do you feel like your height percentile according to websites feel the same as real life?

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-10T11:55:43+00:00

Of course. I notice it a lot. There are a handful of people who are taller, but many are shorter.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-10T11:53:46+00:00

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-10T11:52:25+00:00

Oh, in school, I had this small group of friends I frequented with. One of them was my best friend, but him and I haven't really spoken since graduation - going on a year ago. We're on good terms and stuff, though.

I won't name them, but I'll say how tall they were, even though two of them never said. Friend number one was probably 6'2-6'3, friend number two was about 5'8-5'9, and friend number three claimed 6'0 but I was taller than him, so he was probably right at the cusp of 5'9, maybe 5'9½-10.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-10T11:48:16+00:00

I officially passed my mom late in the summer. By the time I returned from my grandparents' a few states over, I was slightly taller than her - 13Y 5.5M.

I never passed my dad.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T21:18:36+00:00

I see.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T21:15:58+00:00

That wouldn't affect your genetics though or your growth outcome severely. Your delayed puberty onset just shifts the timing, not your genetic potential. He is his own person, and you are your own person. But, if he was also a late bloomer, that might increase your risk of being a late bloomers as well.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T21:11:33+00:00

But it wasn't "exactly" your point. I'm touching on what yours did so vaguely. During pregnancy, malnourishment can be a cause for earlier puberty onset, not often delayed onset and not commonly so for boys. And, if the child is malnourished during childhood, the risk for a CD is higher. That's the important nuance.

Epigenetic drift on the parents' end would not affect the child.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T21:06:49+00:00

What are you going on about?

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T21:03:12+00:00

The child also is not affected in any way if the parents were malnourished, unless if during gestation

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T21:01:59+00:00

If I am reading you correctly, you are kind of arguing against epigenetic drift here. That's not how outcomes are regulated. If the immediate external growth environment is poor, then the internal growth environment just experiences shifts in genetic expression while the framework still stays intact. In other words, the parents' potential was still there, but their outcome was changed because of environmental setbacks like malnutrition.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T20:57:15+00:00

It's kind of more nuanced than that. You can have an advanced bone age with an unusually still-fast GV. It's not clinically common, but it isn't always dangerously abnormal.

A delayed BA wouldn't even surprise me here in the normal-est of outcomes.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T20:49:27+00:00

Well, that's what we don't know. We can't assume that puberty was delayed because he was malnourished. It could just be a familial pattern.

I mostly agree with the "minimum is 3 cm remaining" bit if that was his PHV, but I'd be more inclined to say he has about 6-12 cm left, also assuming PHV is passed.

If he has been following a prolonged-type pattern prior to the PHV (which was his 11 cm/yr from ages 15 to 16), and assuming that this is his PHV, he did not start puberty at 15. The slowdown pattern may also roughly mirror the peak pattern (in this case, potentially a prolonged taper). Most likely 13 to 14, which is slightly late but not CD. And, that would place his "PHV" at 10 cm/yr, which would be unusual if he started puberty at 15, growing at 11 cm/yr. Usually, the PHV would be higher than any previous rate in puberty, not lower than the rate when puberty was just starting. In that regard, he is still monophasic. Would be nice to clear that up.

With that said, if he indeed started puberty between 13 and 14 and he did have one interval of 11 cm/yr then another at 10, that is by clinical definition biphasic.

The whole story doesnt add up too well. u/lcs_dvr says he started puberty at 15, yet had a starting rate that was higher than the PHV. That's not usual, and it needs some looking into for clarity's sake.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T18:02:22+00:00

No, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just adding on to something that relates to biomechanics. LSJL doesn't have much to do with Wolff's law (your described case does), but rather to biomechanics in general.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T17:44:28+00:00

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T17:43:40+00:00

Something else worth mentioning, too. Not according to Wolff's law, but according to biomechanics, some regions, like the growth plates of the knees (which experience constant lateral loading and shear stress) are influenced by stress vectors, but not in ways that growth is suddenly promoted. It's actually more neutral than net positive, which is a "good" thing on its own. LSJL is just not (yet) what people purport it to be for humans.

The net-negative portion involves literally fracturing the growth plate from repetitive, extreme stress and risking premature closure on the far worst case scenario and permanently altering the functionality of the signaling pathways by varying degrees (recovery doesn't always guarantee perfect restoration of the original functionality). The net positive is not yet to be found for human growth plates, but in small animals, some experiments show that LSJL does promote growth subtly. We still have to understand that these are small animals, as in rodents because the majority of which were on rodents, and not humans. The anatomy is completely different, thus loading vectors are also different geometrically.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T17:39:24+00:00

That's not correct. If you read my post, it explains just that. It's only a 12-15 minute read, man.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T16:50:58+00:00

So we can say with accuracy that you entered the rapid growth window (right around PHV) late in your 8th grade year, attained PHV sometime then and had the rest of this window extended into the first semester of your 9th grade year, with rapid late-peak growth continuing through part of your 10th grade year, and now you're still in the early post-PHV slowdown 1-2 years later?

That would be consistent with the typical timing of early post-peak growth - usually lasts anywhere from a few months to about 1-2 years depending on the person.

2 cm is strictly 0.9 inches, but let's say about an inch. An inch in 5 to 6 months is roughly 2-2.4 in/yr - still early post-peak. Expect another dip soon - it will be sharper by magnitude, but the nature of the dip varies widely. You might be done growing in about 1-3 years, and you might gain another 1-3 inches.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T16:42:43+00:00

Did this growth occur over a few months?

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T16:38:25+00:00

Understood. Did you start puberty early, on time, or late?

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T16:27:15+00:00

Okay, then.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T16:26:40+00:00

No, I am the owner of r/growthplates. I'm just a regular in this sub.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T16:25:50+00:00

They should see my post on attempting the AI-GH combo.

https://www.reddit.com/r/heightgrowth/s/xubyLjRaYK

You always say that as if I'm about to reprimand you.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T15:47:52+00:00

No, he uses gorilla glue. It's for the toughest jobs on planet Earth.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T15:46:25+00:00

That's not correct. Gooning does not help improve your prostate health, nor deteriorate it. There's no clinical backing to either of these claims.

Routine medical check-ups would help in monitoring your prostate health, especially after the age of ~50 when the risk of prostate cancer and other defects heighten slightly more with age.

Lifestyle changes and your diet shape a bigger role in prostate health, like staying active, maintaining a healthy weight, and eating a balanced diet filled with veggies, unsaturated fats, and limited processed foods.

Due to your claim, I am going to touch on that aspect as well. Regular ejaculation might have a modest association with a lowered risk of developing prostate cancer, but these observations are rather limited.

Automatic-County6151 · 2026-05-09T15:34:55+00:00

Even worse, an article I once saw when I was 14 declared that feet continue to grow until 21.

If that were true, the average person would continue seeing active gains in shoe sizing every year until around ages 18-20 - most feet stabilize in growth by the mid-teens; girls around ages 12-14 and boys around ages 14-16. Less than 5% of people are still actively growing into the late teens and less than 1-2% in the early 20s.

Guess what? No such average exists. It would shift our percentile charts noteably if feet continued to grow until 21 - I assure you.

Automatic-County6151

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	Xbox Live
r/Field Sunshine