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...:).
One has to factor in ancestral genetic traits and continuance of recurring nutritional trends in determining health characteristics. Crossing short with tall may inject undesirable characteristics or may even reduce longevity in taller offspring. It needs to be nutritionally consistent from generation to generation, and also needs to be closed loop from genetic interference for the concept to be fully appreciated.
From a pure science or lab test perspective, I believe group of people could be created (bred) based on superior dietary principles to outlive the status quo and in fact be larger at the same time. It just all gets too intermixed (cross bred) for anyone to conduct a proper study thus far imo. No such study exists where people have been quizzed and verified on their dietary and life habits and makes sure to mate with the same criteria over many generations.
We are all directly the keepers of our genomes and blood lines. It's either improved or degraded according to how we live, eat, breathe, and passed forward. If it's "hit the ground running" every generation and all cylinders are firing each cycle for optimal health...well, this is how one obtains superior genetics and ultimately shatters pre conceived "societal norms"
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
One has to factor in ancestral genetic traits and continuance of recurring nutritional trends in determining health characteristics. Crossing short with tall may inject undesirable characteristics or may even reduce longevity in taller offspring. It needs to be nutritionally consistent from generation to generation, and also needs to be closed loop from genetic interference for the concept to be fully appreciated.
From a pure science or lab test perspective, I believe group of people could be created (bred) based on superior dietary principles to outlive the status quo and in fact be larger at the same time. It just all gets too intermixed (cross bred) for anyone to conduct a proper study thus far imo. No such study exists where people have been quizzed and verified on their dietary and life habits and makes sure to mate with the same criteria over many generations.
We are all directly the keepers of our genomes and blood lines. It's either improved or degraded according to how we live, eat, breathe, and passed forward. If it's "hit the ground running" every generation and all cylinders are firing each cycle for optimal health...well, this is how one obtains superior genetics and ultimately shatters pre conceived "societal norms"
Way too tired roland, if i dont get to sleep soon and therefore get a good sleep before the next slog im likely to shrink an inch or two. Initial thoughts..I know a few examples of two shorter people having tall offspring and vice versa. Also images of lab rats.
Yup, there are genetic factors that contribute to height. There are environmental factors that contribute to height. There are pre-natal factors that can contribute to height. And there is a shit ton of conjecture in the original artical that attempts to show correlation between height and health, but shows no causality. That was the only point of contention, and so it remains.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Yup, there are genetic factors that contribute to height. There are environmental factors that contribute to height. There are pre-natal factors that can contribute to height. And there is a shit ton of conjecture in the original artical that attempts to show correlation between height and health, but shows no causality. That was the only point of contention, and so it remains.
The principle that nutrition deficiencies v.s. non and how it's related to growth also remains.
You would like to make growth pre conceived to fit your specific definition for sake of being right in this matter . I on the other hand recognise that growth in fact most definitely includes height as part of the equation. I'm not sure you understand how the science of genetics in this ideology in a controlled environment fits together to complete the picture.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
A study conducted in Helsinki recorded height and weight measurements of 13,000 children in 1934-1944. Social conditions are known, as are hospitalizations later in life. Children who later developed stroke had below-average BMI at every stage, the socioeconomic conditions they were born into did not matter, and their mothers were short. Three pelvic measurements were taken of the mothers in the study. The conjugate measurement, which measures the pelvis from back to front, is a marker of a woman’s early childhood. Smaller measurements reflect poor nutrition early in life. Children with mothers who have a conjugate measurement of less than 18cm have an increased risk for stroke and hypertension. Systems of the body are established early—one explanation of low stature is that poor protein in the mother can lead to poor protein in the baby, which can subsequently lead to an inability to grow.
In the study, men born small, who remained smaller and thinner before the age of two, had a higher risk of CHD. Smaller babies can have altered liver functions, leading to higher risk of CHD. In addition, maximum fetal renal growth occurs before 34 weeks of gestation. Individuals who were small at 34 weeks and have a smaller number of kidney units, but who grow a bigger body later, put their kidneys under strain. The smaller babies caught up in BMI after two years, but tempo of growth is what matters.
Barker described a cycle of inequality that leads to intergenerational health transfers. Mothers acquire metabolic incompetence in their infancy through deficient, unbalanced, and unvaried diets. In turn, the mother’s fetus has slow growth, functional incapacity, and metabolic incompetence. The infant has continued slow growth, poor cognitive development, and metabolic incompetence. The child consumes excess calories and has an unvaried diet, leading to fat accumulation- this leads to adult risk factors for CHD, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis. In this way, women carry their own deficiencies to their offspring.
The “Stroke Belt” in the Southeast of the United States has a high incidence of stroke that can’t be explained by studying people today, but can be explained by the metabolic incompetence of girls in the previous generation. This shows that it is necessary to look at intergenerational effects when studying health outcomes.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You would like to make growth pre conceived to fit your specific definition for sake of being right in this matter .
This is a shining example of your lack of self-awareness. It is actually you who are trying to make your preconceived notions fit into a nice package. I, on the other hand, have been trying to show that there may be multiple explanations, and that there is still healthy debate to be had. You don't want to hear any explanations that fall outside of your view, so you blow everyone else off as lacking common sense.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I study public health at a medical school and this is one of the first things we are taught.
The first thing I learnt in public health is that there is a big difference between correlations and links of causality. I can easily prove that people with brown hair are more likely to be overweight. It just won't mean anything. That's what I blame on the paper, it doesn't define what is a good diet (vs. a bad one), it doesn't show significant differences between the average height of a european vs. an american and it doesn't give the begining of a scientific/biological explanation of why eating a "good diet" makes you taller, rather than gives you a beautiful skin for instance. It just lacks demonstration.
Is there a big public health issue on nutrition in western countries? Definitely, but these problems are identified, documented and supported by sound science. And it has more to do with our waist size than our height.
Personally I think it's all the shitty GMO corn that nearly everything is made from...
are you loco, man????
how could splicing fish dna w/ a tomato possibly be a bad idea??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
One has to factor in ancestral genetic traits and continuance of recurring nutritional trends in determining health characteristics. Crossing short with tall may inject undesirable characteristics or may even reduce longevity in taller offspring. It needs to be nutritionally consistent from generation to generation, and also needs to be closed loop from genetic interference for the concept to be fully appreciated.
From a pure science or lab test perspective, I believe group of people could be created (bred) based on superior dietary principles to outlive the status quo and in fact be larger at the same time. It just all gets too intermixed (cross bred) for anyone to conduct a proper study thus far imo. No such study exists where people have been quizzed and verified on their dietary and life habits and makes sure to mate with the same criteria over many generations.
We are all directly the keepers of our genomes and blood lines. It's either improved or degraded according to how we live, eat, breathe, and passed forward. If it's "hit the ground running" every generation and all cylinders are firing each cycle for optimal health...well, this is how one obtains superior genetics and ultimately shatters pre conceived "societal norms"
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Way too tired roland, if i dont get to sleep soon and therefore get a good sleep before the next slog im likely to shrink an inch or two. Initial thoughts..I know a few examples of two shorter people having tall offspring and vice versa. Also images of lab rats.
The principle that nutrition deficiencies v.s. non and how it's related to growth also remains.
You would like to make growth pre conceived to fit your specific definition for sake of being right in this matter . I on the other hand recognise that growth in fact most definitely includes height as part of the equation. I'm not sure you understand how the science of genetics in this ideology in a controlled environment fits together to complete the picture.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.jayspeaks.com/images/the_evolution_of_man.jpg
and
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_apr2006/EvolutionOfMan.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_apr2006/EvolutionOfMan.htm&h=497&w=999&sz=99&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=dDw-9jbxbgcTPM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3Devolution%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Please elaborate.
I'm sure you have access to much more research, but I remembered reading this a few weeks ago looking for something else.
http://weblamp.princeton.edu/chw/conferences/Conference_summary_final_06.pdf
This is a shining example of your lack of self-awareness. It is actually you who are trying to make your preconceived notions fit into a nice package. I, on the other hand, have been trying to show that there may be multiple explanations, and that there is still healthy debate to be had. You don't want to hear any explanations that fall outside of your view, so you blow everyone else off as lacking common sense.
Is there a big public health issue on nutrition in western countries? Definitely, but these problems are identified, documented and supported by sound science. And it has more to do with our waist size than our height.
are you loco, man????
how could splicing fish dna w/ a tomato possibly be a bad idea??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Gambling=a taxation on stupidity.
Remember, you can walk anywhere, as long as you have the time.
http://www.ryanmontbleauband.com/
http://www.myspace.com/jessedee