Doesn’t work for crackers

Anonymous wrote:Didn't for me a female. I was supposed to be 6 feet ended up 5-7

Mine was the same. doesn't work that I can see.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how this can be true for both genders. My kids, both boys, and their female cousins were all very close together in height at 2. It’s clear they will be significantly taller than the girls after puberty.

It’s a different formula for females.

So far genetic research is showing that height is 80% genetics. They’ve also found many genetic mutations that can cause extreme height or extreme lack of height. It’s not as simple as mother’s height or father’s height. Not with thousands of genes involved in height.

Imagine in the future they manipulate every fetus’s genes to make all males the same height and all females the same height. Creepy thought.

If I were you I would ask to have him get X-rays to see how open his growth plates are.

Interesting but this follows for my son too. He was 99 percentile at age 3 for height and is now 6’1”and still growing. According to this he should end up growing another inch…
My daughter was 50 percentile at age 3 so should be 5’5” which she is almost.

Didn’t work for my kids’ eventual heights (not mine which I had checked out of curiosity).

My family has a tendency for big babies/toddlers, both of my kids 90th percentile until about 4 or 5, but then drop after that. As I did too as a kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your child is white, try the Khamis-Roche formula. It is the most accurate way to predict without a bone scan.

Why are only whites allowed to use this?

No idea what the science is behind it, but the research states that it is only accurate for white children. Anyone is “allowed” to try it, but apparently it might not be accurate if you’re not white.

Anonymous wrote:If your child is white, try the Khamis-Roche formula. It is the most accurate way to predict without a bone scan.

Why are only whites allowed to use this?

No. did not work for us at all

Worked for my son. He was 39” at 2 and is now 6’5” at 18.

I looked up my kids bc I was curious - and no - based on their height at 25m (closest doctor appt) they would both be 5’10 and they are 5’5 and 5’4 (15 yo may get another inch)

Maybe this calculation is more accurate for boys? Bc 5’10 is quite tall for a girl and my kids were never more than 75th percentile for height. They are also shorter than projected but that’s typical for girls in my family (taller when younger percentiles wise - I was projected to be 6 foot based on my toddler heights and I’m 5’8.

Ask around with grandparents. Some families are late growers

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how this can be true for both genders. My kids, both boys, and their female cousins were all very close together in height at 2. It’s clear they will be significantly taller than the girls after puberty.

Agreed. In preschool the boys are all similar in heights to the girls. Obviously it doesn’t stay that way.

Anonymous wrote:Did this turn out to be accurate?

Child 1 was 3 feet at 2, so by estimates should be 6foot.

Child 2 was 2 feet 8 inches so by estimates should be 5’4 (boy). At the time on the curve he was about 10 percent for a while. Now he’s 8 and trending about 80 percentile. I was wondering if you would still expect him to be around 5’4?

Was wrong for our boy (would have been 5'10", is now 6') and our girl (would have been 5'4", is now 5'6").

Anonymous wrote:Not for us. My teen daughter was predicted to be 5'6". She's 5'4.5" and deeply salty about it.

Does she really think there’s a big difference in 1.5 inches?

If your child is white, try the Khamis-Roche formula. It is the most accurate way to predict without a bone scan.