PWild
October 28th, 2024, 08:18 AM
I’ve been thinking bout how to track hair growth progress and how to visualize it. We’re all familiar with the charts showing various length milestones - from neck length to floor length and everything in between. Nothing wrong with it, and it does provide a common reference to go by.
We also talk about literal hair length - in inches or centimeters - typically measured from the front hairline, over the head and down the back. Nothing wrong with that either, but 24” of hair on one person can look shorter or longer than 24” on another. It’s a function of a person’s height.
So it seems to me we need a way to normalize everyone and talk about hair length in a consistent way. One way to do that is to think about your length in terms of “coverage”, i.e.: a percentage of your height. So let’s look at it this way:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54099947324_b9b72bf3c1_c.jpg
In the above illustration, we see one of the typical hair length charts we’re familiar with on the left, and several illustrations showing two models of different heights; 5’3” and 6’3”, just to make it easier to see what I’m talking about. (The fact that I am 6’3” has nothing to do with it.) The scale on the left in each illustration shows the actual height for both and the scales to the right of each model showing the relative height for each in percentage terms.
In one case (illustration 2 above), each is shown with 24” of hair as measured from the top of the head to the hemline of the hair. What we find is that the shorter model ends up with about 38% of “coverage”, while the taller model has only 32% coverage. It almost feels like the shorter person has more hair, but we know it’s the same. Of course, these are illustrations. The hair is shown straight across at the bottom. Not everyone chooses to wear their hair that way, but you get the idea.
If you want to compare both models with 50% coverage, it looks like illustration 3, and in this case the shorter model only needs 31.5” of hair to do that, while the taller model needs an additional 6” off hair to reach that milestone.
There have been discussions here on TLHC about the “golden ratio” in terms of hair length. That mystical formula from ancient times that uses a mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 to define an aesthetically pleasing ratio. If you divide the height of a person by that ratio, and presume the larger of the ratio numbers is the length of hair needed to meet the ideal, illustration 4 shows where you end up: the shorter model with nearly 40” of hair and the taller model with over 46”. Personally, I’m not sure the ancients had hair length in mind when the ratio was determined, but there you go.
So that’s one way to think about it. Not the ONLY way, and not a BETTER way, but it was fun to think about how much “coverage” in percentage terms my goal would be. Realistically, Im thinking 37% to 40% would be achievable - maybe. I’m around 27% now. Another 10%+ might take a couple years (accounting for trims), and that’s about the timeframe I’ve given myself to evaluate whether I keep it long or return to something shorter.
FYI - I have higher resolution images for each of these illustrations that I can upload if anyone is interested.
What about you? What percentage are you now? What are you shooting for?
Respectfully,
P Wild
We also talk about literal hair length - in inches or centimeters - typically measured from the front hairline, over the head and down the back. Nothing wrong with that either, but 24” of hair on one person can look shorter or longer than 24” on another. It’s a function of a person’s height.
So it seems to me we need a way to normalize everyone and talk about hair length in a consistent way. One way to do that is to think about your length in terms of “coverage”, i.e.: a percentage of your height. So let’s look at it this way:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54099947324_b9b72bf3c1_c.jpg
In the above illustration, we see one of the typical hair length charts we’re familiar with on the left, and several illustrations showing two models of different heights; 5’3” and 6’3”, just to make it easier to see what I’m talking about. (The fact that I am 6’3” has nothing to do with it.) The scale on the left in each illustration shows the actual height for both and the scales to the right of each model showing the relative height for each in percentage terms.
In one case (illustration 2 above), each is shown with 24” of hair as measured from the top of the head to the hemline of the hair. What we find is that the shorter model ends up with about 38% of “coverage”, while the taller model has only 32% coverage. It almost feels like the shorter person has more hair, but we know it’s the same. Of course, these are illustrations. The hair is shown straight across at the bottom. Not everyone chooses to wear their hair that way, but you get the idea.
If you want to compare both models with 50% coverage, it looks like illustration 3, and in this case the shorter model only needs 31.5” of hair to do that, while the taller model needs an additional 6” off hair to reach that milestone.
There have been discussions here on TLHC about the “golden ratio” in terms of hair length. That mystical formula from ancient times that uses a mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 to define an aesthetically pleasing ratio. If you divide the height of a person by that ratio, and presume the larger of the ratio numbers is the length of hair needed to meet the ideal, illustration 4 shows where you end up: the shorter model with nearly 40” of hair and the taller model with over 46”. Personally, I’m not sure the ancients had hair length in mind when the ratio was determined, but there you go.
So that’s one way to think about it. Not the ONLY way, and not a BETTER way, but it was fun to think about how much “coverage” in percentage terms my goal would be. Realistically, Im thinking 37% to 40% would be achievable - maybe. I’m around 27% now. Another 10%+ might take a couple years (accounting for trims), and that’s about the timeframe I’ve given myself to evaluate whether I keep it long or return to something shorter.
FYI - I have higher resolution images for each of these illustrations that I can upload if anyone is interested.
What about you? What percentage are you now? What are you shooting for?
Respectfully,
P Wild