Why Americans Are No Longer the Tallest People in the World

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's not about eating anything and everything. It's about eating the right things.

The human body has a preferred combination, and sequence of nutritional needs.

Fast food, sugar, fat, and salt, (not to mention a insane host of chemicals) is seriously epidemic in the western diet.

All these substances in the typical western dosages detract for health and vibrancy.

All of these things may be true. You may even be able to talk about a correlation between the above and height. BUT there is still no causality demonstrated in the article. And "common sense" doesn't cut it. Yes, eat better and be healthier by all means. But to jump from that to eat better and be taller is silly.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

All of these things may be true. You may even be able to talk about a correlation between the above and height. BUT there is still no causality demonstrated in the article. And "common sense" doesn't cut it. Yes, eat better and be healthier by all means. But to jump from that to eat better and be taller is silly.

Yeah well it takes successive generations. Which direction do you think bigger and stronger means exactly as far as common sense goes?

You put more energy into something and it grows. How do you think people grow...sideways? diagonally?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cheeseandrice wrote:

Well, my grandmother was born in 1901 and my mother's family grew their own vegetables and fruits and made fresh everything. So why are they so short?

I was born 69 years later and have a totally different diet. I eat fast food 3-4 times a week.

I am short because my mother and father were short and my grandmother and grandfather were short. That's all.

Maybe we're getting shorter because a lot of tall men like short women? I don't know...just another stupid theory.

see "evolution"

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah well it takes successive generations. Which direction do you think bigger and stronger means exactly as far as common sense goes?

You put more energy into something and it grows. How do you think people grow...sideways? diagonally?

Maybe common sense would say that it would result in denser bone structure and musculature, rather than height, especially since your common sense referenced "bigger & stronger".

I guess that is why only relying on "common sense" to explain things can be a tricky proposition.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

Maybe common sense would say that it would result in denser bone structure and musculature, rather than height, especially since your common sense referenced "bigger & stronger".

I guess that is why only relying on "common sense" to explain things can be a tricky proposition.

I believe if you look through history you will see societies with better nutrition were in fact taller societies in general.

I always thought this was common knowledge. Perhaps not.

Perhaps evolutionary growth only happens on a horizontal plane, while vertical is excluded altogether.

Kann

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That analogy is not even connected to science. If you take two groups of anything alive/living on this planet, and one is group is nourished better, they grow more. It's just the way it is.

That's absolutely not true. It depends what you feed the groups, if it's fruit that's up high in the trees than I'll agree, chances are this group will grow. But if the group's eating fruit fallen on the ground, then no I disagree. What you eat, wether it's better or not (and how do you decide what is "better"?), doesn't necessarily mean you'll grow bigger.
Ok, so common sense was once : drilling holes in your head to cure mental diseases, obviously caused by mean spirits trapped under your skull. Scientifically approved method at the time btw.

Specifics

well...i'm thinking Jet Li and Bruce Lee. And i'm still gonna answer tall people that want to show off about it sarcasm about "awesome achievements" and an offer to find out who's the better fighter..:)

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kann wrote:

That's absolutely not true. It depends what you feed the groups, if it's fruit that's up high in the trees than I'll agree, chances are this group will grow. But if the group's eating fruit fallen on the ground, then no I disagree. What you eat, wether it's better or not (and how do you decide what is "better"?), doesn't necessarily mean you'll grow bigger.
Ok, so common sense was once : drilling holes in your head to cure mental diseases, obviously caused by mean spirits trapped under your skull. Scientifically approved method at the time btw.

You're missing the point. I'm not talking pseudo-science of medieval times which was essentially random witchcraft, and idiocy. There's no science to be found there in comparison. Optimal nutrition is a specific equation. You put the right sequence of energy demands into any organic entity, and it flourishes. Extrapolate that.

Why I'm having to debate this reality I don't know.

_

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why I'm having to debate this reality I don't know.

I'm kinda confused about that myself.

jeffbr

scb wrote:

I'm kinda confused about that myself.

I hope you two enjoy being confused together then. Lots of confusion exists when it comes to "common sense" and nutrition. Just go into a bookstore and look at the shelves and shelves of diet and nutrition books, most of which rely on common sense. Obviously it makes sense to cut out the fat. Or maybe common sense says Atkins is right and you really need to load up on the protiens and cut the carbs. Or maybe it is processed sugar. Or perhaps the only way to get healthy is eating a raw diet just as animals do in nature. Or maybe vegans are the healthiest. Or maybe just eating a balanced diet in moderation with exercise will do the trick.

The point is that Roland is comfortable with his very own "common sense", but some of us think his common sense isn't so common, so we're just looking for a little science. I know that may be confusing, so thanks for bearing with us.

_

jeffbr wrote:

I hope you two enjoy being confused together then. Lots of confusion exists when it comes to "common sense" and nutrition. Just go into a bookstore and look at the shelves and shelves of diet and nutrition books, most of which rely on common sense. Obviously it makes sense to cut out the fat. Or maybe common sense says Atkins is right and you really need to load up on the protiens and cut the carbs. Or maybe it is processed sugar. Or perhaps the only way to get healthy is eating a raw diet just as animals do in nature. Or maybe vegans are the healthiest. Or maybe just eating a balanced diet in moderation with exercise will do the trick.

The point is that Roland is comfortable with his very own "common sense", but some of us think his common sense isn't so common, so we're just looking for a little science. I know that may be confusing, so thanks for bearing with us.

I didn't say anything about common sense. I thought it was common knowledge though. I don't have time to do research for you and post studies, but have you tried doing any?

jeffbr

scb wrote:

I didn't say anything about common sense. I thought it was common knowledge though. I don't have time to do research for you and post studies, but have you tried doing any?

You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?

_

jeffbr wrote:

You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?

I'm not suggesting that anyone should believe something merely because it's common knowledge - only that I'm surprised it's being debated that the height of a society is an indicator of nutritional sufficiency. I thought most people were aware of this. I study public health at a medical school and this is one of the first things we are taught.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

knowledge...sense...sigh

understanding...

hairs to split...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?

Why equate the extremely limited knowledge of ancient times when there was no such thing as combustion engine, or toilet paper, or even pencils, for that matter...with modern scientific advances as a valid example to prove an argument?

yikes...

Even just going on the laws of energy alone it makes sense to me. More energy in = more growth. It's like 1 + 1 = 2 to me.

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why equate the extremely limited knowledge of ancient times when there was no such thing as combustion engine, or toilet paper, or even pencils, for that matter...with modern scientific advances as a valid example to prove an argument?

yikes...

Even just going on the laws of energy alone it makes sense to me. More energy in = more growth. It's like 1 + 1 = 2 to me.

Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?

I'm thinking bones. Core structure. Core principles.

That's how it works in my head.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

related article...

Consequences of the American Processed Foods Diet:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023459.html

"Regrettably, the processed food industry wastes over $33 billion per year in advertising to lure people to consume sugar-laden, fast, junk foods. These processed foods are overloaded with hydrogenated oil, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and trans fats. While lacking in necessary nutrition, processed foods' main ingredients are nutrient empty sugar, water, fat, flour, starch, artificial colorings and flavors. In 2002 alone, the processed food industry sold over $174 billion worth of this adulterated combination by fabricating thousands of cookies, crackers, puddings, cakes, soft drinks, and other concoctions.

The ensuing outcome is America has become a factory of wide spread obesity and chronic disease where a huge number of Americans are then sent on to the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry. In 2007, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health warned: if not halted, the ever-increasing obesity crisis will explode by 2015 to 24% of children and adolescents being overweight or obese, and 75% of adults being overweight with 41% being obese.

Currently over fifty percent of people with severe weight problems have diabetes alone. At this time, the CDC and NIH have estimated over 7% of our population has a form of diabetes for a total of over 21 million people but nearly a third are undiagnosed. In 2007, indirect and direct medical cost of diabetes is estimated at over $174 billion. Presently these numbers are exploding daily and tangible statistics are difficult to obtain to keep up with the reality of our diabetes epidemic.

It is very distressing that American society has chosen this lifestyle in view of the fact that 1970's nutritional experts' research data revealed patterns of eating has a direct influence on illnesses. By the 1980's publicized research revealed populations consuming more fruits, vegetables, and high fiber foods experienced lower disease rates. Two well-researched examples are the whole grains, nuts, seeds, fresh fruits and vegetables, and olive oil rich Mediterranean diet, and the South Pacific diets with copious amounts of coconut oil. Even something as simple as water has a profound affect on health. Last year, Loma Linda University research revealed something as uncomplicated as 5 glasses of water per day reduces the risk of our number one cause of death heart attack by 50%. Since we have three decades worth of proven research on the benefits of a healthy diet, but are not applying this knowledge, one has to contemplate just what our goals are as a society.

Experts have estimated twice the current acreage would have to be planted for farms to grow the amount of fruits and vegetables necessary for Americans to consume healthy diets. Deplorably, American politicians stubbornly continue to pander to lobbied interests and subsidize the processed foods industries while blatantly disregarding the health and well being of American citizens. The ever mutating Amended H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, otherwise known as the Farm Bill, is supposed to provide for the continuation of our country's agricultural programs through 2012. For months the Senate and House have been wrangling over our country's next five-year plan but when they finally agree on it, President Bush will probably veto it due to disagreements regarding crop subsidies. The Citizens Against Government Waste states there is no significant reform in HR 2419 and are encouraging the President to stick with his veto threat. The result of all this is our nation has a completely out of balance healthcare and agricultural economics policy which is now affecting the rest of the planet."

_

jeffbr wrote:

Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?

I think scientists want to track trends over time and they are not able to track BMI, rate of hair and nail growth, etc. from the past as well as they can track height.

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'm thinking bones. Core structure. Core principles.

That's how it works in my head.

That's why I asked a number of posts ago why you wouldn't think bone density would be a better indicator than height. I'd think a solidly built 5'11" would be "healthier" than a rickety 6'7" for all sorts of reasons.