. Then the piezoelectric material moves to the resonance frequency of the MSCs inside and get them to go through chondrogenesis. Dr. Brighton has already written up a patents which gives a hint of what it could be which is in the library section. This could work but at this point of my research, it is only a theoretical suggestion.
I was reading a biography of the polymath John Von Neumann and his association with Richard Feynman and it would seem that besides being coworkers on the Manhattan Project and being at Princeton for a considerable amount of time of their careers, they also attended what I would consider was one of the two most important conferences ever assembled, the Shelter Island Conference of 1947. In Feynman’s books, he would describe his struggle in trying to understand the electromagnetic interactions of the quantum world. At this conference however, he managed to get the small hint he was looking for in formulating the foundation of modern Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), which would become the most accurate theory in describing phenomena. Like the Shelter Island Conference, there was another equally important conference that occurred, the Solvay Conference of 1927where the world’s greatest physicists and chemists came together to discuss the most vexing problems of their day. (pic taken from source)
What I see when I look at that picture is a mastermind of the most revolutionary group of thinkers and genius ever assembled. Each of these people in the picture on the right have had a distinguished professional career, with the man in the middle being declared the Person Of The Century by Time magazine 10 years ago. Almost all of the people each have a Wikipedia page dedicated to their work and life. They have contributed much towards the human race, and when they come together they can only help each other in advancing their research and ideas further than they could have alone.
When I think about how much innovation, creativity, and breakthroughs can occur when a group of people come together to solve the big problems in any field, I always get excited at the thought that we can get together the best and most influential people of this community to solve the problem. In almost all subjects I have ever studied, the idea of the group and of putting a group of brains together is often the best idea towards progress. Currently we have the Podcast that is used to broadcast our messages and I do try to get other important people on the show. I have this website but it’s reach and influence is very limited. There is no forum because I can’t see at this point just how it would help in pushing the effort further or lead to any new possible breakthroughs.
We need to meet face to face, mingle, discuss, and brainstorm our ideas to each other. I consider myself old school in my research. I like to go through the library and look through old texts and journals to find my ideas. When I need ideas communicated to me, I prefer to have a person explain it to me face to face, not through emails, instant messaging, or even Skype. I have found that the trasmission of data to be far more effective when the person giving me instructions or guidance to be in front of me, so that the interaction is more natural, more fluid, and not likely to be interrupted by such things like internet connection failure.
So I propose that “The Height Increase Community Should Have World Research Conventions Similar To The Solvay And Shelter Island Conferences“
Today is Dec. 25th, 2012 so I will do a special post on Jesus Christ!
A few days ago I was watching a documentary on Youtube that was talking about the resurrection, final 6 sightings, and ascension of Jesus Christ and it got me to wonder a very obvious question “How tall was Jesus Christ? What was Jesus’s height?”
Of all the people in human history I could have done a height analysis on, I think it would only be appropriate if I tried to make an educated guess on the man that has probably effected more people in human history than any other person. Interestingly, a book from 1978 called “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” makes the claim that Jesus is only #3 in the rankings, behind his muslim counterpart Muhammad and Isaac Newton. However, I would guess to choose who is more influential is probably a more personal/ bias opinion between historians since everything is all subjective, unlike height.
For a reference, I did use Wikipedia, Biography.com
To start off, we know that Jesus born in a manger/stable close to the town of Bethlehem from the lack of inn space, which is in present day Palestine from the New Testament. That is the story that is told in Western Orthodox Christianity. It seems that his mother and “father” Joseph were average people. Joseph was a sheperd . Jesus was raised in the town of Nazareth, of Galilee, which is in modern day a large region in northern Israel. The predominant languages spoke then were in ascending order of prominence, Semitic Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek in that region of Israel.
We know he is Jewish. I once tried to figure out whether the term “Jew” and “Jewish” refers to either a group of people based on religion, ethnicity, or race. I think at least in the US, the term “Jew” and “Jewish” is used interchangeably in all contexts, for religion, ethnicity, and race. For me, I still can’t get the word to be defined and be accurately used.
If I tried to define Jesus as Jewish in terms of race, it would tell me very little. From Wikipedia on the Appearance of Jews Based On Stereotypes this is quoted…
“In caricatures and cartoons, Jews are often depicted having dark skin, curly black hair, large hook-noses, thick lips, large dark-colored eyes and wearing kippahs…Jews are commonly caricatured as having large noses[3] or hook noses.[4] Jews are also portrayed as swarthy and hirsute. There is a brown, edible woodland fungus, Auricularia cornea, commonly referred to as “Hairy Jew’s ear”.[5]“
From past memory, the stereotype of Jews which I remember is that they are never described as “tall” but either average height or short. From JewishEncyclopedia.com…
“The average height of Jews is 162.1 cm.; span of arms, 169.1 cm.; and girth around the chest, about 81 cm.: so that they are the shortest and narrowest of Europeans. Their skulls are mainly brachycephalic; that is, the breadth is generally over 80 per cent of the length. This has been used as an argument against the purity of race, as most Semites—like the Arabs and Syrians—are dolichocephalic, or longheaded. But, as Jewish skulls are almost the broadest in all Europe, it is difficult to say how this characteristic could have arisen from any mixture: it is probably due to cerebral development.”
This figure is not indicated whether they are talking about men, women, or the average of all people.
It depends on the Jewish group…Ashkenazi Jews are usually tall. 90% of the Ashkenazi ( white ) Jews I’ve met are over 6’0″ or in the 5’10” – 6’1″ range…The Mizrahi and Sephardim Jews are usually more like 5’6″ – 5’9″ but it varies. The main reason these eastern European Jews are tall is because most eastern europeans are tall Jews or Gentiles. I personally am one fourth racial Jew and I am 5’4″ at almost 16 years of age … guess the height gene was prominant?…Actually the shorter Jewish guys, I’ve met are Ashkenazi, they were 5’7″-5’9″. The Sephardi that I met in Central, South America, Mexico included ranged from 6’4″ to 6’8″.
It seems that the term Jews encompasses many groups of people, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardim, etc.
From JewishEncyclopedia.com, it would appear that the website is very negative towards Jews because it claims that on average, the Jews are about 1-3 shorter than the “gentiles” that surround them.
From these sources, it is clear that Jesus being ethnicity Jewish does not help me at all in figuring out how tall he is.
It would seem that the present day Israel has an average adult male height of 5′ 9.5″ and female is 5′ 5.5″ (source). If we take into consideration that present day Israel (and it’s territory of Palestine) is a developed country (at least the Tel Aviv part) with all the modern amenities like shopping centers which would indicate the people there are getting at least the enough food, right amount of nutrition when they are young and not suffering from malnutrition, we could say that for the people there, they have reached their genetic peak in that region. I have said before that there is really no “genetic peak” because I am quite positive that the children of israelites who relocate to the netherlands will end up probably 3-4 inches taller than their immigrant parents.
In terms of racial mixture and purity, that is impossible to pinpoint without DNA devices. The region of israel has been fought over, overrun, ransacked, and had its people raped and pillaged at least a half dozen major times in its history. The Mongols, the Christians during the Crusades, the ottomans, the turks, the Egyptians, the Hittites, the persians, babylonians, assyrians, they have all come through and left a genetic imprint on its people. So it is not really possible to determine the height of Jesus using standard average height based on ethnic group data.
We know from the results of North Korea and South Korea that malnutrition will decimate the stature of its people. From an old article entitled “Longevity & health in ancient Paleolithic vs. Neolithic peoples” by Ward Nicholson it said that men who lived in the Hellenistic times (300 BC-100 AD) were about 172 cm and women were around 156 cm.
His physical characteristics: We do not know whether he was tall or short. The image on the Shroud of Turin (believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus) is of a man variously estimated to be 5′ 11½” to 6′ 2″ tall. Jews who lived in the 1st century CE were much shorter than this. Writer William Harwood comments: “According to a medieval writer, [the Jewish historian] Josephus described Jesus as an old-looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows and approximately 135 cm (4ft 6 in.) tall.” 2 This is based on the standard 46 cm. long regular cubit — an ancient unit of distance. Using the 53 cm. special cubit, Jesus’ height would have been about 156 cm (5ft 1in.). Harwood also makes the point that if Jesus were really 6 feet high, his height would have been so remarkable that he would certainly have been described as a very tall person by the writers of the Christian Scriptures.
If I was to take an educated guess I would say that Jesus would probably not be the 5′ 11″-6′ 2″ that seems to be suggested by the Shroud Of Turin. The fact is that 6′ 0″ by today’s standards can be considered tall in some nations and even in some parts of the US, due to ethnic demographics. The other suggested height of 5′ 1″ seems more reasonable, although it seems to me to be a little on the short side, but how would I know what the average male height of people in biblical israel be.
From another credible source TheGospelCoalition.Org entitled “What did Jesus Look Like?” by Justin Taylor…
From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds.” I admit that it feels a bit strange to think of being over a foot taller than Jesus! But it’s good to have our cultural preconceptions—even prejudices—challenged.
It would seem that the 5′ 1″ figure appears again, and this time it is estimated from skeletal remains found by archeologists.
From an old article on Popular Mechanics entitled “The Real Face Of Jesus” we find that the same source is cited where the idea is that Jesus was an average height male being Galilee Semite. It says that Jesus was a carpenter so we know that he was probably very muscular and he worked in the sun so his face was probably more wrinkled, darker, which would make his complexion to be olive colored, or Meditarrenean. It would be restated that the real historical Jesus was considered to be not attractive, but very average looking.
Even some religious scholars which tried to do the research from biblical quotes like HERE end up to show that Jesus was just average height, the same size as his disciples. In the end, he made the point that the size of one individual does not determine whether they are a good man.
Conclusion: Most of the results point to the idea that Jesus was 5′ 1″. We do know that in the writings, Jesus and people in his area sustained themselves on bread and fish. Fish does have protein but not as much as cow. A diet of bread and fish technically will keep a human alive, but definitely not allow them to grow to their full potential. Jesus height probably we stunted by his diet. Plus, we know that Jesus also practiced the art of fasting like so many other religions. I wrote about the idea of Intermitent Fasting to increase height “Increase Height And Grow Taller Through Intermittent Fasting” but we have to remember that Jesus did not start preaching his message until he was after the age of 30. There seems to be no indication after his birth that Jesus was anything special or spiritual for an extended amount of time. If the effects of fasting was to wok at all, he never practiced it when he still growing. His hard labor life means that he was probably slouching a little. We saw from the other studies that technically, the Bedouin/Arabic/Semitic people of that region from 2000 years ago were probably not the tallest group of people. Environment had a lot to do with it. I am almost certain that after the Roman Empire fell, during the dark ages of Europe, the average height of people there was probably 2-3 inches shorter than back 300 years when the Romans had plenty of food and meat to eat. If we then try to extrapolate this idea that subsequent reversal of time back to the time of early roman empire, we could say that the average roman male was probably between 5′ 3″- 5′ 5″. Jesus was alive during that time, but he was not roman, and he did not live the same life. The 2 inches of difference which would result from the lifestyle difference and the hardship of his life suggest the value by archeologists is quite accurate. In conclusion, I would say that the real height of the historical Jesus Christ was probably between 5’0- 5′ 2″.
To end this post, it seems that even the creators of Family Guy caught on to this idea that Jesus is probably shorter than the modern idea of average height. I have embedded a video from Family Guy – Second Coming Of Jesus from Hulu.com below. Enjoy.
“Since Lrp5 is an important mechano-sensitive receptor in Wnt signaling, we examined its role in the mRNA expression of A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinase with Thrombospondin Motifs 5 (ADAMTS5), a major proteolytic aggrecanase that degrades extracellular matrix in articular cartilage. Using genome-wide expression data for C28/I2 chondrocytes with and without Lrp5-specific siRNA, we employed a systems biology approach and built a regulatory network model. Experimental data revealed that silencing Lrp5 significantly altered Wnt signaling gene expression and elevated the mRNA level of ADAMTS5 and several cytokines. A series of experiments using RNA interference showed that the expression of ADAMTS5 was at least in part stimulated by p38 MAPK and IL1β, while Lrp5 acted as a suppressor of their upregulation. Regulatory network analysis using an algorithm predicted the potential involvement of Wnt3a, Myc and CCAAT/Enhancer-Binding Protein β (CEBPB). A secretary factor such as Wnt3a might be involved in Lrp5-mediated homeostasis of ADAMTS5.”
“ow-density-Lipoprotein Receptor-Related Protein 5 (Lrp5) is a co-receptor in the canonical Wnt signaling pathway and global deletion of Lrp5 in mice as well as conditional deletion in osteocytes results in a deficiency in load-driven bone formation and presents a phenotype of low bone mass”
” Mice deficient in ADAMTS5 are protected from cartilage erosion in mouse models of osteoarthritis”<-however erosion of the cartilage is important for endochondral ossification.
“In response to treatment with Lrp5 siRNA, mRNA levels of to 6 interleukin genes (IL6, IL1β, IL12A, IL15, IL18, IL16) were elevated while IL8 mRNA was suppressed”
“Compared with Lrp5 siRNA, IL1β treatment caused a similar elevation to mRNA abundance of IL6, IL1β and ADAMTS5. However, administration of IL1β did not elevate the mRNA levels of IL12A, IL15, IL18, IL8 and IL16”
“both sequences of LRP5 siRNA elevated the phosphorylation of p38 MAPK. Applying p38 siRNA decreased total and phosphorylated p38 MAPK, while a double knockdown with LRP5 siRNA showed a slight recovery in the phosphorylated p38 MAPK level. ADAMTS5 mRNA levels decreased after p38 siRNA. Double knockdown of both p38 siRNA and LRP5 siRNA slightly decreases the elevation of ADAMTS5 mRNA caused by a single knockdown of just LRP5 siRNA.”
In my previous post, I tried to take a guess at the thinking, intentions, rationalizations, justifications, and reasons why some people, mostly females, will always choose the taller mate partner if they had a choice in mate selection. Now, let’s see whether their choices will actually results in the tall or at least average size offspring they hope for.
In a previous post I had already written about the equations medical professionals use to calculate for the final height of the parents.
There is already many, many calculators online where you just enter the heights of one’s parents, age, sex, and the result of the child is easily produced. Places like Calculator.com, Parenting.com, Babycenter.com, or BBC UK all have the same calculator which probably use the same formula to calculate the child’s ultimate height. (haven’t tested that claim yet though).
It turns out that there is more than one type of equation the medical community has created and/or use to figure out children’s final height.
There’s no proven way to predict a child’s adult height. However, several formulas can provide a reasonable guess for child growth. Here’s a popular example:
Add the mother’s height and the father’s height in either inches or centimeters.
Add 5 inches (13 centimeters) for boys or subtract 5 inches (13 centimeters) for girls.
Divide by two.
Most children will reach an adult height within 4 inches (10 centimeters) of this estimation.
Another way to estimate a child’s adult height is to double his or her height at age 2.
Remember, a child’s height is controlled by genetics. It’s also important to note that children grow at different rates. Some children begin their growth phases early, while others are late bloomers. If you’re concerned about your child’s growth, consult his or her doctor.
So the equation they gave for this was where x = father’s height, and y = mother’s height, ((x+y)+5)/2 for boys, and ((x+y)-5)/2 for girls. the deviation is extremely large, by over 4 inches, which I have found to be really large of a height distribution.
Step 1: Calculate Final Height prediction (mid-parental height)
Boy
In: (Father’s Height + Mother’s Height + 5) / 2
Cm: (Father’s Height + Mother’s Height + 13) / 2
Girl
In: (Father’s Height – 5 + Mother’s Height) / 2
Cm: (Father’s Height – 13 + Mother’s Height) / 2
Step 2: Identify Predicted Growth Percentile
Use above predicted mean height to mark growth chartIdentify growth percentiles for the predicted height
Mark chart at 18-20 year old mark
Mark Confidence Interval s
Mean Height in inches +/- 2 inches (some use 3.3 inches)
Mean Height in centimeters +/- 5 centimeters (some use 8.3 cm)
What seems to be obvious is that the same formula has been used for this reference. the values of the father and mother are added up and a correct factor of 5 is either or subtracted due to gender, and the value is then divided in half. For inches to cm, the conversion is to multiply by 2. 55-2.66.
From another resource InteliHealth.com Robert H. Shmerling, M.D. answers the question “Can We Predict Height?”
From infancy, when average length is 20 inches, to age 2 there is initially rapid growth, then slowing, with about 14 inches in height added.
From age 2 to puberty there is slow, steady growth at about 2½ inches per year.
As one enters puberty, a growth spurt of 3 to 5 inches in a year is common.
By ages 40 to 50, height actually may begin slowly to decline, even in healthy adults.
A major determinant of height is how long the longest bones become, such as the femur (in the upper leg), tibia and fibula (in the lower leg)….The growth spurt around the time of puberty occurs two years earlier in girls when compared with boys, but the boys tend to be taller when it begins. Most of the average height difference between adult men and women (about 5 inches) relates to the greater growth of boys during the adolescent growth spurt and the greater height achieved prior to that growth spurt (even though girls tend to start their growth spurt sooner)….Rather predictably, we achieve about half of our adult height by age 2. So one way to predict ultimate height is simply to double the height achieved by the second birthday.
One commonly quoted formula uses parental height and gender to predict adult height (in inches) as follows:
For men: (height of mother + height of father + 5)/2 For women: (height of mother + height of father – 5)/2
If you know your parents’ heights, see if this formula predicts yours well; for most people, this will accurately predict your height within 2 or 3 inches.
All of these methods can only approximate ultimate height; they cannot predict with precision. In addition, formulas and growth charts to predict height are based on large numbers of normal children and do not perform well in predicting the ultimate height of an individual child who is unusually short or tall, has been ill, or has a genetic disorder.
Conclusion: I think at this point from three references, there is one general formula most pediatricians who are asked this type of question by concerned parents will use. It is simple, easy to calculate, and has a height range of 6-8 inches. I think the key thing to take away is to see that on average, the children of short people who marry and mate with tall people end up slightly taller than their parents of the same gender and end up somewhere in either the middle to the taller range. Overall, the results are a bad indication of what final height the children ill end up since there is so much room for deviation. I’ve known children of tall parents who end up shorter than both of them, and i’ve seen even more cases of children who end up even 1 feet taller than their parents. The answer is that an endocrinologist or pediatrician can definitely calculate a value for the child but most likely that value will be off so it is possible to get a very weak guess at the right value of the final height.
