When you're 6ft 5in, everything is a concussion hazard. The world wasn't built for us
When Edi Rama, the 6ft 7in prime minister of Albania, was pictured next to Keir Starmer two weeks ago, the newspaper headlines used words such as 'towering' and 'dominant'. No one thought to ask Mr Rama how his lower back was or whether he'd had the misfortune of looking at the tops of other people's fridges that day. (Honestly, they're gross; get a little kitchen step, you'll see. Regular antibacterial spray won't cut it, either – you'll need a grease remover.)
As a 6ft 5in man, I dread to think how Mr Rama, who presumably meets dozens of people every week, copes with meet-and-greets. I'm just a hermit freelance writer, two inches shorter than he is, and even I have to endure this exact conversation every few days with someone I don't know:
'How tall are you, then?'
'About 6ft 5in.'
'Gosh.'
'Yes, but I do have my heels on, ha ha.'
'Ha ha.'
'Ha ha haaa...'
Even without the not-so-small talk, being vertically gifted isn't always the gift that shorter people assume it is. There are aches and awkwardness, bumps and badly designed clothes, and it all starts as soon as we wake up.
Morning has broken
Tall people begin our days unfolding our limbs and cracking our joints. We duck under nipple-height showerheads and dry off with miniskirt towels. Then we arch in front of mirrors that don't fit our full frame and check that none of the clothes we have on has shrunk in the wash.
If I pick out a T-shirt that's lost even an inch in length, there's a real risk of belly hair exposure in the hours ahead. That can't be allowed to happen. Not again.
Fashion in general is a minefield for vertical one-percenters like me. 'Ankle length' trousers strike mid-calf and cropped jackets tickle the ribcage. Off-the-peg tailoring is nigh-on impossible, and even so-called 'big and tall' ranges rarely measure up.
And it's important to look good because, frankly, there's more competition than ever.
Research suggests that big men may be getting bigger. In January, scientists published a paper in a journal called Biology Letters, which showed that men have grown twice as much over the past century as women.
The paper's title is quite something: 'The sexy and formidable male body: men's height and weight are condition-dependent, sexually selected traits.' Its authors speculate that women's sexual preferences may have driven a trend for taller and more muscular men. In other words, the reason that I bang my head so often may be because 20th-century women found lanky men irresistible.
In research terms, it makes a certain amount of sense. Height is associated with attraction and 'dominance' in social psychology. Previous research has found that heterosexual women have a preference for men who are taller than they are, while other work suggests that tall men earn more than short guys with the same qualifications.
Facing the day
How it all stacks up to the experience of men like me might be another thing. If I'm anything to go by, tall men are gangly, awkward and accident-prone, as the angular light fittings in my in-laws' living room will testify. I've hit my head on those more times than I remember and I do the same thing everywhere else. The handles on the bus, the neighbours' unkempt foliage, the gate to our local park, which is designed to keep out larger vehicles but is positioned low enough to present me with yet another concussion hazard.
So forget dominance; the world wasn't built for us. Need some more examples? I have many. Cars are claustrophobic. Mirrors are hung too low. Airline seats are a nightmare. Shirts never stay tucked. Canal boat holidays? They're completely out of the question.
Tall people also live in a state of constant hypervigilance, alert to the minute-by-minute threat of a rogue umbrella spoke or low-flying pigeon. I once had a bad experience with an out-of-control rotary washing line. A gust of wind caught a bedsheet and as the whole thing swung around, one of the arms squelched right into my eyeball.
Short kings may have to crane their necks every once in a while but they're rarely troubled by this eye-level menace.
Don't get me wrong, there are benefits of being tall. The one people often mention is the ability to reach stuff – but honestly, being able to grab things from the top shelf at B&Q doesn't feel like a particularly big win in the genetic lottery.
People also assume you're athletic. I grew up in south Wales, where friends told me I'd make a good second row in the rugby team (never happened; too scrawny). When I moved to London, I worked at a fitness magazine, but never came close to whipping my top off for the front cover. Aside from being the GOAT at piggy in the middle, I'm more Stephen Merchant than Martin Johnson.
High jinks
I do always have a good view at gigs. I can usually spot my children in a crowd and they can spot me. Nobody's ever picked a fight with me, as far as I can remember, although I do get passive-aggressive tuts from the people sitting behind me at the theatre. (I am sorry, but if it's any consolation, I'm curled up like a prawn for the whole performance and my spine is dangerously compressed.)
You do end up a little self-conscious about your height. Of course you do. I call it tall man syndrome. We all know that a vocal subsection of short men overcompensate for their pint-sized stature with bullish behaviour. Well, I do the opposite.
My friends will tell you I'm the least aggressive person they know. I refuse to dance because every movement is exaggerated by my ridiculous wingspan. I won't ever push past you at a busy train station because there's a reasonable chance I'll knock you over. I would like to go unseen, but incognito mode isn't among my user settings. People always see you coming.
The long goodnight
Have you ever seen a 6ft 5in man in the foetal position? It's absurd, I promise you. There's just too much anatomy, and it's all squished together and grotesquely arranged, like a murder victim stuffed into a suitcase. I know this, reader, because I was that overgrown foetus – every night, in my own bed – for the first 15 years of my adult life.
At 6ft 5in, I do not fit comfortably into many beds – and none in the various rental properties I lived in as a younger man. My feet either dangle over the end or I lie diagonally, much to the outrage of my wife. When there's no other option, I tuck my knees up pathetically and fall asleep looking like that weird Voldemort creature at the end of the last Harry Potter film.
When we bought our house 10 years ago, I insisted on a super-king bed. The vast mattress, a full 2m (or 6ft 6in) in length, was a revelation. I've slept wonderfully ever since. And yes, once or twice in the intervening years, I may have referred to myself as a super king, but who could blame me? I am quite literally above average.
There are also more serious consequences of being lanky. Researchers find that tall people have a greater risk of some cancers because, with more cells in our bodies, there are more chances of a dodgy mutation. There are also irregular heartbeats, bad backs, skin and bone infections. On the plus side, tall people are less likely to suffer coronary heart disease, high blood pressure or high cholesterol.
And that's it. Being tall has its ups and downs, just like everyone else. Yes, there are times when I am forced to bow – again, literally – to the average-sized tyranny of the modern world. But I'm a big boy. I can take it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Alcohol should have labels warning drinkers of cancer risks, charities say
Cans and bottles of beer, wine and spirits should explicitly warn drinkers that alcohol causes cancer, an unprecedented alliance of doctors, charities and public experts have said. Warning labels would tackle 'shockingly low' public awareness in the UK that alcohol is proven to cause seven forms of cancer and 17,000 cases a year of the disease, they claim. Dozens of medical and health organisations have written to Keir Starmer urging him to take the radical step of compelling alcohol producers to include such warnings in order to improve public health. The labels must be 'bold and unambiguous', said the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), which coordinated the letter. 'The evidence is clear: health labelling on alcoholic drinks is urgently needed in the UK to help save lives,' it said. 'They should carry strong, clear messages about the health risks, which include the risk of cancer, far beyond vague advice like 'consume in moderation'.' Kate Oldridge-Turner, the WCRF's head of policy and public affairs, said: 'Providing alcohol warning labels would empower millions to make informed choices by clearly understanding the risks.' Evidence cited by charities such as the WCRF and Cancer Research UK shows that alcohol increases the risk of breast, bowel, stomach, head, neck, liver and mouth cancer. Ireland is to become the first country in the world to include cancer warning labels on alcoholic products. From next May, alcohol sold in the republic will have to carry a warning that 'there is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers'. The labels will also warn that drinking can cause liver disease and affect foetuses. Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, the chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, urged the UK to follow suit. He said: 'We must look to the fearless work of our neighbours in Ireland whose new labelling policy provides a level playing field for all producers, leaving no room for loopholes or hiding information behind QR codes or tiny print. 'Improved alcohol labelling, including clear health warnings about the link to cancer, is not just a public health measure, it's a fundamental consumer right. People deserve to know the risks so they can make informed choices about their health. But current labels and weak regulations are keeping drinkers in the dark.' The drinks industry dismissed the call and said warnings would make drinkers anxious. A spokesperson for the Portman Group, a drinks industry-funded body that oversees alcohol labelling in the UK, said: 'Whilst we do not dispute the link between alcohol and certain cancers, and that drinking at harmful levels is dangerous and increases risks, blanket cancer warning labels are not a proportionate policy measure and do not put the risks into an appropriate context. 'This can create unnecessary anxiety, eroding trust in health advice and alienating the very people who require support.' The spokesperson said most alcohol products already included advice from the chief medical officers of the UK's four home nations to drink no more than 14 units of alcohol a week. 'Most people already drink within this guidance, which means their risks for associated diseases are low', they said. In February, the World Health Organization's European office declared: 'Clear and prominent health warning labels on alcohol, which include a specific cancer warning, are a cornerstone of the right to health.' In a report, it urged governments to introduce them to help reduce alcohol-related harm and raise awareness of the link between drinking and cancer. Dr Gauden Galea, a WHO adviser, said in the report that policymakers should 'resist all the pressure that will inevitably come from commercial actors' who claim such warnings do not work. In January, Vivek Murthy, the US surgeon general under the then president, Joe Biden, said cancer warning labels were needed because drinking led to about 100,000 cancer diagnoses a year in the US. It was the third most common preventable cause of cancer after tobacco and obesity, he added. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'Drinking alcohol increases the risk of a range of health issues, including several cancers. That is why we recommend people drink within the UK chief medical officer's alcohol guidelines of fewer than 14 units a week, and strongly recommend these are displayed clearly on all alcohol products. 'We recognise the need for more action on the impact of alcohol on health; for too long there has been an unwillingness to lead on this issue. Our plan for change will shift healthcare towards prevention, including through early intervention, to support people to live longer, healthier lives across the UK.'
Daily Mail
12 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Lords peers vow to fight law on assisted dying as they warn it may not 'see the light of day' despite narrow backing by MPs
Campaigners last night vowed to fight the assisted dying Bill in the Lords after MPs moved to legalise it in a historic vote. In a sign of the concern about the Bill, it passed through the Commons by just 23 votes yesterday – 32 fewer than when MPs backed it in principle in November. MPs questioned whether there was a clear mandate to introduce one of the most significant social changes in Britain for decades. And peers vowed there would be an 'attritional' fight when the legislation, decried as a 'bad Bill' after multiple amendments were laid and safeguards stripped out, moves to the House of Lords. One warned that it may not 'see the light of day'. The Commons voted 314 to 291 in favour of allowing terminally ill people to end their lives with the help of the State, meaning that when abstentions are included, a majority of MPs did not back the Bill. Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves voted in favour, while opponents included Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords, but peers said there was 'no constitutional reason' why it could not be amended significantly or even thrown out by the Upper House. Following an emotional debate in the Commons, Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'huge moment in time' and said it would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people'. TV presenter Dame Esther Rantzen, who has terminal lung cancer and led the campaign for assisted dying, said: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death.' But leading opponent Danny Kruger – whose mother, Dame Prue Leith, was outside Westminster campaigning in favour of the legalisation yesterday – said the vote showed support 'is ebbing away very fast'. The Tory MP added: 'I'm hopeful now, inspired by that debate and by the falling away of support for the Bill, that the Lords will feel they have a real job to do – to examine closely how the Bill will operate and to introduce their own amendments to make it safer, or to reject the Bill altogether.' Tory peer and former Cabinet minister Mark Harper said it was possible the Bill may not 'see the light of day'. Lord Harper, who is against assisted dying, told the Mail: 'It's not a government Bill and it wasn't in anybody's manifesto, so there is no constitutional reason why the Lords shouldn't do its job properly and amend the Bill considerably if required.' Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson – a leading opponent of assisted dying – said disabled people were 'absolutely terrified' about the Bill as she vowed to add significant safeguards in the Lords. It is thought it will take four years to implement the Bill should it clear the remaining stages this year and receive royal assent, meaning the first assisted death in Britain would take place by 2029. This would mark the first time the State sanctioned a death since capital punishment was abolished in 1965, and the Government forecasts that up to 4,500 people could end their lives early each year within a decade. Under the legislation terminally ill people in England and Wales diagnosed with less than six months to live will be allowed to seek medical help to die Opening the debate in the Commons, Spen Valley MP Ms Leadbeater said her Bill proposed a 'robust process that goes further than any other piece of legislation in the world'. She added: 'Giving dying people choice about how they die is about compassion, control, dignity and bodily autonomy. Surely we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is enough.' But after the vote, Tory MP Greg Smith said: 'It is not too late for us to step back from the brink and pull the plug on this Bill, which now lacks majority support in the Commons. I trust the House of Lords to scrutinise the Bill in depth and hope it will never reach royal assent.' Catherine Robinson, from campaign group Right To Life UK, said: 'The Bill leaves the Commons lacking a majority, with fewer than half of all MPs voting for it at its final stage. We will be fighting this Bill at every stage in the House of Lords, where we are confident it can be overturned given its continued loss of support.' The assisted dying Bill that returned to the Commons yesterday was significantly changed from the one presented to MPs at the second reading vote in November. Among radical amendments were the removal of the High Court safeguard – with a senior judge replaced by so-called 'suicide panels' made up of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker. The proposed legislation will allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Subject to approval by two doctors and an 'expert panel', the terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. Religious groups expressed horror at the Bill's passing. Bishop of London the Rt Rev Sarah Mullally, who sits in the House of Lords, said her peers 'must oppose' the Bill due to the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'.
The Guardian
19 hours ago
- The Guardian
Moment historic vote on legalising assisted dying in England and Wales passes
Assisted dying is set to become law after a historic vote in parliament, as MPs passed Kim Leadbeater's bill by 314 to 291 votes, a majority of 23, to legalise the procedure for terminally ill people. Keir Starmer backed the bill which will now head to the House of Lords, though peers are not expected to block its progress. It will give those with less than six months to live in England and Wales the right to an assisted death, after approval from two doctors and a panel including a psychiatrist, social worker and senior lawyer
