I honestly think its just pot luck. My Mum is 5’4 my Dad 5’6 and I’m 6’5.
I remember hearing about stunted growth for those who started lifting weights too early, does anyone have any proof or opinion about this ? I recall my dad roasting me for lifting too early and not being as tall as him.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I remember hearing about stunted growth for those who started lifting weights too early, does anyone have any proof or opinion about this ? I recall my dad roasting me for lifting too early and not being as tall as him. [/quote]
It’s completely not a thing, and if it even were it would most likely make you slightly taller rather than shorter. Your bones are damaged in minor ways when you stress them, and they rebuild themselves. It’s exactly the same as with your muscles. There is a lot of data on boxers and cyclists and such showing increases in relevant limb lengths from years of impact.
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
My 12 year old son is the same height as me. He’s grown at least 6" in the last 6 months. [/quote]
Ain’t it funny?! I swear if you go into their rooms at night and you are real quiet, you can hear them growing![/quote]
The long term effects of feeding boys. 
My son turned 18 in December. Shoes then and now. I can still remember him wearing those white tennis shoes like it was yesterday. I’ve said this before, but I sometimes hear this deep voice coming from another part of the house and I feel like there’s an intruder. We had a deal that when our boy was taller than me worth $10. Taller than his dad worth $20. We had to pay up on both.
Height
My Dad 5’6" on a good day.
My Mom 5’4"
Brothers are about 5’5"
I’m not quite 5’2"
There are some seriously small people in my family. I have grandmothers on both sides that were about 5’ or less, and 4 generations of professional jockeys.
Maternal Grandfather 5’6"
Maternal Grandmother 5’4"
Mother 5’7"
Paternal Grandfather 6’6"
Paternal Grandmother 5’1"
Dad 5’9"
Me 5’11" if I stretch it a little. Lots of short there so I feel pretty greatful to have been as tall as I am. Supposedly my Mom’s Grandmother was 6’0" though.
So what I think is happening is this. Assuming the milkman has not got involved in anyway. Boys will generally overtake their dads when the dads are short. As the dads height increases it becomes harder to overtake the dads and harder to even reach the dad’s height. Had that not been the case we’d all be giants by now.
In my experiences for example from my two sons’ plenty of school friends, they are all, at 15-16, as tall or taller than their dads, regardless of the mothers height. How do I know? Well we see many of them at rugby every Thursday and Sunday, their dads and sometimes the mums are there on the side lines, also from our social circles and from school of course.
I have examples with mothers at the 5’1" range, dads about 6.1-6.3" and so are the two boys at 15-ish. I have another example mother is like 5.1", dad 5.7", son is 5.10"-5.11", daughter is 5.1-5.2. I can go on writing but the pattern is the same. In one occasion where the dad is in the 6.2+ region, his son is around there, not taller.
My wife has mentioned a friend of hers one of her sons is shorter than the dad, he was always small as a child and had stopped growing and took him to doctors for testosterone etc, that is a rare exception.
We took my 18 yo son to the doctors they did a blood test and bone growth test, his bones are older than his age (they have fused), his growth hormone is near the top of the range, so much so that the endocrinologist said that giving him additional growth hormone would not have any effect as he as plenty of it already.
So I believe we belong to a small minority where the boys do not overtake the already short dad (I am 5.8 on a good day). We have been keeping my boys’ growth charts inside their medical book, my eldest was in the middle for all his life and predicted to be much taller, then suddenly at the age of 15 his chart drops off a cliff. Had he continued on the same percentile we’d be OK.
Of course it might well be he is not my son. That might also explain the blue eyes. Hmmm.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I remember hearing about stunted growth for those who started lifting weights too early, does anyone have any proof or opinion about this ? I recall my dad roasting me for lifting too early and not being as tall as him. [/quote]
It’s completely not a thing, and if it even were it would most likely make you slightly taller rather than shorter. Your bones are damaged in minor ways when you stress them, and they rebuild themselves. It’s exactly the same as with your muscles. There is a lot of data on boxers and cyclists and such showing increases in relevant limb lengths from years of impact.[/quote]
You know, I haven’t seen any actual scientific evidence to say lifting will stunt your growth or anything but I remember it being discussed that the age of 12 was a cutoff for some reason or another. I think it basically said lifting before 12 would stunt your growth based on the growth plates closing.
Obviously without data to back it up, I’m taking it with a grain of salt but I do NOT plan on putting a BB on my son’s back before that. He will be a BW master doing pullups, pushups, lunges, jumps, etc before that time but I’ll withhold the BB until after.
BTW- an xray of your child’s hips can also help to determine if they are done growing. There is an indication known as the Risser’s sign that can help identify if the growth is mostly completed.
[quote]Velvet Elvis wrote:
Dad is 6’1 … Mom 5’3 … I ended up 5’10, but always blamed living on celery and ice cubes as a high school wrestler during my “growing years” for the reason I didn’t at least reach my Dad’s height
My wife is 5’9, and my oldest boy (7) is already up to my chest, so I have “high” hopes for him, lol … [/quote]
Fucking A, I swear I would be 2 inches taller if it wasnt for cutting weight.
I have heard that boys average about 4 inches taller than their mothers while girls average about 4 inches shorter than their fathers. I don’t know how much truth is in that. My mom is about 5’5" and my dad is about 6’1." I’m 5’9.5." My brother is about 5’7." My Dad is shorter than his three brothers, but my Mom’s dad and brothers are all relatively short. I wouldn’t say I’ve noticed a pattern of sons taller than fathers. I think it just comes down to mixing two sets of genetics. As was said, if the father is not particularly tall, there’s a decent chance the son will be taller, just by random chance.
Height is probably a recombinant gene.
Maybe a bit off topic and a new topic unto itself but given the choice, would you add an inch to your height or an inch to your manhood?
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
Maybe a bit off topic and a new topic unto itself but given the choice, would you add an inch to your height or an inch to your manhood?[/quote]
Height, my manhood is just fine and Id rather have an anatomically correct dick than a kickstand.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
Maybe a bit off topic and a new topic unto itself but given the choice, would you add an inch to your height or an inch to your manhood?[/quote]
Height, my manhood is just fine and Id rather have an anatomically correct dick than a kickstand. [/quote]
Nah I’d definitely say dick. An extra inch won’t really turn you into a freak, but you’ll get a lot more bang for your buck(huehuehue) with an inch down there. I don’t feel like my life would be much different if I were 5’11 as opposed to 5’10.
I mean even for a shortish guy an inch is only an extra 1.5% of your height as opposed to getting an extra like 13-17% of length to your junk. 10x more efficient.
I dunno. There are a lot of common pre-conceived notions about height and qualities and characteristics of men, which true or false, show up in their paychecks, promotions, etc.
I’d probably take the inch of height. No way I’m flopping the wang out during an interview or evaluation.
I am with Csulli on this one. And inch of height doesn’t make much difference, especially compared to the difference of an inch of manhood. Now 4 inches of height vs 1 inch of length would be a more intriguing question.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I am with Csulli on this one. And inch of height doesn’t make much difference, especially compared to the difference of an inch of manhood. Now 4 inches of height vs 1 inch of length would be a more intriguing question.[/quote]
See I would absolutely take 4 inches of height vs one inch of length.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I remember hearing about stunted growth for those who started lifting weights too early, does anyone have any proof or opinion about this ? I recall my dad roasting me for lifting too early and not being as tall as him. [/quote]
I think that’s the same study that says if women lift weights their uterus will fall out.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I remember hearing about stunted growth for those who started lifting weights too early, does anyone have any proof or opinion about this ? I recall my dad roasting me for lifting too early and not being as tall as him. [/quote]
I think I’ve posted these once or twice before in similar threads.
(Pre-emptive TL;DR: smart weight training is fine, bad programs and/or bad technique is what can cause problems.)
1987 study:
http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/15/5/483.short
“This study examined the safety of one type of strength training for prepubescent males. Eighteen males (average age, 8.3 +/- 1.2 years) participated in a 45 min/session, three session/week, 14 week supervised strength training program with an attendance rate of 91.5%. Concentric work was done almost exclusively.
…
Results showed that in the short term, supervised concentric strength training results in a low injury rate and does not adversely affect bone, muscle, or epiphyses; nor does it adversely affect growth, development, flexibility, or motor performance. As the safety question is multifaceted, this should not lead to the conclusion that strength training for prepubescents is uniformly safe. Further research is needed.”
1998 study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.12.1814/full
“Two socioeconomically equivalent schools were randomly allocated to be an “exercise” or “control” school. Twenty boys (mean age 10.4 years, ranging 8.4-11.8) from the “exercise” school participated in an 8-month exercise program of 30 minutes of weight-bearing activity three times weekly for 32 weeks (basketball, weight training, aerobics, soccer, volleyball, gymnastics, folk and line dancing)…
…
Most anthropometric measurements increased during the 8 months (Table 1). The increases in biacromial and femoral intercondylar widths in the exercise group were greater than in controls. BMC and areal BMD increased in both groups at all sites except the arms and skull. The increases in the exercise group were twice those in the controls at most sites, reaching statistical significance at the lumbar spine, legs, and total body areal BMD”
(Translation into non-science speak: Weight-bearing activity, which included weight training, significantly increased bone mass density and and bone mineral content in the exercising kids.)
2003 journal from the peer-reviewed The Physician and Sportsmedicine (PDF file):
http://www.autourdavignoncoaching.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/forceenfantphysician.pdf
"One theoretical concern is that the growing bones of children may be less resilient to physical stresses than the bones of adults. Although a few case study reports have noted growth plate fractures in children who lifted weights, most of these injuries occurred as a result of improper training, excessive loading, and lack of qualified adult supervision.
A literature review reported no cases of any overt clinical injuries, including epiphyseal fractures, among those in appropriately supervised strength training programs. The risk of an epiphyseal plate fracture in prepubescents is actually less than in adolescents, because the epiphyseal plates are stronger and more resistant to shearing forces.
…
Recent literature indicates that strength training will not have an adverse effect on growth. A few studies have shown positive growth effects as long as proper nutrition and age-specific physical activity guidelines were met. However, resistance training will not affect an individuals’ genotypic maximum. Parents can be assured that strength training (in moderation) will not have an adverse effect on growth. Training may actually be an effective stimulus for growth and bone mineralization in children, especially for those at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis."
[quote]silverblood wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I remember hearing about stunted growth for those who started lifting weights too early, does anyone have any proof or opinion about this ? I recall my dad roasting me for lifting too early and not being as tall as him. [/quote]
I think that’s the same study that says if women lift weights their uterus will fall out.[/quote]
It will. The Valsalva maneuver will blow it out like candles on a cake!
(I kid, I kid…)
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I am with Csulli on this one. And inch of height doesn’t make much difference, especially compared to the difference of an inch of manhood. Now 4 inches of height vs 1 inch of length would be a more intriguing question.[/quote]
Unless you are tiny and inch of member wont make up for shitty technique. If you cant do the job with what you got now, size aint your problem.
And extra inch of height finally brings my boys out of standard urinal splash zone. Ill take it.