Why Americans Are No Longer the Tallest People in the World

jeffbr

scb wrote:

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.

Absolutely. I was just throwing "newer" in there because Roland was arguing that his common sense was better than older common sense because of newer data points or science.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

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.

Not all tall people are skinny.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

Absolutely. I was just throwing "newer" in there because Roland was arguing that his common sense was better than older common sense because of newer data points or science.

I dunno, you get/put energy into something more efficiently, and it grows accordingly.

Seems really simple to me.

Not sure why you find this scenario complicated.

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Not all tall people are skinny.

Now you're getting it! That's precisely why height may not be the best indicator. It may be all we had to work with historically, but may not actually tell the story.

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I dunno, you get/put energy into something more efficiently, and it grows accordingly.

Seems really simple to me.

Not sure why you find this scenario complicated.

It is funny. I find your scenario overly simplistic, not overly complicated. It is you who doesn't want to look beyond height with everything from your 1+1 = 2, to energy in = tall equations.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

It is funny. I find your scenario overly simplistic, not overly complicated. It is you who doesn't want to look beyond height with everything from your 1+1 = 2, to energy in = tall equations.

I already asked you how you think something grows. Apparently height was not a consideration in something getting bigger or growing. There is a law of ratios that nature tends to adhere to. You're aware of that right?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

Now you're getting it! That's precisely why height may not be the best indicator. It may be all we had to work with historically, but may not actually tell the story.

Or it might totally. moot point.

NMyTree

How many 60-70 year old people do you see walking around, who are 6' 5" or taller?


No many. If any at all.

This whole concept of taller equals healthier is rather silly and hardly seems based on any real scientific/biological fact.

I don't even know where this connection between height and longevity came from.

My grandmother was no taller than 5' 2 " her whole life and lived to be 96 years old. We had Grandfathers who were between 5' 6" and 5' 9" respectively, who lived into their 80s and 90s.

I've known/met several older men and women not related to me who are all into their 80s/90s and they are below 5' 10".

If anything, what I have seen id that people who are taller than 6' 1"/6' 2" generally don't seem to live past their 60s.......maybe early 70s.

And people who are 6' 5" or taller seem to live shorter live spans than that.

I notice athletes who are unusually tall ( 6' 4" and up), experience a breakdown or deterioration of their bodies much quicker/sooner than athletes who are shorter. The knees being one of the most vulerable joints/body parts.

While I may be refering to athletes, it seems to apply to a lot of unusally tall non-athletic people.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

NMyTree wrote:

How many 60-70 year old people do you see walking around, who are 6' 5" or taller?


No many. If any at all.

This whole concept of taller equals healthier is rather silly and hardly seems based on any real scientific/biological fact.

I don't even know where this connection between height and longevity came from.

My grandmother was no taller than 5' 2 " her whole life and lived to be 96 years old. We had Grandfathers who were between 5' 6" and 5' 9" respectively, who lived into their 80s and 90s.

I've known/met several older men and women not related to me who are all into their 80s/90s and they are below 5' 10".

If anything, what I have seen id that people who are taller than 6' 1"/6' 2" generally don't seem to live past their 60s.......maybe early 70s.

And people who are 6' 5" or taller seem to live shorter live spans than that.

I notice athletes who are unusually tall ( 6' 4" and up), experience a breakdown or deterioration of their bodies much quicker/sooner than athletes who are shorter. The knees being one of the most vulerable joints/body parts.

While I may be refering to athletes, it seems to apply to a lot of unusally tall non-athletic people.

It's a growth v.s. nutrition connection over successive generations. More positive energy in = more of anything. It has to go somewhere. If you build something up better....it's gets built up better....v.s something that does not.

Sludge Factory

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

related article...

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


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.

Maybe it's all a matter of how much we poo and pee. The more you go the better chance you have of excreting something that, if left inside for awhile, could gestate into an illness.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Sludge Factory wrote:

Maybe it's all a matter of how much we poo and pee. The more you go the better chance you have of excreting something that, if left inside for awhile, could gestate into an illness.

Actually that's more or less correct. There's something called leaky gut syndrome which is essentially what you described. Not sure how detrimental it is to hold in your urine for extended periods of time though, probably not so great either. Not voiding in and around twice a day is not good. Some people go only once every few days. Urinating, somewhere around 4-6 times a day is pretty common for well hydrated people.

Scientists have kept cells alive for something like 20 years just by removing all the waste byproducts it produced. The same cell would normally have a few months of life in comparison.

Sludge Factory

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually that's more or less correct. There's something called leaky gut syndrome which is essentially what you described. Not sure how detrimental it is to hold in your urine for extended periods of time though, probably not so great either. Not voiding in and around twice a day is not good. Some people go only once every few days. Urinating, somewhere around 4-6 times a day is pretty common for well hydrated people.

Scientists have kept cells alive for something like 20 years just by removing all the waste byproducts it produced. The same cell would normally have a few months of life in comparison.

All I know is I take far more dumps than most people at the place I work. Hell, I take far more than most of my friends...I'd have to say I average about 4 a day. I guess I'm also alot skinnier than most people there too. Bring on the BM's!!!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Sludge Factory wrote:

All I know is I take far more dumps than most people at the place I work. Hell, I take far more than most of my friends...I'd have to say I average about 4 a day. I guess I'm also alot skinnier than most people there too. Bring on the BM's!!!

lol.... I'm around three myself. It's a good thing.

Songburst

cheeseandrice wrote:

??? My whole family is short and fat (except for me, I am short and skinny) and the average age of death is around 80-90 years old. We are Italian and we eat everything and anything. That's all we talk about is food. The shortest people in the world live the longest. I don't think there is a link between height and longevity, nor do I believe that tall people are tall because they eat better.

You don't really see too many tall old guys do you? I'm 6'3" so I guess I'm in for an early check-out. Ah well -- I had a good run.

hrd2imgn

maybe, but we are for certain getting longer ;-)

Specifics

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071721

no, i dont know how you do that

edit, don't worry does it on its own:)

Specifics

i read this yesterday by the way, after 1 google search, about 4 clicks down.

didn't really want to get involved in the whole pissing contest, but i do get annoyed when tall people try and claim it as an achievement...i probably do too much getting annoyed, but fuck you!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Specifics wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071721

no, i dont know how you do that

edit, don't worry does it on its own:)

There are genetic dispositions attributed to any scenario. One has to understand factors affecting the genome, and what genetic traits affects what. Maybe I take too much for granted here.

The Okinawans ancestors (for example) may have gone through a long series of nutritional hardships that in effect set their height at a pre-disposed status. Your report does not talk about ancestral genetic attributes or potential hardships or other environmental factors in forming its conclusion.

The findings in the original article were not tall = healthy but rather better nutritional habits leads to more growth of a populous (in comparison) in general.

It's just a simple concept of comparing two precisely similar groups of people wherby one is nutritionally deficient and one isnt . The group that isn't deficient will grow taller, bigger, and stronger.

dead simple concept

Specifics

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There are genetic dispositions attributed to any scenario. One has to understand factors affecting the genome, and what genetic traits affects what. Maybe I take too much for granted here.

The Okinawans ancestors (for example) may have gone through a long series of nutritional hardships that in effect set their height at a pre-disposed status. Your report does not talk about ancestral genetic attributes or potential hardships or other environmental factors in forming its conclusion.

The findings in the original article were not tall = healthy but rather better nutritional habits leads to more growth of a populous (in comparison) in general.

It's just a simple concept of comparing two precisely similar groups of people wherby one is nutritionally deficient and one isnt . The group that isn't deficient will grow taller, bigger, and stronger.

dead simple concept

you just beat me to it actually, was going to say it doesnt actually deal with your whole argument.

It does pretty conclusively suggest that increased height doesnt equal increased health, in fact quite the opposite. it does also suggest im going to be in an ok position at 5'10", and my moneys on jet li to win a fight against hulk hogan, so all in all my issues on the subject are satisfied...:).

Specifics

I am aware im a bit of date with hulk hogan, but i dont keep up with wrestling, i know of the the rock, but he's more of a chef ye? anyways im just being a dick.
crack on.