PDA

View Full Version : body bizarre-the rapunzel family



lisamt
August 23rd, 2017, 07:29 PM
so, I'm confused :confused:
I'm sure everyone has heard about "The Rapunzel Family" by now; I heard about them a few years ago, but I had never heard this before.
I was watching the show Body Bizarre and they had a segment on the family, saying that they had rare genes that allow their hair to grow past the "normal" waist terminal length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68To2l7wHlY
now, I know terminal length is different for everyone, but I know so many people irl and here on LHC who've grown waaaaaay past waist, and my own hair has past that and shows no sign of stopping anytime soon.
so were these experts wrong about terminal length or do we all just have this gene?(which I guess would make it less rare?) I feel like a lot of people just don't care for their hair properly, or just prefer to keep it shorter, so when someone's hair is very long people assume they must just have "good genes" that allow them to grow it

Sarahlabyrinth
August 23rd, 2017, 07:40 PM
They were just wrong about terminal length. Most people can grow their hair to around Classic, by treating it right. Some folks have a shorter terminal, others, a longer terminal. But waist as terminal? Not as a rule.

esfand
August 23rd, 2017, 07:47 PM
Experts? What experts? They just made the "rare gene" thing up to give their episode more edge. Just because they're a public TV show doesn't mean they have "experts". In fact, when it comes to media and entertainment, they're anything but.

Andthetalltrees
August 23rd, 2017, 07:48 PM
Are they saying around 24" is 'average" terminal?(If 74" is twice that). Yeah that seems extremely short for true terminal, Maybe a false one if someone has delicate hair or getting too many trims but not because hair can't normally grow that long. I think it would be rare for someone to not be able to grow past waist actually not the other way around!

spidermom
August 23rd, 2017, 07:49 PM
If we are taking the entire human race into consideration, I really don't know what average terminal length would be.

draysmir
August 23rd, 2017, 07:59 PM
I would consider that a shorter terminal length, I don't think those experts were totally correct. :p

Chromis
August 23rd, 2017, 08:08 PM
Are they saying around 24" is 'average" terminal?(If 74" is twice that). Yeah that seems extremely short for true terminal, Maybe a false one if someone has delicate hair or getting too many trims but not because hair can't normally grow that long. I think it would be rare for someone to not be able to grow past waist actually not the other way around!

I was thinking the same thing, waist and bra strap seem to be two of the most common lengths for people to get false terminal lengths from rubbing on chairbacks or because their hair growth can't keep up with their daily damage.

Ondine11
August 23rd, 2017, 08:47 PM
I'd also bet that many people's terminal length would change if they changed their health & hair care habits. So many people eat a junk food-based diet these days. Even many very heavy people are undernourished, & many very thin people are nutritionally deprived. Precious nutrients will first go toward sustaining vital organs: there can be little left for producing healthy, abundant hair, nails & skin. Stress & habits like smoking can also impact hair growth. Hormones, too have a major impact. Gauging terminal length accurately would have to include accounting for these variables.

Shorty89
August 23rd, 2017, 08:54 PM
My hair takes about 7 years to get to Classic, I think, and that's not that uncommon of a length. I think Ondine has a good point. Although, some races etc, might have shorter terminals? Maybe that skews the numbers?

Sarahlabyrinth
August 23rd, 2017, 10:06 PM
My hair takes about 7 years to get to Classic, I think, and that's not that uncommon of a length. I think Ondine has a good point. Although, some races etc, might have shorter terminals? Maybe that skews the numbers?

It may well do. I heard somewhere that the average hair length worldwide is 6"....?!

Borgessa
August 23rd, 2017, 11:02 PM
They were just wrong about terminal length. Most people can grow their hair to around Classic, by treating it right. Some folks have a shorter terminal, others, a longer terminal. But waist as terminal? Not as a rule.

How did you watch it.. Says not available in my area, we in same country lol.

Corvana
August 24th, 2017, 12:39 AM
While the thickness may be part of like... an "exceptional" thing, IMO, the length being "wow so crazy rare because of genes!" is just baloney. A lot of people use lots of heat styling products, wear their hair down all the time and just let it rub on everything and everyone, put their hair up in ways that are more prone to cause damage, etc etc etc. Definitely causing false terminals.

Like, look at most Indian women! Is all of India carrying that "super rare" gene? Highly unlikely. A lot of Asian countries tend to have a lot of long haired women, actually. And Russia does as well! Most of the people I see (besides here) with "crazy long" hair are Russian, now that I think about it.

Sarahlabyrinth
August 24th, 2017, 01:16 AM
How did you watch it.. Says not available in my area, we in same country lol.

I couldn't watch it, but I have seen other videos of this family.

Borgessa
August 24th, 2017, 01:23 AM
I couldn't watch it, but I have seen other videos of this family.

Ah see I was pouting so unfair, they let you watch but not me.. PFFT.. i was ABOUT to write a letter :)

YvetteVarie
August 24th, 2017, 03:53 AM
It may well do. I heard somewhere that the average hair length worldwide is 6"....?!

I think that's also due to false terminals. Using myself as an example, most of my life, my hair never got to neck length. But once I started taking better care of my hair, my hair is now getting to lengths I never knew would be possible for my race (African-Black), as typical long hair where I am is shoulder length (for hair worn loose, not in dreadlocks), then the super long starts at APL going on. In fact APL is pretty rare where I am because most women do things that cause them not to retain length. Then you hear most people blaming genes, etc when hair care practices are to blame.

Sorry for the long rant, this has been annoying me for ages

Sarahlabyrinth
August 24th, 2017, 04:07 AM
I think that's also due to false terminals. Using myself as an example, most of my life, my hair never got to neck length. But once I started taking better care of my hair, my hair is now getting to lengths I never knew would be possible for my race (African-Black), as typical long hair where I am is shoulder length (for hair worn loose, not in dreadlocks), then the super long starts at APL going on. In fact APL is pretty rare where I am because most women do things that cause them not to retain length. Then you hear most people blaming genes, etc when hair care practices are to blame.

Sorry for the long rant, this has been annoying me for ages

So, how long do you think it is possible for people of your race to grow their hair (using protective hair methods)? I suppose it would be difficult to know, really.

lisamt
August 24th, 2017, 08:12 AM
thank you guys for the input!
I was really confused because I've seen so many people with super long hair, so it didn't make sense to me that it was "rare" :p
like Corvana said, I think the thickness could be a rarer gene but I think as long as you treat your hair nicely and don't cut it, most people should be able to reach lengths like that if they want to.

YvetteVarie
August 25th, 2017, 03:05 AM
So, how long do you think it is possible for people of your race to grow their hair (using protective hair methods)? I suppose it would be difficult to know, really.

I have seen people getting to classic so far on the internet. I have grown to BSL before getting a cut to SL last year.

MidnightMoon
August 25th, 2017, 03:21 AM
What are the "human races"? xD
I mean, I know people have this idea of apparently 3 or 4 very distinct groups of people, but this isn't 10k years ago, and you bet average hair in Norway isn't the same as average hair in Italy or Greece. Africa is a whole continent. A "black" person from Egypt doesn't have the same hair than say, someone from Zimbabwe, or Kenya, or Uganda (and in the same country, there's still different looking people).
Russia is mostly in Asia, and not a "white country", just because "all" (some) people you have met are blue eyed blondes.
"Asian" or "Mongoloid" isn't a "race", people from India are very different from people from Japan, and Thailand, or Malasya.
You can't even speak of race in Latin America, because finding someone who has never been mixed with native or African blood (yes, African because slave traders didn't bother specifying country or region when bringing them there), despite what some lighter skinned individuals who claim to be of "pure European descent" want to believe, would be quite a difficult task.
Even Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians who came to America were already a "mixed race", conquered by moors for centuries.
I'd really love to know what criteria is being used to set apart one "race" from the other, because in my book (which seems to be the one still talking about race in this day and age), any "white" person with brown eyes (or any colour that isn't clear blue) is mixed, any "black" person with hair not 4c is mixed, and I don't even know where to start for "asians".
In fact, the way of classifying people into these "races" is so amusing, someone 50% "black" and 50% "white" is automatically considered black. A "white" latino is called hispanic, but a darker, average Spaniard or Italian is still "white".
Anyway, rant over, I'm just surprised we're still talking about races even after learning so much about human migration, history, genetics...

maborosi
August 25th, 2017, 07:46 AM
I also think a lot of people say waist but they mean something closer to the hip-tailbone-classic range.
That's been my experience anyway. When I had hip-length hair people said "IT'S DOWN TO YOUR WAIST!!1" and I was thinking "Yes? But it's also down to my hips".
Now people astutely point out that it's "past your butt". Thanks. I recognize this when I sit down on it, lol.

Also I think the idea that floats around is that classic seems to be terminal for a lot of people, but that can also vary with things like height, etc.
I'm short, so classic length is not a big deal for me.
But for someone who's, say, a foot taller than I am? Classic length would be really long.

Ligeia Noire
August 25th, 2017, 08:35 AM
Lol hair experts they say... Also women from certain countries China, India, Romania etc might reach longer lengths because they are probably more traditional (on average) regarding hair care than let's say someone from London, New York or Helsinki. No dye, no cut every whatever number of weeks do not wear it down constantly. It is more probable that they rarely visit saloons, follow hair trends and also, it is more likely that they eat homemade meals on a daily basis.

maborosi
August 25th, 2017, 08:45 AM
Lol hair experts they say... Also women from certain countries China, India, Romania etc might reach longer lengths because they are probably more traditional (on average) regarding hair care than let's say someone from London, New York or Helsinki. No dye, no cut every whatever number of weeks do not wear it down constantly. It is more probable that they rarely visit saloons, follow hair trends and also, it is more likely that they eat homemade meals on a daily basis.

I agree so much with this... I roll my eyes a bit when people talk about how "x group of people can naturally grow their hair longer"...Well, I mean, when you're talking about a country that maybe doesn't have the same amount of folks using heat, coloring, etc, yeah their hair is going to be longer. But in the US, for example, take a look at the pre-20th century and you'll find plenty of people who grew their hair to extreme lengths.

I also can't help but wonder how people feel when they get stereotyped to fit a certain "hairtype". The idea is that ALL Indian people, for example, have straight, black, thick hair. But I've met plenty of Indian folks who don't have hair like that...at all.
Or ALL Asian people have very coarse, blue-black, thick hair. It seems to me like there are plenty of F-type/i-ii haired folks who are of East Asian descent, too. And even wavies! And jet-black hair isn't as common as people think- many people have shades of brown that aren't "true" blue-black. Hair is more so much more diverse than people realize!

And don't even get me started on the whole misconception that "Black people can't grow long hair". lol

BookishRay
August 25th, 2017, 11:21 AM
Personally, I don't think that knowing a genetically terminal length is feasibly possible. First of all there is the shear combinations of genetic groups that would have to be present in a "test group" all willing to let their hair grow to a terminal length. Also, false terminals would have to be taken into consideration. How many people just on this forum though that they had reached terminal just to have their hair start growing again months or even years later. Then diet, hair care practices and numerous other external influences would have to be monitored.

I agree with whomever said that the "expert opinion" was added to lend weight to the show.

shelly123
August 25th, 2017, 12:43 PM
Great video. But yeah like everyone else here I'm skeptical about that terminal length thing.

Cg
August 26th, 2017, 12:12 PM
"Experts" in what, according to whom, and using what criteria?

Alibran
August 26th, 2017, 12:36 PM
I think the 'expert' is jealous ;)

There's also the issue of how fast hair grows. Assuming that someone's hair does grow for 10 years before it falls out, if it grows an inch a month, it's going to have a much longer terminal length than if it only grows quarter of an inch a month. I know half an inch is average, but that doesn't mean everyone grows at that speed. Mine was classic when I was a teenager, and I still had a very thick hemline, so I don't think it was anywhere near terminal.

Anyway, can you imagine what the shower drain must be like in their house? LOL

floridaorchid
August 26th, 2017, 12:57 PM
Are they saying around 24" is 'average" terminal?(If 74" is twice that). Yeah that seems extremely short for true terminal, Maybe a false one if someone has delicate hair or getting too many trims but not because hair can't normally grow that long. I think it would be rare for someone to not be able to grow past waist actually not the other way around!

I think it just might be not understanding what terminal length is. If you ask my mother, she says her terminal length is her shoulders. However, it is really due to her trimming dull ends because she is not gentle with her fragile hair (she's a 1b, F, i (her ponytail circumfrance is no bigger than a thumb))

lunasea
August 26th, 2017, 01:06 PM
I really and truly believe that a lot of folks never reach terminal. I have the longest hair of my life right now (heading past waist). Quite frankly, I never thought my hair would get this long- it's extremely fine and thin and has been all my life. The only reason it's this long right now is that I finally understand it and learned to live with it. In my case that means wearing it in a protective style ALL off the time. Stopping bleaching, stopping blow drying, stopping ripping a comb through it, and most of all, stopping cutting. I can't tell you how many times I cut back in the past thinking that would make the ends fuller. Or getting layers thinking that would make it look thicker. I spent years with a bleached out punk cut because I thought that was the only way my hair would ever look good. Then I discovered the magic.


https://youtu.be/x-ciMuVhDXA

Upside Down
August 26th, 2017, 01:28 PM
This truly puzzles me, for two reasons.

A - I don't watch TV

and

B - if I was to walk downtown I'd see, on average, 5-ish women with hair way past waist.

Rare gene? Right.

restless
August 27th, 2017, 03:51 AM
Anyway, can you imagine what the shower drain must be like in their house? LOL

I dread to think what its like... :bigeyes: I feel that one long haired person/household is more than enough sometimes.

PrincessAralin
August 27th, 2017, 04:38 AM
Sensationalist shows like that don't have actual experts, they have anybody willing to say what their team decided would be a good spin for TV.

Kiiruna
August 27th, 2017, 07:29 AM
People in the comments section are like "oooh" and "aaaaah" and "I wish my hair would grow", and I'm so tempted to comment things like "ever heard of updos" or "how about being gentle with your hair"...

Bill D.
August 27th, 2017, 09:39 AM
What are the "human races"? xD...

Genetic studies have confirmed that the usual "races" are social constructs rather than relatively unified genetic groups. Northeast Asians are closer genetically to Native Americans than to southeast Asians. The latter in turn are closer to some Pacific Islanders than to northeast Asians. People key in on visible differences rather than the full range of genes in any person or subgroup, and classify people based on what they see rather than what's really there in the genes.

Finally, the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, traditionally classified by Europeans as a single race, actually contain three major divergent groups and more genetic diversity than the people of the remainder of the world combined. Don't be fooled by some superficial similarities in skin color, facial structure, and hair in a given region.

Bill D.

MidnightMoon
August 27th, 2017, 10:26 AM
Genetic studies have confirmed that the usual "races" are social constructs rather than relatively unified genetic groups. Northeast Asians are closer genetically to Native Americans than to southeast Asians. The latter in turn are closer to some Pacific Islanders than to northeast Asians. People key in on visible differences rather than the full range of genes in any person or subgroup, and classify people based on what they see rather than what's really there in the genes.

Finally, the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, traditionally classified by Europeans as a single race, actually contain three major divergent groups and more genetic diversity than the people of the remainder of the world combined. Don't be fooled by some superficial similarities in skin color, facial structure, and hair in a given region.

Bill D.

Well, that's where I was going, though I'm not a geneticist, but my point is not only aren't people who "look the same" from the outside necessarily similar in any way, but that there should be very few homogenous groups who have rarely if ever mixed with any other.
The concept of a white, or a black race would imply there are certain characteristics unique to each group, and a point should be drawn to divide one from the other.
When is a person "white" enough, or "not black enough"?
Is there a certain skin shade (pass the pantone, please) that marks the point after which someone isn't white enough? But I've seen A LOT of tan Europeans (Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, you name it darker than mixed Latin Americans)
Or perhaps it's the eyes... and no one with brown or hazel eyes should be considered white.
Maybe it's the curly hair, yet again, I've met Europeans with wavy hair, and Middle Eastern people with straight hair.
Nose width, lip width?
It's very easy to think there are "races" when seeing three very distinct people who represent the stereotypes they have formed for each, but that's pretty behind the times. Not only we know there's groups who just don't fit the stereotype while remaining mostly homogenous, but there's also been so much mixing, conquering, migration and so on, I wouldn't trust anyone claiming to be 100% something. If we were sticking to that theory, as I said in my previous post, I'm sorry for any "white" person who isn't blonde, blue eyed, with 1a hair, tall, thin nose, etc.... cause they don't fit their own idea of white "race".

Bill D.
August 27th, 2017, 12:31 PM
Well, that's where I was going, though I'm not a geneticist, but my point is not only aren't people who "look the same" from the outside necessarily similar in any way, but that there should be very few homogenous groups who have rarely if ever mixed with any other.
The concept of a white, or a black race would imply there are certain characteristics unique to each group, and a point should be drawn to divide one from the other.
When is a person "white" enough, or "not black enough"?
Is there a certain skin shade (pass the pantone, please) that marks the point after which someone isn't white enough? But I've seen A LOT of tan Europeans (Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, you name it darker than mixed Latin Americans)
Or perhaps it's the eyes... and no one with brown or hazel eyes should be considered white.
Maybe it's the curly hair, yet again, I've met Europeans with wavy hair, and Middle Eastern people with straight hair.
Nose width, lip width?
It's very easy to think there are "races" when seeing three very distinct people who represent the stereotypes they have formed for each, but that's pretty behind the times. Not only we know there's groups who just don't fit the stereotype while remaining mostly homogenous, but there's also been so much mixing, conquering, migration and so on, I wouldn't trust anyone claiming to be 100% something. If we were sticking to that theory, as I said in my previous post, I'm sorry for any "white" person who isn't blonde, blue eyed, with 1a hair, tall, thin nose, etc.... cause they don't fit their own idea of white "race".

Your point is entirely valid. My point is related but a little different - that even if people hadn't been mixing all over the place for a very long time, the race concept still wouldn't be valid.

The *known* part of my family tree is entirely European, but I guarantee that if we could go back a few centuries at most there would be ancestors mixing in from other areas. I'm half Italian, and that means historic connections to the entire rim of the Mediterranean Sea and beyond in multiple directions going back many thousands of years. Based on history, perhaps ultimately Timbuktu...Egypt... Abyssinia...Anatolia...Persia...Mongolia... beyond?

So what does this mean for hair type? It means that being from a particular region may establish odds of having a particular texture or other hair attribute, but in the end each person's hair needs to be evaluated directly to be understood. The person who has that hair on their own head probably knows the most about its particular nature, though others with similar hair may be able to provide useful advice based on their personal experience.

Bill D.

*Wednesday*
August 27th, 2017, 02:32 PM
The gene is the LHx2 gene. May have some truth. Their hair more or less may remain in the anagen for a longer time. This however has nothing to do with terminal. While those without the gene may vary, hair growth for them may not see terminal as quickly. I love their hair.

"This gene encodes a protein belonging to a large protein family, members of which carry the LIM domain, a unique cysteine-rich zinc-binding domain. The encoded protein may function as a transcriptional regulator. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

"The Lhx2 gene is active during the hair follicle's growth phase and is turned off during the resting period. The scientists have been able to show that Lhx2 is functionally involved in the formation of hair, as hair follicles in which Lhx2 has been inactivated cannot produce hair. Moreover, the activation of the Lhx2 gene in hair follicles has been shown to activate the growth phase and hence the formation of hair. Thus, Lhx2 is a gene that is important for the regulation of hair growth."
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20100415/Study-Activation-of-Lhx2-gene-promotes-hair-growth.aspx

lapushka
August 27th, 2017, 03:17 PM
I dread to think what its like... :bigeyes: I feel that one long haired person/household is more than enough sometimes.

After my sink thingy (I put it in the sink) had actually been cleared of all hair, I went around it one more time, and I actually pulled one long hair all the way out from one of the holes. So hair *can* still slip through if you're not careful. So yeah, must be one hell of a drain catcher in that household. ;)