Category Archives: Uncategorized

DHT can increase IGF2 levels?

Dihydrotestosterone is a determinant of calcaneal bone mineral density in men.

Full study link->DHT and IGF2

“Hundred osteoporotic men with age matched normal were studied for serum levels of sex steroids, PTH, IGF system components, cytokines and bone turnover markers. Our findings show that serum DHT, IGF-I, IGF-II and IGFBP-3 levels were significantly decreased while IL-1beta and bone turnover markers were significantly increased in osteoporotic men compared to normal. Pearson correlation analysis revealed that serum DHT, IGF-I, IGF-II and IGFBP-3 levels were positively and strongly correlated with BMD, while serum IL-1beta levels were negatively correlated with BMD. Serum PTH, testosterone, estradiol, IGFBP-4, TNF-alpha, IL-4 and IFN-gamma levels were similar between the two groups. We observed that DHT levels significantly declined with age. However, the significant difference in DHT between the osteoporotic and normal groups is the same regardless of age. A multiple regression model adjusted for age demonstrated that DHT/BMD association is fairly stronger among those with osteoporosis than the normal. Our findings for the first time point out that DHT is an important determinant of BMD in men. Most importantly, the strong positive correlation of serum DHT with BMD offers new perspectives in understanding the role of non-aromatizable androgen in regulating bone metabolism in men, and might serve as a potential clinical marker in the diagnosis of male osteoporosis.”

Serum levels of estrogen and testosterone are slightly lower in osteoperotic men than normal.

IGF-II 955 ± 45(Normal) 722 ± 35(Osteoperotic)

“DHT increased the levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 in human osteoblastic cell line (hFOB/AR-6). DHT enhances the mitogenic effect of IGF-II in bone cells.”

This is the study that mentions the link between IGF-II and DHT:
Studies of the Mechanism by which Androgens Enhance Mitogenesis and Differentiation in Bone Cells

DHT did not increase the quantity of IGF-2.

“Because FGF and IGF-II are known to synergize with TGFB, the enhanced response to FGF and IGF-II due to DHT treatment may be dependent upon the increased production of TGFB.”

DHT pre-treatment approximately doubled the effect of IGF2.

Is The Real Height Requirement Of Men For Dutch Women In The Netherlands Now 6′ 3″ or 1.90 Meters Tall?

New evidence has come out suggesting that the real average height of ethnically pure Dutch men in the Netherlands may be as high as 1.92 Meters tall or 6′ 3.3″. This claim was something that I read from the book “The Tall Book” by Arriane Cohen. A claim like this is something that most people would write off as too incredible to believe, but I wanted to not just write off this claim completely. Anyone who has ever done a quick stroll through the streets of Holland or Friesland would reveal that the claim that 6′ 4″ is the average is not that farfetched.

First, we know that the Netherlands has a population of around 17 Million people, and the Ethnic makeup of the country shows that it is now a little less than 80% ethnically Dutch. In the Netherlands, there are large populations of Turkish, Albania, Arab, and North African communities. These immigrants usually come from poorer countries so the influx of immigrants has probably reduced the average height of the country to some level. How much? We take an educated guess

The last we checked, the average height of the Dutch, including the immigrant population was at 1.84 meters tall. So what would happen if the immigrant height factor was removed? We could make the arguement that the average height would get increased by 2-3 cms. A 1 cm increase would be too little since the non-dutch community makes up a very large part of the country, pushing the average height down. Anything over 4 cm would seem a little too large. It would be anything from 2-3 cms.

That means that if we were only looking at the pure ethnically Dutch males in the country, the real average height of the 18-30 year old group is more likely 1.87 meters tall.

Now, we have to remember that the Netherlands, like most other countries in the world is based on the Metric System. They use meters and centimeters, while the old British System which is used still be the UK, USA, and Australia uses feet and inches.

This means that sociologically speaking, if a native Dutch girl was to want a “tall” (relatively speaking) guy she would not say that the cut-off point is 1.80 meters tall, which is what the cutoff point is for most countries of the world, but say that the cutoff point is 1.90 meters tall.

In comparison, we can look at a country like South Korea, which a population of around 50 Million people. While the Wikipedia article says that the average height of men in South Korea is 1.74 m, a new study I found shows that the real average height is actually 1.75 meters tall (or 5′ 9″). Within this culture, the majority of girls prefer to date taller men, and since they are based on the metric system, there is a social rule that a man needs to be 1.80 meters tall (or 5′ 10.5″) to be considered dateable in certain girls’ eyes. And that is just the socially accepted cut-off point for the more superficial girls. To be considered “tall” in the Korean society, you are supposed to be at least 1.82 meters (5′ 11.60″). (Similarly, in the USA where the average height is believed to be 5′ 9.5″, the social rule of what is considered a “good” height for guys is 6′ 0″. The difference is 6. 35 cms.)

Notice that the difference in average height of men and what is considered tall is around 6-7 cms.

If we use this 7 cm rule and translate it to the dutch population, to be considered “tall” in this culture you would need to be 1.87 + 7 = 1.94 meters tall or 6′ 4.4″. Of course, there is no set requirement that a male needs to hit that “tall” category to be considered socially acceptable in height to be dateable for the majority of women in his group.

If South Korea could be used as an example, a 5 cm difference is what is required from average height. So for the Netherlands, 187+5 = 1.92 meters tall is the real cutoff point for young men these days.

Of course then you have to take consideration the non-ethnic dutch people/immigrants, so factoring that in, the height requirement gets reduced by 2 cm to just 1.90 meters tall. They would round down and say that they want a boyfriend to be at least 1.90 meters. To actually hit the right mark within only the dutch ethnic community, it would be probably closer to 1.93 meters or 6’4″.

To validate this idea even more, it was discovered recently that the real height of ethnically Dutch females is around 5′ 8.5″. On average we have found that the difference in height of men and women in a society is actually 5.5 Inches. This would suggest that the real average height of Dutch men is around 6′ 2″ or 1.88 meters tall.

So it would not seem that big of a stretch to ask that one’s boyfriend be just 2-3 cm taller than the average, at 1.90 meters.

For any people from the Netherlands, is this claim I made validate? Do your own life experiences, and casual observations agree with my claim?

What trait in women would be considered as universally unattractive as short stature in men?

For the longest time, men have tried to use the analog “Short is to Men” as “Overweight is to Women”. So Short:Men::Overweight:Women.

The usual rebuttal that men like to use when they meet a women who judges them based on height is to try to flip the situation back at the women and use the weight of the women as the response. However, I have found that the response is inaccurate, if not downright wrong. It is not weight for women. It is something else.

The real factor that men should be using as a response has been a factor of the human experience which is no longer allowed in American society (or most other developed Western nations today). If you use the real, most accurate response back at a women, people would be calling the guy a bigot.

When it comes to the issue of dating and relationship, men can complain that being short is bad towards their romantic life but what these men have been using as the female analog is incorrect. We’ve got it wrong. The analog for women is not weight (ala overweight means unattractive), but skin color. For most of the cultures and societies throughout history, the men have traditionally favored the lighter skin girls over the darker skin ones. Read Peter Frost’s book “Fair Women, Dark Men” and you would see that anthropologists have shown that nearly all (or maybe most) cultures prized light skin color, at least for the women (Refer to the claim by University of Washington sociologist Pierre L. van den Berghe). Remember that even in our language for old stories that are imprinted onto our culture’s psyche from passed down from history, we use terms like “fair princess” and “tall, dark, handsome”. These terms are used over and over again. But why?

Anthropologically speaking, the light skin color of men does not seem to have any positive correlation to how attractive they are. For men, our skin color does not determine how attractive we are, even though some men in some cultures (Indian for example) both the men and women want their skin to be lighter. Whereas Indian women use the cream Fair and Lovely, Indian men use the cream Fair and Handsome. The opposite is true too for men at least. In some cultures, it is more attractive if the men have darker skin (ie. Krishna from Indian mythology). Yes, the

For more examples, let’s go to South America and look at the natives before the Europeans ever set foot onto that continent. Look up the Chachapoyas people, who were overtaken by the Incans right before Pizzaro and the other Spaniards arrived. Before the Europeans ever came along, the native Incans still prized the women of Chachapoyas (cloud people) as being fair skinned and extraordinarily beautiful. Examples like these go against the old claim made by so many people in the modern era who think that European domination, imperialism and cultural influence for the last half 1000 years is why non-western/european nations and societies seem to want to have lighter skin, because they want to look more like their masters, the Europeans. This old theory has been disproved.

Before the Chinese ever met the Europeans who used force to destroy the old way of life, the Chinese culture prized light skin. The rulers of the land, like the Sultans and Shahs of Ancient Persia (Sassanid Empire) had harems, so they were able to choose the most beautiful young females in the land to have as concubines. These rulers would choose sisters who had slightly lighter skin than the dark skinned ones. These concubines would stay in the castles and never need to be in the fields growing and planting. They in turn became more and more white. The ones who did not get chosen to be in the castle had no choice but be a commoner, working the fields, and getting their skin turned darker from the sun over the years.

Side note: The old idea that East Asian societies (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese) developed this preference for lighter skin girls because in the old days, traditionally, the light skin was associated with upper class people not in the fields, and the darker skin was associated with lower class people who did work in the fields, is actually wrong. People have got it backwards. The society did not develop the preference for light skin as a result of the social association of light skin with high class. The truth is revealed to be the reverse. The social association of light skin with high class is from the result of the preference for light skin.

Just like the South Asians and East Asian cultures, The Arabs and Iranians are also not trying to emulate the physical features of the Europeans because of their influence. It seems that for the longest time, they have always prized women to have fair skin, blonde hair, and green/blue eyes. The area that the Arab empire tried to slaves from the most was always from the Northern lands. Look up the Arab slave trade which has been going on since the time before the beginning of Islam, and you would find examples of how female slaves from Europe who had fair skin, green eyes, and blonde hair would always fetch the highest price in the markets.

The Arab culture, the Indian culture, Iranian Culture, African America culture, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Mexican, Hispanic, Brazilian, Chilean – In every single one of these cultures, people of lighter skin are on average considered more attractive than people with darker skin. India has Fair and Lovely. Korea has BB Cream. It is a global phenomena. If anything, if the American/Western/Australian culture had any type of real influence in changing the way the local Indians/Chinese/Iranians/Mexican/Filipino culture really thought about what would be considered attractive, these non-western nations would have gone with the standard, which is that darker tan-colored skin would be more attractive. However, that hasn’t happened. The people in the USA thinks darker skin is more beautiful. The people in India think lighter skin is more beautiful.

It seems to be only the USA (and maybe the UK, Canada, and the Australia) who have gone against the grain on this cultural preference for lighter skin. The change in thinking started back in the 1920s when Coco Chanel got sun burned while being in the sun in the French Riviera. After she came back, her fans loved her new skin color and that was how the Tan Craze started. Before the 1920s, American and British women wanted to be paler and whiter, like all the other cultures in the world. If you have watched any movies or tv about the british (or american) aristocracy from the 18th century, you would remember that they would put white powder on their face to whiten their faces, men and women. This is exactly the same thing that women in every other major culture in the modern age does.

Scientifically It turns out that the females on average have less melanin on the surface of their skin so they are usually lighter than their male counterparts.

At this point, I think we need to just admit to ourselves that for most cultures, being fair skinned colored as a women and being tall for a guy are what is considered attractive. From this point on, it is probably better to use the skin color factor for women when we are going to use the height factor for men as a way of comparing.

Of course, we know that in the modern american society, it is not politically correct to show discrimination towards people based on their skin color, even if it is a few shades too light or dark. Then again, we can look at the ethnic groups in our own society. Ask a good percentage of African American men and they would say that they prefer girls who have lighter skin than darker skin. Certain African American music performers have even gotten in trouble for stating their preference for women of lighter skin blatantly on radio, tv, or in interviews. (Neyo). The angry darker skinned african american girl might take extreme offense to this claim, and her self worth will come into question. How dare a fellow brother say that she is not beautiful, based on something that she can not control no less. Of course, we can show that this slip of the tongue by one young black guy is not a one time thing.

Doesn’t it seem interesting that the two “black” actresses that American pop culture consider to be “beautiful”, Halle Berry, and Beyonce Knowles, both have extremely light skin color{Tyler-Confounding variables: Both are bustier than normal and it’s very rare to find a completely black individual.  There’s a smaller pool to get attractive people from.  You’re more likely to find an attractive lighter black person than a pure dark black person due to numbers}? Ask most indian/chinese/russian immigrants who hasn’t adjusted to the racial sensitivity of America and don’t know how to be politically correct and they would claim that these “black” girls are mixed blood, explaining why they have such light skin color, and why they are more attractive than what they imagined in their own head of “american black girls” before they came to the US.

After centuries of battling the stigma associated with dark skin color, the American culture has managed to make progress on the issue of skin color. As for physical stature, there has not been as much. You are no longer allowed to make jokes of another person based on their race or skin color, but you can skin tease, harass, and joke another person based on their physical stature.

The question would be, can we change over time the cultural belief in a society’s belief system that tall men are more attractive then short men? I think we can implement rules to repress that subconscious biases from being so overt, but in the end, our real biases will come out.

To go against these biological ingrained biases is to fight against what is based on the rules of nature.

Evidence of LSJL arm length increase

Previously, I stated that my wingspan has increased from 72.5″ to 74.5″ but I didn’t have any proof because I didn’t take any before pictures.  I’ve been trying to get my wingspan increase but haven’t had significant enough measurements for undeniable proof.  I’m keep trying to increase height and wingspan but what I can do is try to create new photos to compare to the old ones

.arm length beforeHere’s an image from about 2012.  I tried to recreate something like this picture as best as I could.

arm length afterThis was from today.  The dumbell acts as sort of a constant.

The problem is the image is not 3D so it can’t account things like the dumbell tilt.  Right now my forearm measures 11 inches elbow to wrist “bump”.  Using the dumbell handle as a constant, I compared the forearm length elbow to wrist(although it was harder to identify wrist in the before picture.  I was pretty generous to the before picture.

Before forearm length as dumbell handle lengths: 2.4 dumbell handles

After: 2.48 dumbell handles

Which is about 3%.  My wingspan increased by 2 inches.  Assume a 0.5″ of that is in my left forearm.  .5″ is about 4.76% of 10.5″.

So given the inaccuracies of the photo I don’t think it’ll be easy to have definitive proof using the two unless someone has ideas of creating a new photo standardized against the first.

 

More on CNP and height growth

Due to the significant response to my earlier post on CNP, I wanna go over all the significant studies on CNP so far.  CNP and IGF-2 seem to be the two supplement targets with the greatest potential with IGF-2 having the most potential to those without open growth plates.

BMN111 is a potential CNP analogue undergoing testing.

The bone length overgrowth effects are likely mostly due to the inhibition of FGFR3 and ERK1/2.  However, those tend to be anabolic in other tissues so CNP will most likely make you taller and lankier.

Meclizine is a supplement that is similar to some effects of CNP, inhibition of ERK1/2 but is available for sale.  This post has some other information about meclizine as well as why FGFR3 inhibition is effective for height growth.

Meclizine Chewable Tablets – 25mg – Model 85207 – (3 Bottles of 100)

Note: Disobey any directions on the bottle at your own risk. I don’t know the optimal dosage. Also, this should only be offective on open plates.

Inflammation in children reduced CNP production so inhibiting inflammation should increase CNP levels.

As for possible ways CNP could increase height in those with closed growth plates:

Increased bone turnover and possible accelerated fracture healing in a murine model with an increased circulating C-type natriuretic peptide.

” we investigated the bone phenotype of a mouse model with elevated plasma CNP concentrations (SAP-CNP-Tg mice) in the present study. Micro-CT analysis revealed less bone in femurs, but not in lumber vertebrae, of young adult SAP-CNP-Tg mice than that of wild-type mice{CNP could weaken bone allowing for neo-growth plate formation}. Bone histomorphometry of the tibiae from 8-week-old SAP-CNP-Tg mice showed enhanced osteoblastic and osteoclastic activities, in accordance with elevated serum levels of osteocalcin and TRAP5b, respectively. Next we performed an open and stabilized femoral fracture using 8-week-old SAP-CNP-Tg mice and compared the healing process with age-matched wild-type mice. Immunohistochemical study revealed that CNP and its receptors, natriuretic peptide receptor-B (NPR-B) and natriuretic peptide clearance receptor are expressed in hard calluses of wild-type mice, suggesting possible role of CNP/NPR-B signaling in fracture repair, especially in bone remodeling stage. On micro-CT analysis, rapid decrease in callus volume was observed in SAP-CNP-Tg mice, followed by generation of significantly higher new bone volume with a tendency of increased bone strength. In addition, micro-CT analysis also showed that bone remodeling was accelerated in SAP-CNP-Tg mice, which was also evident from increased serum osteocalcin and TRAP5b levels in SAP-CNP-Tg mice at remodeling stage of fracture repair. These results indicate that CNP activates bone turnover and remodeling in vivo and possibly accelerates fracture healing in our mouse model.”

CNP overexpression also decreased bone stiffness.

Why a CNP supplement would help you grow taller.

We know that CNP is important for height growth but we don’t know why it affects height so strongly.  This study provides us with the information that elevated systemic levels of CNP increase longitudinal bone growth meaning that a CNP supplement to increase height in the growing has great promise.  If only cartilage specific CNP increases height, than a CNP supplement would not help.

The Local CNP/GC-B system in growth plate is responsible for physiological endochondral bone growth.

“C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) and its receptor, guanylyl cyclase-B (GC-B) are potent stimulators of endochondral bone growth. As they exist ubiquitously in body, we investigated the physiological role of the local CNP/GC-B in the growth plate on bone growth using cartilage-specific knockout mice. Bones were severely shorter in cartilage-specific CNP or GC-B knockout mice and the extent was almost the same as that in respective systemic knockout mice. Cartilage-specific GC-B knockout mice were shorter than cartilage-specific CNP knockout mice. Hypertrophic chondrocyte layer of the growth plate was drastically reduced and proliferative chondrocyte layer, along with the proliferation of chondrocytes there, was moderately reduced in either cartilage-specific knockout mice. The survival rate of cartilage-specific CNP knockout mice was comparable to that of systemic CNP knockout mice. The local CNP/GC-B system in growth plate is responsible for physiological endochondral bone growth and might further affect mortality via unknown mechanisms.”

“we developed transgenic mice with an elevated plasma concentration of CNP under the control of human serum amyloid P component promoter and exhibited that these mice showed prominent skeletal overgrowth phenotype, indicating that CNP can humorally[relating from a hormone] affect endochondral bone growth”

“CNP and GC-B exist in nonhypertrophic and prehypertrophic chondrocyte layers of the growth plate, respectively. Together with the fact that mice with systemic depletion of CNP or GC-B exhibit severely impaired growth of bones formed through endochondral ossification, we could suppose that the local CNP/GC-B system in the growth plate is a physiological stimulator of endochondral bone growth. Nevertheless, it remains possible that the CNP/GC-B physiologically regulates endochondral bone growth via mechanisms other than the local effect on the growth plate; CNP secreted from a tissue other than growth plate cartilage might influence or stimulate endochondral bone growth. In fact, CNP is capable of humorally stimulating endochondral bone growth, as demonstrated by the observation that transgenic mice with elevated plasma concentrations of CNP exhibit skeletal overgrowth phenotype

“the extent of impairment of endochondral bone growth observed in cartilage-specific CNP or GC-B knockout mice is almost the same as in systemic CNP or GC-B knockout mice, respectively. Thus, the autocrine/paracrine effect of the CNP/GC-B system in the growth plate is the primary physiological stimulator of endochondral bone growth in body.”<-It doesn’t matter if you stimulate CNP or GC-B directly in the growth plate.  As long as you do it systemically you will grow taller while you’re actively growing.