First off, you are totally right about the difference between accepting the existence of terminal length and accepting how few people will reach their terminal length.
*I only pointed out the high unlikelihood of anyone reaching terminal length because I feel like it is an overrated assumption connected with plateaus*
IMO, it's somewhat useless to argue "terminal length" scientifically because for practical purposes, that is virtually impossible. A more appropriate term is "practical terminal length" or something like that because few (if any) people are willing or able to do what's necessary to accomplish "terminal length" in the scientific sense (ie in a perfect vacuum). So even if a person has "average" growth, their RETENTION is what determines length, and for the reasons above, 100% retention is nearly impossible, therefore "terminal length," scientifically speaking, is nearly impossible.
Averages are great for generalizations. But by their very definition, are ineffective at describing a SPECIFIC case, such as OPs possible terminal length. So assuming, or considering, a SPECIFIC case by an average growth rate is, imo, ineffective for anything but comparison. Now if OP tracks and monitors her hair growth methodically, tracking shedding versus breakage and her hair's reactions to different products (which I hope she'll do so so she can get over her plateau), she won't need an "average" anything.
I agree with you, for the most part. There is a referenced average growth rate and range of growth time. It is reasonable to assume that someone in that range could be near their terminal length. But I wasn't saying that the OP was at her terminal length (though she could be), just that there is a off switch for hair growth. Not believing in terminal length (something that common sense and science confirm) and believing that most people haven't or won't hit their terminal length are two totally different things.
Sent using LHCF app