Limb Lengthening Forum
Community Hangout => Off Topic => Topic started by: myloginacct on March 17, 2018, 09:20:34 AM
-
I'm mostly just continuing from an older post.¹
Height Gains Over the Last 100 Years
(https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig3-v2.tif/full/,1500/0/default.jpg)
Some notables quotes from this study:
We estimated that people born in 1896 were shortest in Asia and in Central and Andean Latin America (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The 1896 male birth cohort on average measured only 152.9 cm (credible interval 147.9–157.9) in Laos, which is the same as a well-nourished 12.5-year boy according to international growth standards (de Onis et al., 2007), followed by Timor-Leste and Guatemala. Women born in the same year in Guatemala were on average 140.3 cm (135.8–144.8 ), the same as a well-nourished 10-year girl. El Salvador, Peru, Bangladesh, South Korea and Japan had the next shortest women. The tallest populations a century ago lived in Central and Northern Europe, North America and some Pacific islands. The height of men born in Sweden, Norway and the USA surpassed 171 cm, ~18–19 cm taller than men in Laos. Swedish women, with average adult height of 160.3 cm (158.2–162.4), were the tallest a century ago and 20 cm taller than women in Guatemala. Women were also taller than 158 cm in Norway, Iceland, the USA and American Samoa.
Average Male Height 100 Years Ago
(https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig1-v2.tif/full/,1500/0/default.jpg)
Female Height 100 Years Ago
(https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig2-v2.tif/full/,1500/0/default.jpg)
Look at that. Japanese males used to be around 155cm, and females under 145cm. Being around 170cm had you among the tallest in the world. Now the Japanese males average 170cm. Crazy. This will lead us to my next highlights.
Changes in adult height over the century of analysis varied drastically across countries. Notably, although the large increases in European men’s heights in the 19th and 20th century have been highlighted, we found that the largest gains since the 1896 birth cohort occurred in South Korean women and Iranian men, who became 20.2 cm (17.5–22.7) and 16.5 cm (13.3–19.7) taller, respectively (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). As a result, South Korean women moved from the fifth shortest to the top tertile of tallest women in the world over the course of a century. Men in South Korea also had large gains relative to other countries, by 15.2 cm (12.3–18.1). There were also large gains in height in Japan, Greenland, some countries in Southern Europe (e.g., Greece) and Central Europe (e.g., Serbia and Poland, and for women Czech Republic). In contrast, there was little gain in height in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
On Height Plateauing:
The pace of growth in height has not been uniform over the past century. The impressive rise in height in Japan stopped in people born after the early 1960s (Figure 6). In South Korea, the flattening began in the cohorts born in the 1980s for men and it may have just begun in women. As a result, South Korean men and women are now taller than their Japanese counterparts. The rise is continuing in other East and Southeast Asian countries like China and Thailand, with Chinese men and women having surpassed the Japanese (but not yet as tall as South Koreans). The rise in adult height also seems to have plateaued in South Asian countries like Bangladesh and India at much lower levels than in East Asia, e.g., 5–10 cm shorter than it did in Japan and South Korea.
There were also variations in the time course of height change across high-income western countries, with height increase having plateaued in Northern European countries like Finland and in English-speaking countries like the UK for 2–3 decades (Larnkaer et al., 2006; Schönbeck et al., 2013), followed by Eastern Europe (Figure 7). The earliest of these occurred in the USA, which was one of the tallest nations a century ago but has now fallen behind its European counterparts after having had the smallest gain in height of any high-income country (Tanner, 1981; Komlos and Lauderdale, 2007; Komlos and Baur, 2004; Sokoloff and Villaflor, 1982). In contrast, height is still increasing in some Southern European countries (e.g., Spain), and in many countries in Latin America.
(https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig7-v2.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg)
Depending where you live, you won't have to worry about getting significantly dwarfed by future generations. There seems to be a limit to how tall a population can quickly get over the span of a few generations.
Other Trends:
As an exception to the steady gains in most countries, adult height decreased or at best remained the same in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa for cohorts born after the early 1960s, by around 5 cm from its peak in some countries (see for example Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Uganda in Figure 8 ). More recently, the same seems to have happened for men, but not women, in some countries in Central Asia (e.g., Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan) and Middle East and North Africa (e.g., Egypt and Yemen), whereas in others (e.g., Iran) both sxxes continue to grow taller.
(https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig8-v2.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg)
Global Extremes: Then vs Now
Men born in 1996 surpass average heights of 181 cm in the Netherlands, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia and Denmark, with Dutch men, at 182.5 cm (180.6–184.5), the tallest people on the planet. The gap with the shortest countries – Timor-Leste, Yemen and Laos, where men are only ~160 cm tall – is 22–23 cm, an increase of ~4 cm on the global gap in the 1896 birth cohort. Australia was the only non-European country where men born in 1996 were among the 25 tallest in the world. Women born in 1996 are shortest in Guatemala, with an average height of 149.4 cm (148.0–150.8 ), and are shorter than 151 cm in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Nepal. The tallest women live in Latvia, the Netherlands, Estonia and Czech Republic, with average height surpassing 168 cm, creating a 20 cm global gap in women’s height.
Male and female heights were correlated across countries in 1896 as well as in 1996. Men were taller than women in every country, on average by ~11 cm in the 1896 birth cohort and ~12 cm in the 1996 birth cohort (Figure 9). In the 1896 birth cohort, the male-female height gap in countries where average height was low was slightly larger than in taller nations. In other words, at the turn of the 20th century, men seem to have had a relative advantage over women in undernourished compared to better-nourished populations. A century later, the male-female height gap is about the same throughout the height range.
¹ (http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=4975.msg82919#msg82919)
Discuss, if inclined.
-
The term "height plateau" is such beautiful soul-bleach to me, I only need to read it and it feels like all my fears of being dwarfed for the rest of my life dissolve...ast least for a while.
Thanks for the post.
Women born in 1996 are shortest in Guatemala, with an average height of 149.4 cm (148.0–150.8 ), and are shorter than 151 cm in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Nepal.
That is just incredible. I've never been to these places, but to think that women are only 150 cm tall on average, in the Philippines, is just...very hard to believe?
-
The term "height plateau" is such beautiful soul-bleach to me, I only need to read it and it feels like all my fears of being dwarfed for the rest of my life dissolve...ast least for a while.
Thanks for the post.
That is just incredible. I've never been to these places, but to think that women are only 150 cm tall on average, in the Philippines, is just...very hard to believe?
I don't find it hard to believe it all. But they should be a bit taller in the Philippines due to some of the mixing with Spaniards and the Chinese. Probably like 155cm.
As for Guatemalan women: they were the shortest a century ago, and are still the shortest now. So it follows a logic.
-
The Asian height trends mentioned in my OP.
(https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig6-v2.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg)
Notice how height in both sxxes has plateaued in Japan, seems to be plateauing in South Korea, and is maybe stagnating in Bangladesh.
However, due to how poor Bangladesh is, I'd be more skeptical to compare it to a country like Japan. India is also literally sub-continental, with many ethnic groups, so the average should be taken with a grain of salt.
There are tall ethnic groups in India itself, despite the stagnation in average height.
-
The term "height plateau" is such beautiful soul-bleach to me, I only need to read it and it feels like all my fears of being dwarfed for the rest of my life dissolve...ast least for a while.
Thanks for the post.
That is just incredible. I've never been to these places, but to think that women are only 150 cm tall on average, in the Philippines, is just...very hard to believe?
Sorry, you can probably expect 6ft3 to become the average in China in around 30 years due to genetic engineering. But you'll probably be too old to care.
-
Anyway, I think this all proves that height is a formula of genes, good childhood health, good nutrition, and a safe environment - and also over generations. The height decrease in many Sub-Saharan African countries seems to present a strong correlation for that (which is not causation, but y'know). The figure (https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig8-v2.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg) shows a decrease even in Niger, which is mostly a Western African country, where many present day African-Americans can trace their roots from. However, most American studies put African-American males at the same average height as white American males. African-Americans are around 18% European in DNA, but it is hard to believe there could have been such a strong selection for the European height genes in some hundred years in the African-American population.
I think the steady rise in height in places like Japan and South Korea make a strong case for nutrition, health standards and safe environments. Many Sub-Saharan African countries experience a lot of turmoil, poverty, undernutrition, and early childhood disease, so the decrease also seems to follow the logic. In the United States, where this is not the case, African ancestry groups followed the steady rise in height of European Americans.
Avoiding short height in your children will be far easier in the future, but if you want to save money from all the aromatase inhibitors, HGH, and gene therapy you'd need in dire situations... it's easier to guarantee a good, happy, nutritious, safe and stress-free life for your children.
-
Sorry, you can probably expect 6ft3 to become the average in China in around 30 years due to genetic engineering. But you'll probably be too old to care.
It'll take much more than 30 years. We'll all be dead by the time Chinese parents are illegally genetically engineering their embryos to be as perfect as possible.
There will be newer forms of CLL before clandestine human genetic engineering even really takes off.
-
It'll take much more than 30 years. We'll all be dead by the time Chinese parents are illegally genetically engineering their embryos to be as perfect as possible.
There will be newer forms of CLL before clandestine human genetic engineering even really takes off.
What newer forms of CLL? I don't think those are even noteworthy improvements, any future form will always involve breaking a bone and slow distraction osteogenesis, and the Precise system is already easy enough given you lengthen slowly and keep up with your PT.
-
South Korean men may be getting taller but a 4 incher on a 6'0 body, good luck ;D ;D
(http://secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/penises-2-1.jpg)
-
The term "height plateau" is such beautiful soul-bleach to me, I only need to read it and it feels like all my fears of being dwarfed for the rest of my life dissolve...ast least for a while.
Thanks for the post.
That is just incredible. I've never been to these places, but to think that women are only 150 cm tall on average, in the Philippines, is just...very hard to believe?
Male height will plateau between 180~195cm in the tallest countries of the world for sure. It'll only keep increasing if men and women in those countries decide to only marry the taller percentiles in their country. Even then, the human body isn't yet ready biomechanically, possibly even biologically (think gigantism's health issues), to increase much further than that. It's not impossible, because evolution is a thing, but it'll take much longer.
Anyway, anyone alive today with a height of 180cm will hardly ever feel height dysphoria at any point in their lives. They'd have to be megalomaniacs who want to tower over even the tallest Dutch guy to feel height dysphoria at such a height. Considering Northern European countries were always among the tallest in the world, and height has plateaued in Finland around 180cm, I highly doubt anyone near that range, and any possible and similarly tall children, will have to worry about feeling short in the foreseeable future.
I know there are some guys here who feel short at 178cm because the average is now 182 or 183cm where they live, but that's not a really big deal. That's the worst height dysphoria is going to get in the tallest countries in the world. Even if height increases a bit further, the gap among people from the same generation will generally remain small (<6cm).
-
I honestly doubt me or even my grandchildren will see a time where 195 cm is the average in any country in the world.
-
I honestly doubt me or even my grandchildren will see a time where 195 cm is the average in any country in the world.
That's the max maximum I can see. A country (or people) could have an average height of around 187cm, and 195cm could be the upper average. Anything above that and you start having problems with biomechanics.
Anyway, like you said, if this ever happens, it'll be long down the road. If Finland has plateaued their height, it's hard to imagine any country quickly getting to that average.
-
Not entirely related to the thread, but I wanted to post this somewhere.
(http://assets.gcstatic.com/u/apps/asset_manager/uploaded/2013/17/composer-heights-infographic-1367588579.jpeg)
-
Not entirely related to the thread, but I wanted to post this somewhere.
What a strange idea, since height has no impact when it comes to composing music (especially instrumental). Perhaps the writer of this article has a case of height neurosis too!
-
What a strange idea, since height has no impact when it comes to composing music (especially instrumental). Perhaps the writer of this article has a case of height neurosis too!
What is weird is that it got me thinking why there has been such an increase in height around the world over the last 100 years. Better nutrition over the generations is a huge factor, but why did it not seem to affect aristocracy for so long? Aristocratic families surely would have had good nutrition over their generations.
It could be that it's just a very slow process, but I don't remember men being significantly shorter than 5'1~5'4 (like Grieg and Mozart) thousands of years ago.
Nevermind. I just googled it.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/542877-the-average-height-of-humans-over-time/
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
It seems height has gone up and down multiple times throughout the ages. Nutrition also seems to be a major factor, despite modern studies parroting it is mostly genetics. I don't even know anything anymore.
Over the last two millennia, human height, based off of skeletal remains, has stayed fairly steady, oscillating around 170cm [in Europe]. With the onset of modernity, we see a massive spike in heights in the developed world. It is worth noting that using skeletal remains is subject to measurement error with respect to the estimated height and time period.
(https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.net/5c38a173470cd49c59e58ba941888fe8f8cd3760/85672/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/male-heights-from-skeletons-in-europe-1-2000-clark-645x403.png)
-
The most massive difference between modernity and older ages really is the better healthcare. So I think the key has to lie in that. Kids and youth who barely get any sick and get good nutrition will reach their maximum (genetic) height potential, which seems to be what happened in developed countries like Japan and Finland.
Height did not begin to increase again until the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Steckel. The reasons for this remain unclear, but it is likely that lower temperatures in Europe between the 1300s and the 1800s, combined with higher levels of trade and movement between places, held height down during this period. European emigrants to North America enjoyed a low population density, few disease outbreaks and an increased income and by the 1830s their descendants had reached a peak in terms of height. However, the average height of Americans dropped about 2 inches in the following 50 years, as increased transportation and migration facilitated the spread of disease like whopping cough, scarlet fever and cholera. Heights would not increase again until the end of the 19th century, when government implemented water purification and introduced measures to deal with waste and sewage.
-
That's interesting. It seems that when people get richer and live better lives they tend to get taller as a whole. As long as a person is born in a first world country height doesn't seems to be that much attributed to environmental factors. Or at least these factors are just facilitating reaching his full height potential. Countries like the Netherlands are getting steadily richer in the last half-century and their height is increasing too.
(http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/wealth-height-netherlands.png)
Of course there are exceptions in nations like Montenegro and the Western Balkans as a whole but their genetic predisposition seems to be pretty strong due to the fact that big portion of the population have the so called Y haplogroup and even despite unfavourable environment factors they still tend to be tall.
-
That's interesting. It seems that when people get richer and live better lives they tend to get taller as a whole. As long as a person is born in a first world country height doesn't seems to be that much attributed to environmental factors. Or at least these factors are just facilitating reaching his full height potential. Countries like the Netherlands are getting steadily richer in the last half-century and their height is increasing too.
(http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/wealth-height-netherlands.png)
Of course there are exceptions in nations like Montenegro and the Western Balkans as a whole but their genetic predisposition seems to be pretty strong due to the fact that big portion of the population have the so called Y haplogroup and even despite unfavourable environment factors they still tend to be tall.
Yes, that's the trend that happened in all first-world nations. Modernity (and its associated wealth and living standards) brought that massive spike in height increase, as per my last figure.
Basically, first-world nations give most of the population the chance to reach their genetic potential with regards to height.
-
Then the well-fed, healthy, taller nationals marry one another and keep that cycle going with their children, as your height depends on your parents' heights. Thankfully, there seems to be a plateau based on genetics, and people won't keep getting taller forever.
-
Yes, I agree with that.
-
Yes, I agree with that.
More anecdotal evidence, but one of my friends is 180cm and his father is 170cm, while his mother is 166cm. What makes this noteworthy is that I live in a developing country where height is still increasing. I believe this to be anecdotal evidence of what we were just talking about.
-
Well, most of the males in my class in high school are around that height and most of their fathers are 5-10 cm shorter so I know. I even had a classmate who is 188 cm with father who is 178 cm. I was blown away. His mother was pretty average. I'm also living in developing country with average height of 175-178 cm.
-
Well, most of the males in my class in high school are around that height and most of their fathers are 5-10 cm shorter so I know. I even had a classmate who is 188 cm with father who is 178 cm. I was blown away. His mother was pretty average. I'm also living in developing country with average height of 175-178 cm.
That could be one advantage of homogeneous societies. It really sucks to be shorter than your grandfather and your father, who's already shorter than his own. Meanwhile, everyone else around me just got taller than their parents.
-
This is generally true at least in developing nations but in developed ones it's not uncommon to see 3 generations getting shorter with each one. Take for example Bill Gates who is shorter than his father. If Bill Gates' son is done growing at 18 he might be slightly shorter than his father. So we have William H. Gates Sr. at over 200 cm, Bill Gates at 177 cm and his son probably few cms shorter. Of course that's rather an exception but it's not very unusual to see. It's down to intersxual selection. Taller guys that mate with shorter females have a good chance of producing an average height offspring which can also seek a shorter female which can produce even shorter offspring and so on.
I feel you regarding the height increase around you, most of my peers are either taller than their fathers or quite taller.
-
Also, I think Bill Gates is more like 176cm tall. Every centimeter counts to make me feel better about myself. :P
Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are also only 170~171cm tall, despite being two of the most powerful and rich people on the planet.
And I'm almost 10cm smaller than my paternal grandfather. Quite literally the gains presented in this thread over the last 100 years, but in the opposite direction.
-
Looked brutal to me, all that money and I'd still rather pick the height ;D Dad and his kid basically
(http://carolinablitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Mark-Zuckerberg-Duke-UNC-2-770x517.jpg)
-
Only you and a handful of others would rather pick the height. :P
Zuckerberg could have almost any woman on this planet; the guy on the left just has an easy time getting basic girlfriends and one night stands.
Not that Zuckerberg can't also actually have the height, considering the money he has.
-
It's a question of point of view
http://henrycavill.org/en/blog/photo-shoots/item/1424-henry-cavill-ben-affleck-on-tnt-nba-tip-off look here, on one picture Cavill looks much shorter than Shaq (who is actually taller than everybody in the previous picture) while on the other one the difference looks rather like 19-20 cm
Shaq is listed as 216 cm but claimed 210 cm to Howard Stern
-
Only you and a handful of others would rather pick the height. :P
Zuckerberg could have almost any woman on this planet; the guy on the left just has an easy time getting basic girlfriends and one night stands.
Not that Zuckerberg can't also actually have the height, considering the money he has.
I'd rather be 6'2 8/10 face that makes 50k/year from passive income and dividents than Zuckerberg with all his billions.
Women would desire you naturally without the money and actually crave sex with you
-
I'd rather be 6'2 8/10 face that makes 50k/year from passive income and dividents than Zuckerberg with all his billions.
Women would desire you naturally without the money and actually crave sxx with you
Wouldn't it be easier to move somewhere where sex work is legal if all you want to do is bang hot women who you have little connection with? You don't even need to be born again, CLL, or anything else.
My point is that even the guy you presented in your theoretical scenario wouldn't be able have as large of a dating pool as Zuckerberg. There are many women who'd be off-limits to the guy in your scenario, no matter how good he looks. However, there's barely any woman in the world who wouldn't be interested in Zuckerberg should he show interest, and the dude could literally buy an entire city and move all its residents out. Get CLL with Paley multiple times if he wanted, and the best of facial plastic surgery in South Korea, should he care about that too. The choice for me would be simple.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to move somewhere where sxx work is legal if all you want to do is bang hot women who you have little connection with? You don't even need to be born again, CLL, or anything else.
My point is that even the guy you presented in your theoretical scenario wouldn't be able have as large of a dating pool as Zuckerberg. There are many women who'd be off-limits to the guy in your scenario, no matter how good he looks. However, there's barely any woman in the world who wouldn't be interested in Zuckerberg should he show interest, and the dude could literally buy an entire city and move all its residents out. Get CLL with Paley multiple times if he wanted, and the best of facial plastic surgery in South Korea, should he care about that too. The choice for me would be simple.
Smh you are the worst kind of person. Low sentience nerd. I can't take any of your advice seriously now, I'm sorry. From the "hurr durr I have a 5'5 friend he does the best with women of anyone I know cuz he is nice!:)" to the "Just get a third world wife or sxx work bro!" fking lol. Why are you even getting LL then mate? Just be a "nice confident guy" and go to the Philippines.
-
I agree with GeTs, myloginacct you are delusional and coping with this "nice guy" bull and "30+ year old women" bull . You will wake up one day and get hit by a truck and realize we were right all along, but it will be too late for you then. I would rather be a 6'2 good looking HOMELESS guy than Mark Zuckerberg, no woman will ever truly feel love or lust for someone like Zuck, sorry, and that's why he was never accepted into a quality fraternity and had to become a programmer slave in college instead of enjoying his youth like everyone else. You're missing the fact is, even if he gets a nice sweet wife who may "love him" the bedroom will be dead in 2 weeks and she will divorce him for half his wealth once the novelty wears off and go find a young hot husband. That's why he married an ugly asian girl, because he isn't dumb, and he knew that would happen, obviously that ugly asian girl doesn't have better options.
-
Smh you are the worst kind of person. Low sentience nerd. I can't take any of your advice seriously now, I'm sorry. From the "hurr durr I have a 5'5 friend he does the best with women of anyone I know cuz he is nice!:)" to the "Just get a third world wife or sxx work bro!" fking lol. Why are you even getting LL then mate? Just be a "nice confident guy" and go to the Philippines.
You might be having a stroke. I'm seeing words, but they don't seem to be forming a semblance of coherence.
-
You might be having a stroke. I'm seeing words, but they don't seem to be forming a semblance of coherence.
Nevermind, we exist in entirely different realities, honestly. We will never see eye to eye and that's fine. If you are a traditional old 35+ dude I can see how you see the world in the way you do, but it is very different from how it is for young guys, the world is just different now.
-
Honestly, I'd rather have the money. I can open way more doors with billions of dollars. It's like wishing a genie for more wishes, and I could just get CLL.
This is because height didn't bother me until I was older, while money has. Just my preference for this "would you rather" game.
-
Honestly, I'd rather have the money. I can open way more doors with billions of dollars. It's like wishing a genie for more wishes, and I could just get CLL.
This is because height didn't bother me until I was older, while money has. Just my preference for this "would you rather" game.
cope
-
Also, let me continue with my "nice guy act": I never suggested going ahead getting "a third-world wife". That was a comment by IWannaBeTaller that I made a remark upon.
I think it's disgusting to "shop" for women coming from much poorer backgrounds because you can't seem to find anyone to like you. It is sadly an easy reality and option for men in the first-world, and it is also rife with opportunities for abuse of said women. I hate it, if I did not make that clear enough before.
And by the way, sorry that the success of my 166cm friend got you so triggered too. Lol
-
Also, let me continue with my "nice guy act": I never suggested going ahead getting "a third-world wife". That was a comment by IWannaBeTaller that I made a remark upon.
I think it's disgusting to "shop" for women coming from much poorer backgrounds because you can't seem to find anyone to like you. It is sadly an easy reality and option for men in the first-world, and it is also rife with opportunities for abuse of said women. I hate it, if I did not make that clear enough before.
And by the way, sorry that the success of my 166cm friend got you so triggered too. Lol
How to end a cuckold 101: just follow this guy advice
-
More like a question of IQ.
Hard to believe there are people who think Zuckerberg wouldn't be able to date women that a 6'2, good looking homeless guy could. And the only reason to choose the being latter is because you want to have a lot of sex with good looking women. Which is still something Zuckerberg could do. Meanwhile, there's a lot of women who the homeless guy could never have - he'd be just a good looking, but unintelligent bum. Nevermind the billions in wealth he's missing. The choice is obvious.
-
More like a question of IQ.
Hard to believe there are people who think Zuckerberg wouldn't be able to date women that a 6'2, good looking homeless guy could. And the only reason to choose the being latter is because you want to have a lot of sxx with good looking women. Which is still something Zuckerberg could do. Meanwhile, there's a lot of women who the homeless guy could never have - he'd be just a good looking, but unintelligent bum. Nevermind the billions in wealth he's missing. The choice is obvious.
this guy..
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Just fking LOL
whatever makes you happy
-
this kind of controversy should be avoid, everything have this opinion about it and nobody care about Zuckerberg
it's a bit hard to believe that he is 5'7 seeing how he get dwarfed with random basketball players (I don't know anyone in the picture while I know most NBA players and tall college players)
if he is 5'7 then all guys around him are 7'1 / 7'2 while it's the height of Porzingis and he is one of the tallest actual player
-
this kind of controversy should be avoid, everything have this opinion about it and nobody care about Zuckerberg
why? didn't you hear it?
(https://i.gyazo.com/0b5b0d55daa773153b8a7fdf353f1f3f.png)
It's how nice you are, how much you love them that they will appreciate. Your personality.
Guy on the right wins because of how nice he is.
One has to only look at his life and see how it has been because of one genetic trait: height. Same thing happens for face, shouldn't be a surprise.
-
https://twitter.com/mattburgess1/status/841752843581296640
looks like he is in Avatar
average in NBA is officially 6'7 but some players are overlisted and they are all listed in shoes then it's most likely 6'5 / 6'6
and it's even less in NCAA
but here it looks like the average is 7'3, it's not possible
I have seen pictures of Shaquille O neal next to 5'10 5'11 guys and they were ok
http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=4200&SPID=1845&SPSID=22727 according to the website of the team the tallest player is 7ft (213cm) others are more like 195-205 and college teams are usually cheating more with height so it could even be less
-
Oh god, the autists strike again.
Wasn't "GeTs" the dude who posted a pic of his face on the forum to prove he was "extremely good looking"? And then sent pictures of his dck in PMs to prove it was big? And don't even get me started on the "no woman will ever feel true love for Zuckerberg" bull , SMH.
-
And don't even get me started on the "no woman will ever feel true love for Zuckerberg" bull , SMH.
Hear, hear!
-
Good post by OP anyway, I was interested in countries with low height so this came in time..
The part later just eent full retard mode
-
For me the interesting stat is Yemen. I'm curious about it. Poverty can't be the main excuse as others countries like Irak or Somalia have a much taller average
-
More like a question of IQ.
Hard to believe there are people who think Zuckerberg wouldn't be able to date women that a 6'2, good looking homeless guy could. And the only reason to choose the being latter is because you want to have a lot of sxx with good looking women. Which is still something Zuckerberg could do. Meanwhile, there's a lot of women who the homeless guy could never have - he'd be just a good looking, but unintelligent bum. Nevermind the billions in wealth he's missing. The choice is obvious.
Hard to believe you think he would.
Mark Zuckerberg could "have sex with good-looking women" if he PAID them, or if they were otherwise out for his money in some way (blackmail to prevent a scandal, sugar daddy, etc), but they would be physically disgusted by him.
As for the "tons" of women a homeless guy could never have:
http://www.etonline.com/news/178280_kendall_jenner_and_gigi_hadid_turned_this_homeless_man_into_a_male_model
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295895/Rags-riches-movie-fame-homeless-man-Chinas-sexiest-tramp.html
https://hypebeast.com/2015/7/new-documentary-investigates-the-life-of-a-homeless-male-model
http://www.verygoodlight.com/2017/05/04/octavio-hair/
I'm sure there's "lots" of women who would genuinely consider Zuckerberg more attractive than these men. Lmfao. Get real. It's also idiotic to consider them "unintelligent" or "low IQ" just because they're homeless. IQ is a common coping mechanism for unattractive men who are unsuccessful with women. It's pathetic, childish, and little more than a made-up metric used by ugly men to feel superior in some way to attractive men. "I might be undesirable, but at least I'm smart!"
All of the most intelligent people I've met don't know or care what their IQ is, because they're too busy learning and being productive. These days "IQ" is only brought up by narcissistic MENSA losers and alt-right "race realist" mongrels.
I would say there's actually an inverse correlation between how much a person cares about "IQ" and how intelligent they actually are.
Well, the homeless guy still wouldn't have billions of dollars, right?
...Right?
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/jeremy-meeks-that-viral-male-model-felon-cheated-on-his-wife-for-rich-white-billionaire-heiress.551814/
LOL.
-
Uh, my whole point is there isn't almost anything he can't fix with his money. He can get surgery for his height, his face, his hair, get the best personal trainers, with the best nutrition and workout plans, all up to a point he becomes physically attractive - all while keeping his influence, wealth, power, and intelligence. Maybe he'll never be as physically attractive as the homeless guy you're imagining, but he will still be legitimately attractive. The homeless guy would most likely never get anywhere near his wealth or social influence, and IQ (or intelligence, if you prefer) can't be significantly increased. And no matter how you spin it, no CEO woman, or maybe a pioneering science researcher, would rather constitute a family with a homeless guy over one of the most powerful, successful, and richest men in the world. In the way I see it, it's simple logic, and you guys are stuck in your own reality. I can't make it any clearer than this. I can only assume you all would rather have easy access to as many "hot women" as you possibly could, or something to that effect.
Anyway, each to their own, and I wasn't the one to start with the ad hominem. I'll just agree to disagree with your views.
And I do generally agree with your points about IQ!
But this isn't what the thread is about.
-
Uh, my whole point is there isn't almost anything he can't fix with his money. He can get surgery for his height, his face, his hair, get the best personal trainers, with the best nutrition and workout plans, all up to a point he becomes physically attractive - all while keeping his influence, wealth, power, and intelligence. Maybe he'll never be as physically attractive as the homeless guy you're imagining, but he will still be legitimately attractive. The homeless guy would most likely never get anywhere near his wealth or social influence, and IQ (or intelligence, if you prefer) can't be significantly increased. And no matter how you spin it, no CEO woman, or maybe a pioneering science researcher, would rather constitute a family with a homeless guy over one of the most powerful, successful, and richest men in the world. In the way I see it, it's simple logic, and you guys are stuck in your own reality. I can't make it any clearer than this. I can only assume you all would rather have easy access to as many "hot women" as you possibly could, or something to that effect.
Anyway, each to their own, and I wasn't the one to start with the ad hominem. I'll just agree to disagree with your views.
And I do generally agree with your points about IQ!
But this isn't what the thread is about.
C O P E
-
Uh, my whole point is there isn't almost anything he can't fix with his money. He can get surgery for his height, his face, his hair, get the best personal trainers, with the best nutrition and workout plans, all up to a point he becomes physically attractive - all while keeping his influence, wealth, power, and intelligence. Maybe he'll never be as physically attractive as the homeless guy you're imagining, but he will still be legitimately attractive. The homeless guy would most likely never get anywhere near his wealth or social influence, and IQ (or intelligence, if you prefer) can't be significantly increased. And no matter how you spin it, no CEO woman, or maybe a pioneering science researcher, would rather constitute a family with a homeless guy over one of the most powerful, successful, and richest men in the world. In the way I see it, it's simple logic, and you guys are stuck in your own reality. I can't make it any clearer than this. I can only assume you all would rather have easy access to as many "hot women" as you possibly could, or something to that effect.
Anyway, each to their own, and I wasn't the one to start with the ad hominem. I'll just agree to disagree with your views.
And I do generally agree with your points about IQ!
But this isn't what the thread is about.
There's numerous problems with your assertions here
1.) Surgery cannot and will not ever successfully emulate natural good looks. Hair is probably the most fixable of the bunch at present and in the future (given upcoming solutions for hair loss), but again, there are VERY defined limits to what can and cannot be done with surgery.
A man who is decidedly facially unattractive (like Mark Zuckerberg) cannot and will not become conventionally attractive (i.e. male model looks) using plastic surgery. The technology simply isn't that advanced.
He can't and won't become tall either, not without visibly deforming himself.
In fact, I would argue that rich people who are also famous media icons like Mark Zuckerberg in fact cannot ANY surgeries to fix their looks AT ALL. Consider:
Everyone KNOWS what Mark Zuckerberg looks like right now, without having had any surgical procedures done to alter his face, height, hair, etc. If he were to get LL or facial surgery, everyone would notice IMMEDIATELY because there are hundreds of pictures of him taken from every conceivable angle all over the internet. His status makes it literally impossible to physically augment himself without facing severe social judgment and repercussions due to virtue signalling culture leading to him being criticized, shamed, mocked, etc to oblivion for his "insecurity".
Imagine if Justin Bieber had LL done to go from being 5'7" to being 5'10". Do you seriously think people wouldn't notice? Society at large is MASSIVELY turned off when men (applies to MEN primarily, women are largely given a free pass no matter how they alter their looks thanks to feminist "empowerment" culture) do ANYTHING to fraud or otherwise misrepresent their genetic value. Virtue-signallers pretend they've "lost respect" for the individual due to their "insecurity", but what they actually feel is disgust and innate revulsion: "the nerve of that undesirable man, trying to cheat his genetic destiny!"
As far as a female CEO or researcher or what-have-you not wanting to "constitute" a family with a homeless guy: you don't have any evidence this is true other than your own hopes, but it doesn't matter anyway, because even if it were true, the fact of the matter is this type of woman is generally not conventionally physically attractive (women in the STEM field, and corporate-ladder types, tend to be very frumpy. I don't think this really needs to be substantiated; just take a look at any year's graduating class in the STEM fields and look at the women).
Good-looking men generally don't care very much about whether or not undesirable women like them because they have tons of DESIRABLE women to choose from. I doubt male models, homeless or not, lose any sleep because frumpy Betty the Chemist has sour grapes syndrome and doesn't want him because he's "not intelligent enough" (whatever that means).
-
What we have now probably isn't as bad as you think it is. Maybe I could find better, but I didn't want to spend too much time googling images. I just want to link these for now:
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/203ff4ce808d17a9741672a92e57bc6e/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/53dc6506e11aed566776f1968a5ecf72/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/5d8501fb1850027b5d280c0574f8bf71/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/632576124390caab78e862d90066ded2/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/fd8a2e6062fcd3c904894075f2cd1982/x.jpg)
(https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/06/18/636018195752753010-414503344_south-korean-plastic-surgery.jpg)
(https://images.sobadsogood.com/south-koreans-before-after-intensive-plastic-surgery/3.jpg)
(https://images.sobadsogood.com/south-koreans-before-after-intensive-plastic-surgery/8.jpg)
(https://images.sobadsogood.com/south-koreans-before-after-intensive-plastic-surgery/9.jpg)
(http://www.sickchirpse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/korea-1-surgery.jpg)
As for the other points, I don't really feel like continuing with the discussion when it's not the subject of the thread. My mindset is apparently completely different than the one you guys have here. I place more value on "Betty the Chemist/CEO" than the 9/10 "instagram model" or whatever you guys have in mind. So, yeah.
-
I wish Mark could see this conversation!
-
I wish Mark could see this conversation!
He could actually achieve a much better body transformation too, if this scrawny Polish kid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEgHKOvYTE) did it.
-
What we have now probably isn't as bad as you think it is. Maybe I could find better, but I didn't want to spend too much time googling images. I just want to link these for now:
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/203ff4ce808d17a9741672a92e57bc6e/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/53dc6506e11aed566776f1968a5ecf72/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/5d8501fb1850027b5d280c0574f8bf71/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/632576124390caab78e862d90066ded2/x.jpg)
(http://assets.blog.slice.ca/imageserve/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/fd8a2e6062fcd3c904894075f2cd1982/x.jpg)
(https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/06/18/636018195752753010-414503344_south-korean-plastic-surgery.jpg)
(https://images.sobadsogood.com/south-koreans-before-after-intensive-plastic-surgery/3.jpg)
(https://images.sobadsogood.com/south-koreans-before-after-intensive-plastic-surgery/8.jpg)
(https://images.sobadsogood.com/south-koreans-before-after-intensive-plastic-surgery/9.jpg)
(http://www.sickchirpse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/korea-1-surgery.jpg)
I don't dispute that present surgical techniques are effective to a certain extent in increasing a person's attractiveness above its baseline. What I said was:
A man who is decidedly facially unattractive (like Mark Zuckerberg) cannot and will not become conventionally attractive (i.e. male model looks) using plastic surgery.
This is entirely true. None of the men (or women) you posted, nor indeed any of those whose facial plastic surgery results can be found on the internet (that I have seen, at least), has ever achieved anything close to "model looks" using conventional craniofacial surgery.
Surgery CAN and (if you select a good surgeon) very often DOES "bump people up" a single tier; that is, the following is possible:
Unattractive -> Below average
Below average -> Average
Average -> Above average
And, theoretically,
Above-average -> Good-looking (though I've never seen an example of it)
In SOME select cases, it's possible to go up 2 "tiers" (from "unattractive" to "average") when the root cause of your unattractiveness is a single major craniofacial deformity (like some of the people in your pics had). For most people, there isn't just one single flaw separating them from being above average or good looking.
Another big factor in the results shown by your pics, and something that helps Asian plastic surgery patients a LOT, is the fact that beauty standards in Asian cultures generally tend to focus on things being SMALLER and SLIMMER. Notice how in the pics you posted, in almost every single case, the person's skull/face gets SMALLER in the "after" picture, mostly because their jaws get shaved down.
It's much, much, MUCH easier to remove/shave down EXISTING bone than it is to install pseudo-bone (implants) that realistically and convincingly simulate natural bone structure, especially in areas where bones are generally very intricately shaped, tightly packed, or located in or around major and delicate organ systems such as the nose, eyes, etc (infra/supraorbital region in the eyes, zygoma and maxillary area in the midface, etc).
This is a massive, massive limitation of conventional facial cosmetic surgery that is the central reason why I say craniofacial surgery can never emulate natural good looks.
-
Haha, didn't mean so that he can take advice, but I just wonder how he'd react. Bunch of strangers debating your height, money, success, and cosmetic surgery options (while he battles the Cambridge Analytica scandal).
-
Haha, didn't mean so that he can take advice, but I just wonder how he'd react. Bunch of strangers debating your height, money, success, and cosmetic surgery options (while he battles the Cambridge Analytica scandal).
Yeah, Zuckerberg was a bad one given the recent context. But give me a young Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or any super successful shorter than average guy... I'll pick that over a homeless 6'2 dude.
Going back to original subject of the thread, though: one the reasons I theorized for the stagnation in height in India was the prevalence of vegetarian diets. However, look at Pakistani men 100 years later! It was possibly the country with no gains in height, and they're Muslims there, with much less qualms about consuming meat - I'd also guess access to meat only became easier in the last 100 years. Pakistanis and Indians are generally very close genetically, so maybe meat consumption isn't that important to make one group significantly taller than another. Genetics and healthcare still seem play the major role.
Too bad our Indian posters aren't as active anymore, though... I'd like to ask them if Indian Muslims are generally taller than Indian Hindus.
-
Going back to original subject of the thread, though: one the reasons I theorized for the stagnation in height in India was the prevalence of vegetarian diets. However, look at Pakistani men 100 years later! It was possibly the country with no gains in height, and they're Muslims there, with much less qualms about consuming meat - I'd also guess access to meat only became easier in the last 100 years. Pakistanis and Indians are generally very close genetically, so maybe meat consumption isn't that important to make one group significantly taller than another. Genetics and healthcare still seem play the major role.
I think healthcare is the major factor here if we take into account that both nations are from the same genetic pool.
-
I think healthcare is the major factor here if we take into account that both nations are from the same genetic pool.
I agree. I used generally, though, because that region of the world has so many tribes and different ethnic groups. The main genetic pool is still mostly the same, however, as we've pointed out.
For example, I'm no expert on this, but I know of the Hazaras (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras) (partially Mongols), the Pash tuns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacrapuns), etc.
In fact, I've just found this one neat map about the ethnic groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Afghanistan_ethnic_groups_2005.jpg).
-
Oh dear, I can't link to the wikipedia article about Pash tuns because the forum filters "sh t" to "crap".
How nice.
-
Yeah, Zuckerberg was a bad one given the recent context. But give me a young Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or any super successful shorter than average guy... I'll pick that over a homeless 6'2 dude.
Going back to original subject of the thread, though: one the reasons I theorized for the stagnation in height in India was the prevalence of vegetarian diets. However, look at Pakistani men 100 years later! It was possibly the country with no gains in height, and they're Muslims there, with much less qualms about consuming meat - I'd also guess access to meat only became easier in the last 100 years. Pakistanis and Indians are generally very close genetically, so maybe meat consumption isn't that important to make one group significantly taller than another. Genetics and healthcare still seem play the major role.
Too bad our Indian posters aren't as active anymore, though... I'd like to ask them if Indian Muslims are generally taller than Indian Hindus.
I'm back. Historically, Afghans and Pakistanis were taller than Indians. This might have more to do with population density than meat consumptions (75% of Indians consume meat, but sparingly due to high costs.. like really meat is still too expensive for most non vegetarians).
Before modern medicine, high population density meant higher disease incidence, thus more childhood stunting. When the Europeans came to America, they noted how tall the Native Americans were (6ft, etc) while the European explorers were 5'5 - 5'7". This is also why Netherlands used to be the shortest country in Europe (high density).
Now, over the past 100 years, population densities in Afghanistan and Pakistan rose faster than they did in India. As a result the avg heights may have gone down (or not gone up as quickly).
-
I'm back. Historically, Afghans and Pakistanis were taller than Indians. This might have more to do with population density than meat consumptions (75% of Indians consume meat, but sparingly due to high costs.. like really meat is still too expensive for most non vegetarians).
Before modern medicine, high population density meant higher disease incidence, thus more childhood stunting. When the Europeans came to America, they noted how tall the Native Americans were (6ft, etc) while the European explorers were 5'5 - 5'7". This is also why Netherlands used to be the shortest country in Europe (high density).
Now, over the past 100 years, population densities in Afghanistan and Pakistan rose faster than they did in India. As a result the avg heights may have gone down (or not gone up as quickly).
Thinking about your population density point and correlating it to our healthcare findings: you seem to be right on the money.
Imagine: all Paleo-Americans (generally called Paleo-Indians, but it's weird to use this in a post to an actual Indian) descend from eastern Siberian populations that crossed the ice bridge in the Bering Strait, during two distinct migration waves. However, despite the shared origin, we have those anecdotes from the European settlers of North America about the taller height of some of the peoples in the north of the Americas. Yet, go further south, to the epicenter of the Aztec, Mayan and Incan/Andean civilizations, and you have some of the shortest people in the world. Those were also the places with the highest population density in the Americas, pre-European arrival. Guatemala, one of the centers of Mayan civilization, has the shortest women on the planet to this day. Bolivians, much further south, but near the ancient centers of Andean civilizations, are also very short. This is all despite the shared origin of all native Americans in the eastern Siberian populations.
-
That's an interesting point about Mayan heights. I guess the population density thing reinforces that.
Here's the source article I was referring to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529071125.htm
-
The average adult male Plains Indian stood 172.6 centimeters tall -- about 5 feet 8 inches. The next tallest people in the world at that time were Australian men, who averaged 172 centimeters. European American men of the time averaged 171 centimeters tall, and men living in European countries were typically several centimeters shorter.
Those manlets!
Anyway. Thank you very much for the article, Puru. Very interesting.
-
In developing countries, children with infectious disease who experience arrested growth are concomitantly malnourished (8, 9). Nutritional deficiency increases susceptibility to infections and, conversely, episodes of infectious illness cause nutritional deficits by reducing intake, impairing nutrient metabolism and increasing energy expenditure (8, 10, 11). These mutual interactions are most likely responsible for dramatic changes in mean height that have occurred with periods of economic transition (12, 13).
From a study I'm investigating about growth stunting. Related quote to the changes in the last century.
Important note so I don't trigger any more neuroses in this forum, though:
In addition, attempts to examine the question in a population in a nutritionally abundant setting must contend with the overwhelming influence of genetic determination. Ideally, assessment of the role of childhood infection on adult height requires a means of controlling both genetic and nutritional determinants.
This is why a height plateau for genetically similar populations exist. When you control disease and proper nutrition through most of one's life, that person will reach their individual genetic height potential. So will most of the rest of the population, who are in similar conditions, both environmentally and genetically.
(http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/wealth-height-netherlands.png)
I wonder if the plateau has always been genetically determined since long ago, though? We were postulating that as people were better fed and better taken care of, both sxxes got taller, then married one another and produced taller offspring, granted the favorable conditions continued. Then, the cycle repeated itself and the average became even higher. And that'd be why the Dutch, for example, got so tall. But maybe even when their men were averaging 168cm, their average maximum genetic potential has always been around 180cm~184cm? Maybe the steady climb in height merely represented the steady improvement of nutrition and healthcare across all wealth groups. I don't know. I'm just proposing some questions in the hopes future researchers can get to the bottom of this. The only way to investigate this question right now would be discovering if rich, well fed, and extremely healthy Dutchmen of the past reached, on average, heights such as the ones we see today in their present population, but at a time when the majority of their country's males averaged 168cm.
However, height is indeed a highly heritable trait. This is known. So people in favorable conditions getting taller and producing even taller offspring (by marrying one another) makes sense. But then why would developed nations like Japan hit a plateau? Why would the height increase not only come to a major halt due to a biomechanical cap? The plateaus are different in different populations. The reason should be in genetics, but I wouldn't understand its logic.
-
I'm not good at estimating height from pictures, but I thought the easiest category of "well-fed and healthy" Dutchmen from over a century ago that I would be able to find would be that of Olympic athletes.
I managed to find this one of the 1900's Paris' Olympics. This was the Dutch shooting team (in Switzerland):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Henrik_Sillem_shootingteam_swiss_1900_olympics.jpg)
The one featured is Henrik Sillem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Sillem).
More interestingly, I found some pics of the Netherland's first solo gold medalist, Maurice Peeters (1882-1957). Born in Belgium; Flemish, though - born in Antwerp, but raised at the Hague.
(https://wielersport.slogblog.nl/db/WAS579b449f3aba2/Maurice_Peeters_def.jpg)
(http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=urn:gvn:SFA03:SFA001004961&size=large)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Maurice_Peeters.jpg/329px-Maurice_Peeters.jpg)
Definitely much shorter than the current Dutchmen.
However, in two of the pics you can see some people who look close to height of modern Dutchmen. Maybe it's just that those guys' descendants are all over 190cm nowadays, rather than a rough genetic maximum height (that doesn't change as generations improve their living standards) having always existed in homogeneous, genetically similar groups of people, and that it only incrementally increased as living standards rose because those only increased incrementally. I mean, if we could reproduce modern nutrition and health for a single Dutch individual over a century ago, his result shouldn't differ much from that of the modern average. But it seems it does.
So height seems to increase across generations of better fed, better taken care of, healthier people, but for some reason the process does not seem to keep going forever in a given population. The limit doesn't seem to be in biomechanics, either, as the Japanese stopped their upwards ascent in average height at 170~173cm. Which is much shorter than close to gigantism levels (200cm+), where biomechanical and health problems would start kicking in. Some of the most developed European countries haven't had any significant average height increase in decades too (i.e. the plateau).
-
(http://c7.alamy.com/comp/JG927M/yoshizawa-kenkichi-henrik-kauffmann-1932-JG927M.jpg)
Kenkichi Yoshizawa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenkichi_Yoshizawa) (1874-1965; d. 90yo) and Henrik Kauffmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Kauffmann) (1888-1963; d. 74yo). Photo circa 1932.
Japanese diplomat and former foreign minister, and the Danish ambassador to the United States during WWII, respectively.
-
Also found out that one of Yoshizawa's descendants, Atsushi Ogata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsushi_Ogata), is a modern movie director.
Son of Sadako Ogata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadako_Ogata), academic, diplomat, and former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), among other positions, and her husband, Taketora Ogata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taketora_Ogata), who's the son of a former executive director of the Bank of Japan, and was the former vice-president of the Asahi Shimbun newspaper himself.
(https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMDhmNTYwNjctNTYyOC00YmQ0LWJlMDAtYmE3NDk1YzVmY2NmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQyODgwNzI@._V1_.jpg)
(http://dublinwebfest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/image.jpg)
(https://japantoday-asset.scdn3.secure.raxcdn.com/img/store/74/b9/72b51e6553e8031dd53f3599320ad8c64fa4/ogata/_w850.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-L3S91FvhSM/Rg2MFtGTzOI/AAAAAAAAAUw/fkmouK8sLYY/s960/cinericAtsuhi_7005godlis.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-L3S91FvhSM/Rg0vztGTzDI/AAAAAAAAATY/5G0KoKAG3G0/s960/atsushiPLUS_6814godlis.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-L3S91FvhSM/RgQXnnNh21I/AAAAAAAAAFU/4O8fQ4vIsHs/s960/atsushiogata_6284godlisLR.jpg)
So definitely not someone who'd have had a problem with nutrition or healthcare. He looks about the modern Japanese average of 170~173cm.
There's nothing much that could be taken from this post, as he is still a few generations behind the most of the posters here, but the study I analyzed in the OP did mention "The impressive rise in height in Japan stopped in people born after the early 1960s (Figure 6 (https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:13410/elife-13410-fig6-v2.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg))". So, I think, with ideal healthcare and nutrition, and assuming men and women won't choose to only have children, on average, with the tallest among their peers that they can 'get', average height levels should remain rather flat in developed, homogeneous, first-world nations - given a well-off, normal family. The height discrepancy among men and women didn't change in 100 years, despite the total gains in height, after all. Unless a strong sxxual selection starts happening for height in both sxxes, I think the nutritional and health gains have to hit a cap, on an average level for the population. Thus, the flattening of the rise in height.