The Uncertainty of facial/maxilla measurements in the Mew’s literature.

[277]

There are some major issues with the cheek line indicator and the indicator line. The simple issue is that; the measurement claims it can measure the position of the underlying skeletal structure, by measuring its relation to soft tissues.. Two major issues arise from this;

1. The variation of phenotypes and their respective tissue traits, think “the Greek nose” a hooked nasal aperture is not always a sign of a mid face deficiency , another example would be Asian eyelids, just google side profile images of Japanese models and you will notice a lot of them have a larger lower eyelid that can protrude away from the maxilla, this would create significant discrepancies/comfounds within the “cheek line measurement” as almost all of the Japanese population would be seen deficient by this scale of measurement..
2. The soft tissues including the eyelids, cheeks, and nose can change significantly based upon weight, hormonal changes, hydration, muscle tone, inflammation, allergies, etc.. the only real way to get an accurate measurement of jaws and Maxillas, are carefully calibrated xrays and scans that can measure the skeletal structure itself and its relationship to other references points that are bone and not tissue. Even then you would have to consider chin points, as yet another confound when examining across phenotypes.

I also recall an indicator line table carving out a specific exception for an increased indicator line length for Scandinavians, though that measurement table is now pay walled. You can read about the Scandinavian exemption in some of the “facial diagnostic” literature. Upon further investigation, these some of these standards were compiled from a pool of 5 children.. hardly a comprehensive representation but I guess it’s better than nothing.

The point is, these measurement tables are guidelines. But upon some scrutiny, the claim that you can diagnose and measure maxilla deficiencies based upon two measurements which use soft tissue as the main reference point - is not reliable, and quickly falls apart when you look outside of the European phenotype.

This post is for all the people out there taking these measurement tables as the complete truth. Even Mike Mew would be the first to tell you to consider, “the overall harmony of the facial structure” and though these measurements maybe a very generalized way to measure maxilla protraction, they really do fall apart when considering global phenotypes.

For context, I’m 28M and have been mewing since I was 21. I’ve noticed significant changes over my time mewing, and I want to thank the Mews for their help and for improving my life and appearance. But I also want to shed light on this issue, as it seems like it’s creating some unrealistic beauty standards, and it’s being exploited by the looksmaxing community.

 

[idkmanimao]

View attachment 3718621There are some major issues with the cheek line indicator and the indicator line. The simple issue is that; the measurement claims it can measure the position of the underlying skeletal structure, by measuring its relation to soft tissues.. Two major issues arise from this;

1. The variation of phenotypes and their respective tissue traits, think “the Greek nose” a hooked nasal aperture is not always a sign of a mid face deficiency , another example would be Asian eyelids, just google side profile images of Japanese models and you will notice a lot of them have a larger lower eyelid that can protrude away from the maxilla, this would create significant discrepancies/comfounds within the “cheek line measurement” as almost all of the Japanese population would be seen deficient by this scale of measurement..
2. The soft tissues including the eyelids, cheeks, and nose can change significantly based upon weight, hormonal changes, hydration, muscle tone, inflammation, allergies, etc.. the only real way to get an accurate measurement of jaws and Maxillas, are carefully calibrated xrays and scans that can measure the skeletal structure itself and its relationship to other references points that are bone and not tissue. Even then you would have to consider chin points, as yet another confound when examining across phenotypes.

I also recall an indicator line table carving out a specific exception for an increased indicator line length for Scandinavians, though that measurement table is now pay walled. You can read about the Scandinavian exemption in some of the “facial diagnostic” literature. Upon further investigation, these some of these standards were compiled from a pool of 5 children.. hardly a comprehensive representation but I guess it’s better than nothing.

The point is, these measurement tables are guidelines. But upon some scrutiny, the claim that you can diagnose and measure maxilla deficiencies based upon two measurements which use soft tissue as the main reference point - is not reliable, and quickly falls apart when you look outside of the European phenotype.

This post is for all the people out there taking these measurement tables as the complete truth. Even Mike Mew would be the first to tell you to consider, “the overall harmony of the facial structure” and though these measurements maybe a very generalized way to measure maxilla protraction, they really do fall apart when considering global phenotypes.

For context, I’m 28M and have been mewing since I was 21. I’ve noticed significant changes over my time mewing, and I want to thank the Mews for their help and for improving my life and appearance. But I also want to shed light on this issue, as it seems like it’s creating some unrealistic beauty standards, and it’s being exploited by the looksmaxing community.

DNR a single fucking word, if I dm you a pic can you tell me which is mine?