Problems with being giant sized!

Post Reply New Topic

After reading an article the other day about WWE wrestler 'big show' weight loss I see a lot of positive comments praising him for physically being a fine specimen of a human.

I don't understand why being so gigantic is viewed by society as being such a desirability. Andre the giant was a huge attraction in his wrestling carrier and had a lot females admirers yet he died very young in his sleep of heart problems.

These giant sized people have all saughts of health problems as they age yet society still perceives being huge as better than small. Big show has already lost 2 inches of height from his peak of 7ft (he's now 6ft10) at only age 45.


Can I have your opinions on this?

Absolutely bigness is not always better. Knew a guy (artist, sculptor, art teacher) who is, not a circus giant type, but at the high end of the normal range human male height. Not fat. Just a tall broad shouldered dude. But when he entered middle age he had many osteo problems because of the effect of his height on his skeleton.

*********************************************************************************************

BTW: Its "all sorts of health problems". Not "saughts".

There is no such word as "saughts".

At the post office they "sort" mail (ie classify it, and make sure it goes to the right places).

The categories that you sort things into are "sorts".

You must have grown up in NYC where they dont like to pronounce the letter "r". Lol!
*********************************************************************************************

But back to the subject: There is an upper limit to how tall humans can get before we get skeletal problems. Obesity strains your body. And I suppose excessive muscle mass might also strain your body as well.

You will hafta ask our new president!

Everything he does "is tremendous!"!

I guess its an animal instinct to fear things that are bigger than you.

For most of our evolution our main enemies were big things that ate us (like saber toothed tigers).

Once we invented the plow, and agriculture, and metal weapons, about 5000 years ago (a heartbeat ago in evolutionary terms) that got turned on its head. Non human predator animals suddenly became a minor cause of death. And we all had to figure out how to build better sewers because the main cause of death became small things that ate you (disease causing microbes, and their vectors which are usually rodents or insects and or other humans living in higher population densities than in the stone age) rather than big things that eat you. But we are still wired to fear, and admire big things.

We pay attention to radio announcers with deep voices because in the animal corners of our brain deep voice=big sized creature= give that creature respect or he will kick your ass.

And that instinct is not ALWAYS maladaptive. Often bigger is better. But size can be easily overdone.

This is a remnant of our cavemen era; a physically large person is obviously able to gather a lot of food (else he either didn't grow that big or would not have survived as long), so he will be able to provide for the woman and their child.

For the rest of society; large (tall) people were great scouts and their reach made them more effective fighters (with the same training).


These traits are still (subconsciously) valued as highly desirable, both in partner selection as in job offers.

But indeed, being giant sized comes with problems; the first one is rather obvious: being bipedal, the human spine can only have so much weight and length on it; at around 6 foot 3, 6-4 (with regular proportions), this limit is reached.
Then there is the point in modern society where everything is built around average-sized people (legroom in public transports, headroom in cars and under doors, placement of mirrors, available clothing sizes...)
I am 6'6 in a country where 5'10 is the weighted average for a male; that extra foot makes almost everything somewhat of a challenge. I like being tall, but i wouldn't want to be taller than i already am, losing an inch or 2 would make things easier as well.

for example; i have my desk at the maximum height, and it is still standing on blocks to get high enough for me to type comfortably.
The monitor on top of the desk is also at the maximum height and standing on a book to get it on eye-level when i'm sitting, from the (already high) desk.
For some co-workers, my monitor is at an acceptable height from the ground for a standing desk, while i have it to sit at...

Even at 5ft10 your cancer risk signifgantly increases compared to if your 5ft6 for example.

I think shorter people under 5ft10 generally live longer and less likely develop cancer than average sized or tall people.

Goes to show that even being in the medium sized range 5ft9.5-5ft11 you can start to be at risk of more problems that can have a negative impact on your life expectancy. I think your risk of getting cancer increases slightly when you get to 5ft8 and then increases even more when you are 5ft10.

Being significantly larger or smaller than the norm is associated with all sorts of health problems. I see it in tennis all the time. The ideal player is in between the range of David Ferrer (5' 9") and Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Istomin (6' 1"-6'-3"). When they get as tall as John Isner or Ivo Karlovic, they really begin to have a lot of injury and health problems.

I think the human body is meant to be somewhere between five and six feet. Being an inch or three over won't kill you. Once you get past six feet and four inches, then I think it's an issue. I'm already five feet and ten inches, I'm starting to get worried.