50 foot woman

[Lumpy]

Just wanted to say that once again, Slug Signorino's tasteful and understated illustrations are an inspiration to us all.

[Una Persson]

Link to the column.

[Michael63129]

It should be noted that Cecil assumes that weight increases as the cube of height, but body mass index squares the height; furthermore, here is a study that says that BMI underestimates the prevalence of obesity in taller people (BMI does work well for most people, but not at the extremes); in other words, at height extremes BMI scales at an even lower rate than the square of the height (many tall people claim the opposite though, but the study used real-life measurements, it also looked at disease prevalence and found the same correlation, BMI underestimates disease risk in tall people):

The new metric is derived from a theoretical basis, in contrast to the purely empirical origins of BMI. Further refinement of the model is possible but probably not warranted given the quality of body measurements generally available. Not surprisingly, the two approaches display only minimal differences for the majority of people in the centre of the height distribution, but divergence becomes more apparent at the extremes, where it appears that BMI underestimates the weight appropriate for the shortest individuals and overestimates that of the tallest, resulting in a distortion of obesity prevalence patterns.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What if our 50 ft woman had a partial to full exoskeleton and a musculature that was a cross between a chimpanzee's and a grasshopper's? What if she had some limited ability to respirate through said exoskeleton? Does that open even a glimmer of hope that our 50 ft woman can stay on the offensive?

[Mr.Fantastic]

Seriously, what happened to Slug?

[Irishman]

She's got the giraffe skinny lower legs, the 32x oversized thighs, the bikini for cooling, and breasts. Because, ya' know, breasts.

Originally Posted by Michael63129

It should be noted that Cecil assumes that weight increases as the cube of height,

That's not an assumption, it's a fact.

Height is one dimensional. A person's size is defined by three dimensions: height, width (i.e. shoulder to shoulder), and thickness (i.e. front to back).

Weight is caused by the amount of matter in three dimensions. If a person's form remains proportional, then as the height increases, so does the width and thickness.

Strength is defined by structural properties and cross-sectional area. Area is 2-D, so as height goes up, cross-sectional area goes up by the square. The structural properties of materials are expected to remain the same.

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by Irishman

That's not an assumption, it's a fact.

Height is one dimensional. A person's size is defined by three dimensions: height, width (i.e. shoulder to shoulder), and thickness (i.e. front to back).

Weight is caused by the amount of matter in three dimensions. If a person's form remains proportional, then as the height increases, so does the width and thickness.

Strength is defined by structural properties and cross-sectional area. Area is 2-D, so as height goes up, cross-sectional area goes up by the square. The structural properties of materials are expected to remain the same.

I was referring to a study that looked at real-life people, which closely followed (for most people) the relationship used by BMI - squaring, not cubing, the person's height. In other words, the human body doesn't scale to the cube like you would expect, so one would expect this trend to continue (in fact, at very extreme heights, BMI overestimates the normal weight, thus the scaling factor becomes even lower than a squaring, presumably because your organs don't scale in size as much as your body, which may also explain why men (if they are taller than women) and taller people in general don't live as long).

Sure, cubing the height is in general true across species, but not if you look at the human population, and one would assume that the same would hold true for a 50 foot tall woman (of course, not in real life, so we can disregard the normal height-weight relationship, which won't work in any case because it would soon predict a negative BMI).

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Where's the art?

[TheGoldfish]

Dinosaurs were that large. T-rex was about 40 ft (and it did not stand upright). So it is possible.

[Patch]

Originally Posted by TheGoldfish

Dinosaurs were that large. T-rex was about 40 ft (and it did not stand upright). So it is possible.

I was thinking of the brontosaurus, but ISTR that's not an accurate name for the critter, but yeah, it seems you can have large critters out there.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by TheGoldfish

Dinosaurs were that large. T-rex was about 40 ft (and it did not stand upright). So it is possible.

The point was not that an animal that size cannot exist; clearly they can. There are ways to address the problems such size presents. However, if you started with the human female form as a base and somehow bioengineered her into a creature that measures 50 feet in her largest dimension and is capable of surviving and engaging in independent movement, the result would be a creature that doesn't look much like a human. (Unless, as Cecil suggests, she also became aquatic--but even that would involve some changes.) You could probably keep enough cosmetic elements that she'd be recognizable as human stock, but that's about it.

I seem to recall going through this with a giant roach, once upon a time....

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Balance

However, if you started with the human female form as a base and somehow bioengineered her into a creature that measures 50 feet in her largest dimension and is capable of surviving and engaging in independent movement, the result would be a creature that doesn't look much like a human. (Unless, as Cecil suggests, she also became aquatic--but even that would involve some changes.) You could probably keep enough cosmetic elements that she'd be recognizable as human stock, but that's about it.

Actually I think you could make the result look pretty human, although it wouldn't be very human on the inside. Go with the design that Cecil mentions in the column of skinny limbs supporting a good sized torso, then surround the core body with a foam or outright gasbag outer shell designed to match normal human proportions. She would still have the same size but a lot less mass to support.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Where's the art?

No art displayed for me either, Sat. AM.

[Barking Dog]

[quote=Balance;15492503]The point was not that an animal that size cannot exist; clearly they can. There are ways to address the problems such size presents. However, if you started with the human female form as a base and somehow bioengineered her into a creature that measures 50 feet in her largest dimension and is capable of surviving and engaging in independent movement, the result would be a creature that doesn't look much like a human.QUOTE]

Why?

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Michael63129

I was referring to a study that looked at real-life people, which closely followed (for most people) the relationship used by BMI - squaring, not cubing, the person's height. In other words, the human body doesn't scale to the cube like you would expect, so one would expect this trend to continue

Yeah, humans don't scale proportionally. Shorter people tend to have shorter limbs in comparison to their torsos, taller people have longer limbs in proportion to torsos. That throws the cube scaling effect off.

Originally Posted by Barking Dog

Why?

Bone structural strength sets a limit on what the cross-sectional area can support, so for large sized bodies, you need more bone cross-sectional area. Ergo, as Cecil stated, the hips and thighs would have to increase above the proportional size to support the extra weight. Dinosaurs like Apatasaurus have very thick legs and hips, then thin necks and tails.

Blood pressure has to be regulated in a way to ensure blood can get to the head when upright. Gravity is the challenge. Adaptations might include vascular changes to help keep blood high when upright and then relieve pressure as the head lowers.

Muscles and tendons, like bone, have structural limits, so for bigger sized bodies, you need more muscle tissue in order to be able to move. The bigger bones are going to require more musculature, and then the muscles will have to increase further to offset the relative performance difference. Which means more weight for the bones to carry.

Etc.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Any advantages to a silicon-based woman?

[etv78]

So, given all the reasons Cecil gave, what is the maximum realistic height for people?

[ftg]

Since TPTB don't seem to notice the problem with the art not appearing, I looked at the link, etc. and here's what I found.

The link is

http://www.straightdope.com/images/art/2012\dope_120914_50footwoman.gif

when it should be

http://www.straightdope.com/images/art/2012/dope_120914_50footwoman.gif

The back/forward slash thing is confusing Firefox and Opera at the very least.

So enjoy Slugs artwork folks.

[Musicat]

Interesting that Firefox should be so confused by a simple transposed slash. IE 6 and Chrome don't seem to have a problem with it.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Interesting that Firefox should be so confused by a simple transposed slash. IE 6 and Chrome don't seem to have a problem with it.

Firefox is not confused. Legal URLs contain forward slashes only. Backslash is an illegal character. Non-compliant browsers are always pulling this crap of "Oh, some idjit did x instead of y, so we're going to accept y anyway."

If your browser accepts "\" in an URL, it is broken.

This particular issue is serious and important. URLs are a subcase of URIs and it is common to have non-http related data included in an address. Some of this data gets sent to scripts to handle, where "\" might be used to escape symbols. And if the browser/script is broken, an attacker can feed a command to a browser to Do Bad Things. So the first line of defense is the browser not accepting poorly formed URIs.

Security means taking precautions at all steps in the process. Blowing off security in "merely" one step is all it takes.

[Chronos]

Actually, it's more interesting that Chrome isn't confused by it. A standards-compliant browser should be confused by a mistake that egregious.

[Musicat]

Nevertheless, my life is made easier when handing out a URL verbally or otherwise to the average public, if I don't have to worry they will use the wrong one and not know how to fix it or to try another browser.

"Open another browser."

"What's a browser?"

[ftg]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Nevertheless, my life is made easier when handing out a URL verbally or otherwise to the average public, if I don't have to worry they will use the wrong one and not know how to fix it or to try another browser.

It is making your life easier. When browsers do things right, there is going to be a whole lot less crap you have to clean up when they do things wrong. Especially when security is involved.

Taking the (supposedly) easy way around security and standards is not good for anyone. That includes you.

[Lumpy]

I don't get the skinny legs idea. I would have thought a scaled up human would need huge thighs and hips* supporting a relatively small torso; sort of like Godzilla.

*which Slug would have done justice to I'm sure.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I don't get the skinny legs idea.

Look at a giraffe. Legs need to support their own weight too, and skinny legs weigh less.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

*which Slug would have done justice to I'm sure.

Which raises the question of why there's no illustration accompanying this week's article.


Powers &8^]

[Deeg]

Originally Posted by Powers

Which raises the question of why there's no illustration accompanying this week's article.

Are you using Firefox? For some reason Slug's illustration doesn't show up in Firefox but does in Chrome (I'm on Linux). Maybe FF installed a taste filter? I also have Ad Block, which may have something to do with it.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by Powers

Which raises the question of why there's no illustration accompanying this week's article.

See post #18 above.

TPTB are apparently not going after this problem.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Any advantages to a silicon-based woman?

They'd probably be a bit hard and rough. Unless you mean silicone, which I've met a few.

Originally Posted by ftg

See post #18 above.

TPTB are apparently not going after this problem.

Did you report it? Using the Report button? Or did you just assume that mentioning it in this thread would get their attention?

Okay, I just did.

[jmatrixrenegade]

How big CAN a really big atomically obtained women be, give or take, given the rules discussed in the column?

[Freakenstein]

The big question to Me is, why it's not 50 feet?

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

The big question to Me is, why it's not 50 feet?

It depends on the context, as discussed here. For example (taken from the link), which of the following sounds better?

That's a forty foot yacht

That's a forty feet yacht

Similarly, our 50 foot woman is 50 feet tall.

[etv78]

Originally Posted by jmatrixrenegade

How big CAN a really big atomically obtained women be, give or take, given the rules discussed in the column?

I asked the same thing in post #17.

[John W. Kennedy]

If you mean with an otherwise normal human figure, I’d say nine feet is about the upper limit. If you mean something “human” with a body like Jabba the Hutt, who can say?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Trees can grow way taller than 50ft. Maybe the trick is to grow a really womanly tree...

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Trees can grow way taller than 50ft. Maybe the trick is to grow a really womanly tree...

Trees don't have to walk. Maybe you could have a 50-foot living statue that's 90% solid bone inside.

[Floater]

Tell the ents.

[Sirreal72]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

If you mean with an otherwise normal human figure, I’d say nine feet is about the upper limit. If you mean something “human” with a body like Jabba the Hutt, who can say?

I assume you are estimating by the recorded largest human, Robert Wadlow at 8ft. 11 inches, 439lbs? I believe that brings up the earlier conversation about "realistic" bodies vs. the ratio given. The thing is most unusually tall people aren't actually scaled up. They seem to be thinner, and they get progressively (proportionally?) "weaker".

I think the answer you gave of 9 ft is an appropriate answer for the question: "How tall can a human being grow?" if by you constrain the question to only include people able to move under their own power, no extrordinary measures take to prolong their live, etc.

How large a "to scale" human being can grow might be best answered by taking the average height of a population under ideal environmental circumstances. Currently, that would be the Dutch at an average height of 6'1". That's not to say you couldn't breed taller people, and certainly taller people exist... but from an Darwinian point of view, that seems to be the largest "natural" height. Taller people might have more health problems (or any number of other factors) which make them less successful at passing on their genes to the population. I guess there isn't a way to "scale up" human size, you have to decide what is "normal" and use THAT as your scale.

[Irishman]

One could conceivably obtain data on the structural properties of bone, muscle, tendons, etc. One could then obtain dimensions on the proportions for various factors like bone lengths, hip width, etc for the average man and woman, whatever that means.

One could then assess the loads said average man and woman endure on a nominal basis standing, walking, running, jumping, etc.

One could then mathematically scale the loads vs the proportional dimensions and determine where the loads meet or exceed the structural properties at the proposed scale.

Good luck with that.

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by Sirreal72

How large a "to scale" human being can grow might be best answered by taking the average height of a population under ideal environmental circumstances. Currently, that would be the Dutch at an average height of 6'1". That's not to say you couldn't breed taller people, and certainly taller people exist... but from an Darwinian point of view, that seems to be the largest "natural" height. Taller people might have more health problems (or any number of other factors) which make them less successful at passing on their genes to the population. I guess there isn't a way to "scale up" human size, you have to decide what is "normal" and use THAT as your scale.

There's also a limit on how many times cells can divide, which will ultimately limit the amount of mass they can produce before ceasing to divide. Of interest, body mass appears to be inversely correlated with longevity; taller people have shorter lifespans, as reported here, likely because cells have to divide more often for growth/maintenance (the same is also true in other species like dogs, although this doesn't hold across species).

Thus, a 50 foot woman growing from an otherwise normal human baby may be impossible and would literally grow to death (cells reach division limit and start dying off; note also that due to the time needed for a person to grow, many cells would die off and need to be replaced and not contribute to the final height) even if her body strength was able to keep up with its growth.