crazietalk.net

bjornolf wrote:

Shammrog wrote: 2 3/4 + 2/3/4 = 1/2 inches. I think this is just a subset of your rule, which gives a broader range (with 99% confidence). So they are probably both about right

Methinks your math is confused. ;) Or maybe I am. But, yea, our rules would certainly NOT be exclusive.

Ah - I meant + 5 1/2 inches. So, take me - at peak (people lose an inch or two with age) my dad was 5'11", mom 5'3" (she used to say 5'5", maybe 5'4" tops.) Average = 5'7" + 2 3/4 inches = 5'9 3/4 I am 5'11, but only a 68% chance of +- 1 inch, 95 % +-2. So, I am within range.

Under your model, average = 5'7". + 6 inches = 6'1". I am 5'11, so well within that 99% range. Your range just seems too broad to be that much use (if I understand it). It is just saying that I have a 99% chance of being between 5'1 and 6'1".

Hey DinK, we can be the forwards, I'm 5'9.5", too. And I love that extra .5 inch.

Shorter men have always been very fond of me, why is that?

weezie wrote:Hey DinK, we can be the forwards, I'm 5'9.5", too. and I love that extra .5 inch.

Shorter men have always been very fond of me, why is that?

You obviously haven't seen me shoot a basketball. (I'd have better luck with a pistol!)

Our family gives one of the sisters a hard time for being a shrimp. However, she is 5'7", which is above average height for a female, I believe. Everything is relative.

You know when you give a statistician numbers like these, she has to do the math don't you? Let's see, 65+71=136. 136/2=68 so my parents average height is 5'8". I'm 5'4". That's a 4 inch difference. I think that means I'm in the 'other' 5%. Not unlike when I took Bonkistry. He explained how many of us were pre-meds, how many of us were engineers, how many of us were chemistry or other science majors. He then said, "The other 1% of you, I don't know why you're here." Well, it was the last chemistry course I ever took and by the end of it, I didn't know why I was there either.

I have never met an adult member of my extended family who is shorter than I am. I am the runt. Except when there are kids in the picture, I'm always in the 'front row' of family photos. I'm not even as tall as either one of my grandmothers were. And yes, I have a short complex even though I'm not, technically, short. I always ask my mother if she ate right when she was pregnant with me. Genetics do indeed have a strong influence on height, but there are outliers. I'm one of them.

Bostondevil wrote:I have never met an adult member of my extended family who is shorter than I am. I am the runt. Except when there are kids in the picture, I'm always in the 'front row' of family photos. I'm not even as tall as either one of my grandmothers were. And yes, I have a short complex even though I'm not, technically, short. I always ask my mother if she ate right when she was pregnant with me. Genetics do indeed have a strong influence on height, but there are outliers. I'm one of them.

I used to be the shortest in the family, children excluded, I think my mother is now shorter than I due to osteoporosis. In fact, the only time I was close to being the same height as one of my grandmothers was when she was in her 80's. Again, I think that was related to osteoporosis.

I have learned to embrace my height, and use it to my advantage. ;) ;)

Shammrog wrote:

bjornolf wrote:

Shammrog wrote: 2 3/4 + 2/3/4 = 1/2 inches. I think this is just a subset of your rule, which gives a broader range (with 99% confidence). So they are probably both about right

Methinks your math is confused. ;) Or maybe I am. But, yea, our rules would certainly NOT be exclusive.

Ah - I meant + 5 1/2 inches. So, take me - at peak (people lose an inch or two with age) my dad was 5'11", mom 5'3" (she used to say 5'5", maybe 5'4" tops.) Average = 5'7" + 2 3/4 inches = 5'9 3/4 I am 5'11, but only a 68% chance of +- 1 inch, 95 % +-2. So, I am within range.

Under your model, average = 5'7". + 6 inches = 6'1". I am 5'11, so well within that 99% range. Your range just seems too broad to be that much use (if I understand it). It is just saying that I have a 99% chance of being between 5'1 and 6'1".

No, you go UP for males, down for females. So, it would say that you'd be between 5'7" and 6'1". For a woman, you'd be between 5'1" and 5'7".

CameronBornAndBred wrote:6' 3". I used to be 6' 4", but I'm positive I shrunk an inch in the last 20 years.

No doubt about it in my case. I peaked at 6'4". Went in to see the quacks for a routine checkup last fall and they put me at 6'3". Something else you young'uns can look forward to...

Bostondevil wrote: I keep telling my husband (6'4") that I'm going to outlive him but he doesn't seem to believe me.

BD, you seem rather confident about that prediction. Are you planning on guaranteeing the outcome?!?

bjornolf wrote:

Shammrog wrote: Ah - I meant + 5 1/2 inches. So, take me - at peak (people lose an inch or two with age) my dad was 5'11", mom 5'3" (she used to say 5'5", maybe 5'4" tops.) Average = 5'7" + 2 3/4 inches = 5'9 3/4 I am 5'11, but only a 68% chance of +- 1 inch, 95 % +-2. So, I am within range.

Under your model, average = 5'7". + 6 inches = 6'1". I am 5'11, so well within that 99% range. Your range just seems too broad to be that much use (if I understand it). It is just saying that I have a 99% chance of being between 5'1 and 6'1".

No, you go UP for males, down for females. So, it would say that you'd be between 5'7" and 6'1". For a woman, you'd be between 5'1" and 5'7".

I seem to recall hearing some sort of formula where you double a child's height at a particular age as a predictor of height when fully grown. I haven't the foggiest idea what that age might be, however.

Turk wrote:

Bostondevil wrote: I keep telling my husband (6'4") that I'm going to outlive him but he doesn't seem to believe me.

BD, you seem rather confident about that prediction. Are you planning on guaranteeing the outcome?!?

No. I just like to tease him, especially about how he better save up enough for MY retirement. But my grandparents did live to be a lot older than his did so . . .

Turk wrote: I seem to recall hearing some sort of formula where you double a child's height at a particular age as a predictor of height when fully grown. I haven't the foggiest idea what that age might be, however.

For girls, at 2 years. For boys, at 2 years 3 months.

Bostondevil wrote:For girls, at 2 years. For boys, at 2 years 3 months.

Hmmm... Wonder if we have that data on file for the young Turks...

6'0" - I could barely dunk in my youth, so if someone put me down as a little shorter I didn't mine.

Turk wrote:

Bostondevil wrote:For girls, at 2 years. For boys, at 2 years 3 months.

Hmmm... Wonder if we have that data on file for the young Turks...

Andrew projected to 6' 1", Jack 5' 11", Tommy 6' 3", and I'll be honest I don't remember Ronnie's off hand but I know I measured him. He had just started chemotherapy 2 weeks before he was exactly 2 years 3 months so I was a bit distracted.

Let's see, my husband is 6' 4" and I'm 5' 4" so that average is easy to find, 5' 9". So, 65% of my boys should be between 5' 9" and 5' 10" and 90% should be between 5' 9" and 5' 11", we'll see. I wonder if the fact that I'm a height outlier in my own family messes with the standard deviation here. (As I'm sure all of you remember from statistics class, in normally distributed data, 67% of the data is within one standard deviation of the mean and 95% of the data is within 2 standard deviations.)

Well, I'm looking at my height chart on the wall, and Sean was 3'1" at 2 years, 3 months, while Michael was 3'2" at that age. So, that would be 6'2" and 6'4", if that holds true. I was over 3'3" at that age, so I clearly didn't reach my potential. Maybe all that lost milk really did stunt my growth. ;)

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:5' 8 1/2" without shoes.

I'll go with 5' '9.5" 'cuz I believe I have at least an inch on Ozzie...

height-wise, that is... :oops: :roll:

About 3.5 inches shorter than DeMarcus at his NBA camp measurements...

5'1"

bjornolf wrote:Well, I'm looking at my height chart on the wall, and Sean was 3'1" at 2 years, 3 months, while Michael was 3'2" at that age. So, that would be 6'2" and 6'4", if that holds true. I was over 3'3" at that age, so I clearly didn't reach my potential. Maybe all that lost milk really did stunt my growth. ;)

Tell me about it. I am 5'11". I was about the same height at age 12. Thought I'd be really tall, then just... stopped. (Should have known, it is rare to be that much taller than your parents.)

FYI, Christian Laettner's parents IIRC weren't all that tall. His older brother is only like 6'1".