I was reading an article about the current tallest living human, Leonid Stadnyk , which got me to thinking about his situation and about gigantism in general. I realize that these are fairly trivial questions regarding a non-trivial condition, and I hope that my curiosity does not give offense.
My first question involves dentistry. According to the article cited above, Mr. Stadnyk’s growth rate was apparently unremarkable until the age of 14. This suggests to me that his permanent teeth were probably already in place by that time. I have read that cases of gigantism and acromegaly often result in abnormally spaced teeth, which I suppose is not surprising if the jaw is continuing to grow at an unusual rate. However, in cases such as that of Robert Wadlow, where overall growth is unusually accelerated since birth or early childhood, would the permanent teeth develop more proportionately? I’ve seen pictures of the famous wrestler Andre “the Giant” Rousimoff, and his teeth appear somewhat smaller than one might expect, even though he was exceptionally large since childhood. Is tooth development affected by any types of gigantism?
I’ve also gotten the impression that certain types of gigantism not only increase the growth rate, but can also extend the period during which increased growth is possible. My understanding is that when the epiphyses of the limb bones fuse at the end of puberty, any additional height increase becomes impossible and the bones can only increase in girth, eventually resulting in acromegaly. However, Mr. Stadnyk is ostensibly still growing at the age of 33, and Robert Wadlow’s height was evidently increasing right up to his death at age 22. Does gigantism sometimes affect the fusion of the epiphyses?
This next question is no doubt one of the first problems on any Intro to Biomechanics exam, but alas this is a class I have not taken, and I’m severely mathematically impaired to boot. How does gigantism affect relative strength? If person A is twice the size of person B, then (all other things being equal), it seems to me that A would have half the relative physical strength of B. If person B is able to lift an amount equal to their own weight, then person A ought to be able to lift a maximum amount of half their own weight, since the number of muscle fibers in cross section pulling over a given distance will be squared, but the amount of weight being lifted is cubed. How flawed is this analysis?
My last question is related to the last one, and concerns the ability to swim. Again, all other things being equal, would a person with gigantism have the same, greater, or lesser buoyancy than a person half their size?
Thanks in advance for your patience. Sometimes I get weird questions lodged in my head and it’s nigh impossible to get them out short of trepanation.