PDA

View Full Version : are taller women less likely to have longer length hair?



Radiant
June 9th, 2014, 01:34 AM
Was just thinking about this after spending quite a bit of time reading on here these past few days. I found a page linked someplace which showed the different hair lengths (can't seem to find it again now) and it mentioned hair beyond a certain length requiring special genes to obtain. Thinking about this I thought about height playing a role. 20 inches or 40 inches or whatever length of hair looks much different on a woman who is 5'10" vs 5'0" obviously.

I measured my hair according to directions I read here (from the hairline over my head and down), and my hair is about 35" and what I'd call waist length. I'm also 5'8". Any tall ladies here have hair classic length and beyond? Maybe I just over analyze, but I wondered if being tall is a hindrance to achieving certain hair lengths. I'd love to get another 10" or so.

eadwine
June 9th, 2014, 01:38 AM
I want to bet there is a counter thingie somewhere that states since taller women have more "long" genes, they can obtain long hair just fine because it grows longer.



Just grow and see.. I know shorties whose terminal is around BSL. It really depends per person and there is no such thing as "standard".

Radiant
June 9th, 2014, 01:59 AM
I want to bet there is a counter thingie somewhere that states since taller women have more "long" genes, they can obtain long hair just fine because it grows longer.



Just grow and see.. I know shorties whose terminal is around BSL. It really depends per person and there is no such thing as "standard".

Yeah, I'm not worried about it or anything... just a thought I had while looking at the photos of the various hair lengths. I'm good with whatever my terminal length ends up being. Know I can get a few more inches at least as I had 10" cut last summer and I'm maybe a bit more than 1/2 way back to that length now.

There are so any women here with absolutely gorgeous hair. Makes me excited to see what I can do with mine with time and better care. :)

eadwine
June 9th, 2014, 03:00 AM
I had a big chop as well a few months ago, and I thought I wouldn't grow it longer than that anymore.. and look what I am doing.

I am slowly thinking of wanting to know how long I can go.. I KNOW I can make it to tailbone, but after that.. heheh.. :)

Sarahlabyrinth
June 9th, 2014, 03:01 AM
Well, I'm 5'10" and am aiming for classic, which would be 44" on me. My grandmother had classic length hair but I don't know how tall she was. So I guess we'll see how I go.

It would be interesting to know whether tall people have longer terminal lengths than short people. There are so many variables though, so it would be difficult to study.

sparrowswing
June 9th, 2014, 03:27 AM
I'm 5'8" with 50" hair. When I clicked on this thread, I was expecting something more on a psychological level, like women who are taller are less likely to grow their hair to their knees because it takes longer, or more likely because it might cause some weird perspective change to make them look more average. Honestly, your body proportions - torso and leg length primarily - matter every bit as much as your height when you're talking length as a reference to body markers.

As for terminal length, after a few months in this forum I came to the conclusion that terminal length has almost nothing to do with genetics. In the past year I know I've seen dozens of new or newish members who came here swearing that they couldn't grow past a certain length, be it shoulder or hip, and then made a few changes to their routine and managed to grow their hair beyond that so-called terminal length just fine. I'd say nearly everyone has a terminal length for their lifestyle - a length beyond which we just can't or won't deal with it anymore - but I don't really believe in a solid genetically-determined terminal length anymore, so I cringe every time I see some post somewhere random on the internet saying that only the right genetics can produce hair beyond some perfectly reasonable length like waist.

Radiant
June 9th, 2014, 04:10 AM
As for terminal length, after a few months in this forum I came to the conclusion that terminal length has almost nothing to do with genetics. In the past year I know I've seen dozens of new or newish members who came here swearing that they couldn't grow past a certain length, be it shoulder or hip, and then made a few changes to their routine and managed to grow their hair beyond that so-called terminal length just fine. I'd say nearly everyone has a terminal length for their lifestyle - a length beyond which we just can't or won't deal with it anymore - but I don't really believe in a solid genetically-determined terminal length anymore, so I cringe every time I see some post somewhere random on the internet saying that only the right genetics can produce hair beyond some perfectly reasonable length like waist.

I'm not meaning to spread any misinformation or anything. Here is the page I got the info from: http://www.ida.net/users/northstr/hairlength.html which I found linked from this forum. It says, "The other hair lengths are much more unusual and require special family genes that will allow hair to grow to this length without falling out. This is called terminal length. Even if you want to grow longer than classic length, if its not in your genes, it won't be possible." Have no idea how accurate that info is.

Anyways, nice to see what 50 inches of hair looks like on someone the same height as me (I'm also 5'8"). Figure in about 3 years (maybe) my hair will be at the same point as yours if I get 5" a year in growth. Your hair is quite pretty by the way. I like the bun in your signature.


Well, I'm 5'10" and am aiming for classic, which would be 44" on me. My grandmother had classic length hair but I don't know how tall she was. So I guess we'll see how I go.

It would be interesting to know whether tall people have longer terminal lengths than short people. There are so many variables though, so it would be difficult to study.

Just had to say I love the shine your hair has. So gorgeous. Love the way in your signature photo it's lighter (not sure if it's the light or your actual hair) at the top and the light reflects off it so beautifully. Your hair looks so healthy.

Sarahlabyrinth
June 9th, 2014, 04:22 AM
Just had to say I love the shine your hair has. So gorgeous. Love the way in your signature photo it's lighter (not sure if it's the light or your actual hair) at the top and the light reflects off it so beautifully. Your hair looks so healthy.

Thanks Radiant! The lighter hair IS actually lighter, I changed the colour of my hair dye. So your eyes are not being deceived, I am growing out the old faded brown dye (it used to be the colour in my avatar pic).

momschicklets
June 9th, 2014, 05:51 AM
Well I hope it's not true since I'm a full 6 feet tall :D I'm a couple inches past collarbone now, but it does seem like BSL is going to be like 26 or 27 inches for me, which seems longer on someone not as tall! Only time will tell.....

florenonite
June 9th, 2014, 06:34 AM
As for terminal length, after a few months in this forum I came to the conclusion that terminal length has almost nothing to do with genetics. In the past year I know I've seen dozens of new or newish members who came here swearing that they couldn't grow past a certain length, be it shoulder or hip, and then made a few changes to their routine and managed to grow their hair beyond that so-called terminal length just fine. I'd say nearly everyone has a terminal length for their lifestyle - a length beyond which we just can't or won't deal with it anymore - but I don't really believe in a solid genetically-determined terminal length anymore, so I cringe every time I see some post somewhere random on the internet saying that only the right genetics can produce hair beyond some perfectly reasonable length like waist.

I would disagree that there's no such thing as a genetically-determined terminal length. It's true that a lot of people have a false terminal due to their hair breaking off with poor care, and very, very few people have a true terminal at waist. However, terminal length does exist. An individual's hair has a maximum growth rate, let's say around 0.5" a month, and that's what's attained with a healthy lifestyle. Likewise, the amount of time a particular hair is attached to your head before falling out has a maximum based on genetics. Poor care or health issues can cause hairs to shed before their time, but they will shed after, say, seven years. So if you're healthy and doing all you can for your hair, you can grow to 42" with the aforementioned growth rate and growing/resting phase length. By LHC measuring standards, your hair would be around 50", because 42" is the length of the individual strands, not from the forehead, across the top, and down the back. However, that same person could find themselves at "terminal" at, say, 30" due to breakage, insufficient protein consumption, or conditioner-related shedding.

So, yes, I agree that people can believe themselves to be at terminal and then find, with improvements in routine, that their hair grows longer. That being said, because genetics govern growth rate and the lifespan of hairs, we do have a genetic terminal length, too.

sparrowswing
June 9th, 2014, 02:39 PM
Radiant, I didn't mean to imply that your article was wrong, and I tried very hard to express that my beliefs on terminal length are my personal beliefs, based on what I've seen on this forum and others. The article you read seems to be based on the same sort of beliefs based on observation, and I find it very interesting. I love hearing new ideas and perspectives, even if I don't entirely agree with them. (And thank you for the lovely compliment.)

Florenonite, I agree with most of what you said, but I think a person can still beat what you're calling the genetic terminal length by handling their hair differently. That's what I meant by having a "lifestyle terminal" rather than a strict "genetic terminal". While I'm sure we all have genes that say, "This is how much stress your follicles can take from a single strand of hair before letting go," I don't think that directly translates to any specific amount of time or any specific length. If you pull your hair a lot, sit on it when it gets long, and treat it poorly, that's a LOT more stress for the follicle than treating it gently and keeping it up most of the time. So even ignoring the false terminal you would otherwise get from breakage, your hair would still shed sooner in that case. I don't mean that there's no such thing as terminal, just that there's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can only get to ______ length and never any longer, based solely on genetics.

meteor
June 9th, 2014, 03:02 PM
I measured my hair according to directions I read here (from the hairline over my head and down), and my hair is about 35" and what I'd call waist length. I'm also 5'8". Any tall ladies here have hair classic length and beyond? Maybe I just over analyze, but I wondered if being tall is a hindrance to achieving certain hair lengths. I'd love to get another 10" or so.

I'm taller than that and I've had hair at classic before, and I'm shooting for much longer than that now. :)
I actually wonder if being taller means that one can grow longer hair (in inches): it would make sense if taller people had faster hair growth rate simply because it would be proportionately adequate to the bigger body, the same way as thicker (in inches) hair would be more likely to happen on a bigger head. I've never seen any research into this, so I'm only hypothesizing here...

neko_kawaii
June 9th, 2014, 03:06 PM
I'm taller than that and I've had hair at classic before, and I'm shooting for much longer than that now. :)
I actually wonder if being taller means that one can grow longer hair (in inches): it would make sense if taller people had faster hair growth rate simply because it would be proportionately adequate to the bigger body, the same way as thicker (in inches) hair would be more likely to happen on a bigger head. I've never seen any research into this, so I'm only hypothesizing here...

My mother is, just a guess, 5"10' and her hair is past classic and it grows slooooooow.

lunalocks
June 9th, 2014, 03:30 PM
I am almost 5' 11" and just brushing TB at 41 inches. never thought I could get here. In the past year I have grown 5 inches plus 3 micro trims. Still growing. Classic is my next goal.

Kherome
June 9th, 2014, 04:07 PM
I am 6'1 and just past Classic.

chen bao jun
June 9th, 2014, 06:09 PM
I'm 5 ft 3--but I'm very long waisted, so it will be a while before I reach waist--but after that not too far to tailbone.
I would imagine that taller women would have further to go in terms of distance to achieve long hair, but I don't think their height would have anything to do with growth rate and what i have heard called 'terminal time' (the amount of time, genetically programmed, that each hair will stay in a person's head before it sheds.)

Ingrid
June 9th, 2014, 06:11 PM
I've been wondering this too. Most of the people I know in real life with quite long hair are quite short, which means it takes less time for their hair to reach body markers. One of my friends has to always keep chopping around 10cm of hair once in 5 months because she wants to keep it at waist rather than tailbone. My hair growth rate is about the same as hers but the 10cm on me is not enough to go from waist to tailbone so I feel like my hair grows "slower".

FallingDarkness
June 9th, 2014, 06:27 PM
I'm short - 5'3 as well - which made finally getting to BSL, although a huge accomplishment, easier than I expected. :D Which is why, even though back when I was only APL, I thought that BSL would seem long on me, but now that I'm there I'm still thinking "My hair is sooooo short".
I think that long haired tall girls still look like they have long hair if they have it ponytailed or something, but it does take them longer to reach landmarks. Which could get discouraging.
Hair growth is just a discouraging process in general. >:(

trolleypup
June 9th, 2014, 07:02 PM
Data point: 5' 10" and (this is embarassing, I can't actually remember how long my hair is now) 61+ inches (just did a quick measure).

Yes, it takes proportionally longer for body markers, but the absolute length is the same.

One genetic thing that allows people to reach lengths closer to their actual terminal length is their hair type. Extra coarse straight hair is simply going to be able to resist wear and tear better than curly fine hair.

Sharysa
June 9th, 2014, 07:34 PM
Five feet tall and currently comfortable with hip-length waves.

I don't think taller people literally can't grow longer hair as in shorter terminal/growth-phases, but I agree that a lot of it is a psychological or hair-type variable thing. I don't even need three feet of hair to reach hip-length--it's about thirty-two inches, last I checked.

However, another large part of my ability to get to hip from shoulder/APL was my hair being coarse and tough, because it's so thick that I could only ponytail it until my hair reached BSL. Someone with more fragile hair, regardless of height, would have had a horrible time with tangles and breakage for a good few months if ponytails were literally their only option.

Loviatar
June 9th, 2014, 07:39 PM
Kherome you are my dream height! I always wanted to make 6' 1".

I'm 5' 11" and my length markers are in my signature (I decided to measure them all out before I started growing properly). Since joining LHC I've only got to 23" in the past without chopping. But pre LHC I managed to get to tailbone.

MsBubbles
June 9th, 2014, 07:54 PM
I'm 5 ft 10 and my hair is so fine and knotty, I don't think I really want it to get to classic. TB is about 39" on me.

Radiant
June 9th, 2014, 08:45 PM
Radiant, I didn't mean to imply that your article was wrong, and I tried very hard to express that my beliefs on terminal length are my personal beliefs, based on what I've seen on this forum and others. The article you read seems to be based on the same sort of beliefs based on observation, and I find it very interesting. I love hearing new ideas and perspectives, even if I don't entirely agree with them. (And thank you for the lovely compliment.)

Oh, I'm sorry if what I wrote came across wrong. Wasn't trying to say you said the article was wrong. Just conscious of the fact that I'm quite new here and probably don't know what I'm talking about. I'd hate to reference some article that's totally incorrect, and spread some false info. That's all. No worries and sorry if that came across all wrong.

sparrowswing
June 9th, 2014, 08:50 PM
Oh, I'm sorry if what I wrote came across wrong. Wasn't trying to say you said the article was wrong. Just conscious of the fact that I'm quite new here and probably don't know what I'm talking about. I'd hate to reference some article that's totally incorrect, and spread some false info. That's all. No worries and sorry if that came across all wrong.
No worries, dear. :flower: I'm just trying to keep confusion and misinformation to a minimum while encouraging discussion. I don't always communicate effectively, so I wanted to clarify.

Radiant
June 9th, 2014, 08:50 PM
I am 6'1 and just past Classic.

Wow, some very tall women here with quite long hair. Guess there's no excuse for 5'8" me to be wondering if my length will max out any time soon. I'm practically short compared to some of you. :)

Drosmand7
June 9th, 2014, 10:36 PM
In the archives there's a terminal length calculator.

http://archive.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=39093

It helped give me an idea on my terminal length but I love observational biology so I'd love to see what taller women here say about their terminal lengths. :)

DarthCynthia
June 14th, 2014, 07:25 PM
5'10.5" (or 11", haven't been measured more recently and have been measured at both so I'm not really sure) and just a couple inches from ankle length I guess. I don't really bother to check it. Yes, I have a little thinning, but it's to be expected especially after a bit of a stressful year. When I regularly checked growth it seemed to be about 1/2" a month, but I haven't really kept up with measuring or checking anything for a very long time.

Sagi1982
June 16th, 2014, 11:13 AM
I'm 6' and currently at classic length - hair is still growing.
I know one lady who is also 6' and has knee length+.