PDA

View Full Version : Measurement Cheats



AutumnLeaves
April 2nd, 2008, 12:28 PM
Ok, I know the rules say we measure from the hairline on our forehead, over the top and crown and down to the hemline in the middle of our head at its longest point. But!!! :p :confused:

I just have to say it feels like some serious measurement cheating to me. I see my fallen head hairs and they cannot be more than 5 inches in length! But I get to claim 18 or 19 inches because I include the length of my head from forehead to where the hair line is in the back of my head? Much as I like the 18 or 19 inches better than 5 inches, I have to say it really feels like I'm cheating on the measurements.

Am I the only one who feels this way? I mean if you think about it, even bald people can claim a length then...from the forehead line over the top of their heads and down to the end of the hair line.

How did we come about the LHC standard for measuring???:shrug::confused::)

atlantaz3
April 2nd, 2008, 12:35 PM
I think this method is used because it's too hard to try and measure the exact same place in our heads for the length of hair. Pulling out a long hair each time to measure - yikes I don't want to do that either. At least this way it's a consistent measure - I don't think it's cheating if it is the "standard" way of measurement.
The only other way I could think to measure is to turn upside down and measure hair from nape of the neck out (would not include head) but that may not be the longest hair.

doodlesmart
April 2nd, 2008, 12:35 PM
I think the idea is that that gives us a repeatable way to measure and track growth because most people's hairline doesn't move too much from month to month. Even guys who may have a receding hairline don't have a lot of movement at the center. If you try and measure the length from an arbitrary point on your head, then thats going to very by up to an inch each time, and given that many people track half inch growth, that doesn't really work. If we are to measure shed hairs, then where does that leave people with layers or bangs?

So yes, it may not be a totally accurate measurement of the length of individual hairs, but it gives a repeatable and thus comparable way to track growth. Anyway, we all know that's how most people measure, so when I see something in the 15-20 range, I know that means fairly short. It may not be accurate, but it's precise and that at least to me is more useful.

Of course you could choose to measure differently. If you post 4", none of us are going to think you have a head that is so small as to be 4" from hairline to nape. If you get to 15-20 that way, we may be confused, but it's more for you than for us, so whatever makes you happy is the best way to go.

terriej
April 2nd, 2008, 12:50 PM
Well, I don't really measure my hair, not with a measuring tape. I like to take baths and we have a full length mirror on the back of the bathroom door--so I lay down and get my hair wet, when it's wet and pulled completely straight, I can see in the mirror that the longest part is at the top of my waist.

I guess that's cheating because when it's dry it's wavy and not as long. But the only person I'm trying to convince that my hair is waist-length is...me :)

I think that however you want to measure your hair is up to you.

MyFireElf
April 2nd, 2008, 01:15 PM
I struggled with the same conundrum when I started growing my hair out. It was only about two inches long, and it felt like a cheat to write down 20 inches or more. I compromised by measuring a lock of hair right at the front and center of my hairline - when that lock is long enough to reach over my head and down to my nape I'll switch over to the conventional system. :p

The nice thing about the over-the-head system is, like everyone's said, that it enables you to get a consistent measurement, so even if it's not technically accurate you can still compare measurements to get an accurate idea of how much you've grown.

Juliet's Silk
April 2nd, 2008, 01:18 PM
How would you want to measure instead? The longest hair on your head? How do you find that? And how do you find it 30 days later to compare growth? The "average" hair on your head? The shortest? How do you find that and how are you supposed to find that 30 days later?
You get where I'm heading. ;)
We don't measure actual hair length as almost every single hair on your head has a different length. We measure growth, mostly, so the actual figures are irrelevant unless you want to compare hair lengths, for which they suffice because they're measured the same way.

Áine
April 2nd, 2008, 01:35 PM
I have always wondered about this myself. I always thought prior to joining LHC that people always measured either from the crown or the longest hair strand.

But the way the over-the-head-method is being explain makes a whole lot more sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification ladies!

Lady Godiva
April 2nd, 2008, 02:02 PM
AutumnLeaves, you're not the first to wonder about this. I remember this discussion from some time ago when another lovely shortie felt awkward about this. There's no hard-and-fast rule, but one solution is to measure the average length of the strands until the hair is "one-length" at about nape length. That's about the length when the standard hairline-overhead system starts making sense. Maybe measure just the front bangs area coming down over the face? That way you could chart your growth.

Red Jezebel
April 2nd, 2008, 02:25 PM
I just have to say it feels like some serious measurement cheating to me.I felt like that when I first joined, but as doodlesmart says, you get to know when you see hair around the <20" mark, that it is rather short.

When I joined I thought about measuring from the hairline at my nape, as the position of that is as static as the hairline on the forehead, but as it would just confuse people I decided against it. Same with using centimetres instead of inches... the UK is metric so cm would make more sense for me but, again, it's going with the convention of the board to prevent confusion. :)

Xanthippe
April 2nd, 2008, 02:48 PM
Well, for me at least, I actually do have hairs that are pretty much from my forehead to the hemline, so I would get close to the same measurement either way. But then again, I don't measure too accurately to begin with and as my hair has gotten longer I've come to see an inch plus or minus as not so much error to have.

spidermom
April 2nd, 2008, 03:03 PM
As a way to be consistent about the measurements, I think the LHC method works very well. I used to try to measure from the crown of my head, which is much harder.

When I showed my sister in law, she was all excited. She had been eye-balling shed hairs as her measurement. She said "HA! I love this. I've got a widow's peak. That means I'll always have 1/4" extra length!"

SaveTheTapirs
April 2nd, 2008, 03:58 PM
I was a little stumped too when I had to come up with my starting length, which was about 2 inches all over. In other words, each hair was about 2 inches long. I didn't want to use the conventional method because I would just be measuring my head, not my hair. Now that it's longer, I do it the LHC way.

Alaskanheart
April 2nd, 2008, 05:37 PM
so when I see something in the 15-20 range, .


you get to know when you see hair around the <20" mark, that it is rather short.

I take serious offense to these comments!Im in the "fairly short" range.:(You superlongs with your supremely big numbered inches:shrug:

Oh well I guess someday I will look at 20 inches as short too;)

ReadingRenee
April 2nd, 2008, 06:33 PM
I take serious offense to these comments!Im in the "fairly short" range.:(You superlongs with your supremely big numbered inches:shrug:

Oh well I guess someday I will look at 20 inches as short too;)
*small hi-jack*
aww Alaskanheart don't feel bad! I remember when 20 inches was a HUGE accomplishment for me! And 22 inches was lets break out the champagne! Now here I am at almost 26 inches and my hair feels short! I mean really! What is my deal? I think its a matter of perspective.

Your hair looks beautiful in your sig and its grown so much. I didn't realize til I checked your profile that you were the same person of your first sig pic. Its funny how you associate sig pics sometimes more than names. Anyway keep up the good growing! :) *end hi-jack*

velvetcat
April 2nd, 2008, 07:13 PM
When I showed my sister in law, she was all excited. She had been eye-balling shed hairs as her measurement. She said "HA! I love this. I've got a widow's peak. That means I'll always have 1/4" extra length!"

*lol*:hollie:

Ash
April 2nd, 2008, 08:13 PM
I would feel like a big liar if I was to measure like that. Due to the shape of my head and the way my hair grows, my hair will not drape over my head and go down my back. I also have had a center part in my hair since I was 16 so for me the most consistent measurement is to go from my part to the ends on the side of my head. I just don't feel right in adding a line of scalp to my hair measurement.

jessie58
April 2nd, 2008, 08:32 PM
Autumn, you have caused me to have an OH OH minute. When I started measuring over 2 years ago, my hair was very short. So my DH used to measure 4 inches back from my front hairline and then from the 4 inch mark, which was just in front of my crown, he would measure length from there. So after my hair hit a certain length, I would measure from the entire way down, from center hairline all the way down. So when I changed my method of measurement, I had to add 4 inches to my measurement. So at some point, my hair got magically 4 inches longer.

I completely forgot about this when I reported my hair growth over the last 2 years. I said that my hair had grown 14 inches in 2 years when in fact it had only grown 10 inches plus the 4 that I added when I switched measuring methods. Of course I had 3 trims and several dustings during that time so it probably did grow that much but now I feel that I misrepresented my growth.

So in reply to your post, I also didn't feel right in measuring from the forehead down and this is why we started 4 inches back, because that was where the length of hair that I was measuring originated from. You will hit that point soon where you'll be able to measure all the way around and know that it is your real length.

TammySue
April 2nd, 2008, 09:15 PM
I believe this system of measuring originated from George Michael of Madison Avenue. In his book, there is a picture showing him measuring a lady's hair exactly the same way that LHC does!

Like the others said, it is just an easier method of keeping track of growth.

A tip for those who measure their own hair: Grab the end of the tape measure and reach behind your back and put the tape at the longest point of your hair holding it there with one hand. Then when you bring the end of the tape with your other hand up to your hairline, you can read the actual measurement. (just a reverse method, but seems to be a bit easier).

trolleypup
April 2nd, 2008, 09:49 PM
As others have said...it is a consistent and repeatable way of measuring. Obviously, it works better for people will long to very long hair than those with shorter hair...or at least, it makes more sense.

For reference, at 53" measured LHC style, my longest shed hairs are right at 42".

AutumnLeaves
April 3rd, 2008, 06:13 AM
Well, I see I'm not the only one who thinks like this, at least! LOLOL I would never pull out hairs to measure, but they do come out on their own, every single day there is at least one! I was thinking of using a ruler or measuring tape and pulling a hank of hair out perpendicularly. Well, us big headed people get some extra inches then...and of course, as SpiderMom says, those of us with widows peaks also get a bit of extra!

HeavenlyTresses
April 3rd, 2008, 06:46 AM
I used to feel like I was cheating but if I do it any other way, every time I measure it is different. A lot of people tell me that my hair is longer than they are tall but it's because of the extra inches across the top of my head.

Les
April 3rd, 2008, 07:18 AM
I think the current LHC method is great for comparitive measures and I am sure a lot of detailed work went into choosing it. The problem you point out effectively boils down to that someone with a crewcut would have a hairlength equivalent to the distance between the front and back of their hairline - it also has some interesting variance based on head size, etc... If you want to factor that out, you could take the traditional LHC measurement and subtract from it the distance from your front and back hairlines. That might give a more "accurate" approximation of the length of your actual hairs - measuring the trees instead of the forest.

ChloeDharma
April 3rd, 2008, 07:33 AM
As somebody mentioned this method of hair measuring is used by George Michael in long hair contests. But i think it originates from official length measurings by the guinness book of records....i'm sure i read years ago that it is used because that's how they determined it would be most accurate.

I did used to think it seemed odd.....but i've just got used to it now as most people who would read the measurement would know that it means measured from the front hairline.