Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Overdozer]

I've found a nice study: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/htm

Summary of a few studies published since 2000 employing measures of leg length in relation to early life living conditions and health. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/htm#table_body_display_t3-ijerph-07-01047

They claim there's a strong correlation between childhood health, diet and leg length, thus height. Some quotes:

Shorter limb length is associated with markers of lower early-life socioeconomic status

Positive time trend in leg length from 1972 to 2000 both in rural and urban settings
Positive time trend in relative leg length. Boys measured in 1999–2002 had relatively longer legs in proportion to total stature than their counterparts in 1983–1983.

Leg length is a sensitive indicator of the quality of the environment.
Maya children in the USA show relatively longer legs in proportion to stature than their counterparts in Guatemala. By 2000, Maya migrants to the USA were 11.54 cm taller and 6.83 cm longer-legged than Maya children in Guatemala.

M&F: Individuals with relatively shorter legs in proportion to total stature are poorer than longer “legged” individuals

Maternal smoking during pregnancy resulted in lower adult SLL. Overall, adult SLL is related to a greater extent than trunk length to early life factors and prepubertal height

Poor childhood health, insufficient diet, adverse family circumstances and maternal smoking during pregnancy are each known to reduce leg length [104,111–114]. Frisancho et al. [107] emphasize the environmental effects in a study that finds that leg length of Mexican-Americans aged 2–17 years old is significantly associated with socioeconomic status of their families. In that study, individuals from better-off families have significantly longer legs, but equal trunk length, when compared with boys and girls from poorer families.

[ReadRothbard]

I suppose I must be some sort of exception. I have a longer than average trunk with short limbs, but I came from a solid middle-class family that never struggled to put food on the table.

[Puertoricanwasp123]

I suppose I must be some sort of exception. I have a longer than average trunk with short limbs, but I came from a solid middle-class family that never struggled to put food on the table.

Me too I don't deserve my current height.

[ReadRothbard]

Yeah, I get what you mean exactly. My mom was 5'6 and my dad was 6'0-6'1, but I still ended up just short of 5'7.

[Moubgf]

Its not about nutrition you monkey, its about your quality sleep at night. That true moment where you close your eyes and open them and the clock is already 07:00. That is quality sleep. If you did not have that! you where sleep deprivated. Thus did not reach your max potential height. Also day sleeping dont work.

[ReadRothbard]

You'd have to be really, really sleep deprived for growth to be stunted. Stunting one's growth isn't as easy as many think.

[ItsMyLife]

You'd have to be really, really sleep deprived for growth to be stunted. Stunting one's growth isn't as easy as many think.

not true
i reco 5 hours at least
had a friend with stunted growth as he slept only 2 hours daily, naps day time
i told him off, hes 15.. and now hes grown 2 cm in the last 6 mths.

[TomD]

My dad was 5ft 10 or 11. My mom was 5ft 2 . My moms brothers were 6ft and 5ft 9

My sister is 5ft5

I am somehow 5ft 7

I got lots of exercise. I slept 8 1/2 hrs per night. My legs and arms are short as hell. My actual trunk of my body is relatively the same size as everyone elses.

Maybe there is something to the nutrition angle when it comes to limb growth.

[ForcedPuberty]

height is an indicator of successful genetic expression.

this is why girls are attracted to taller men.

it is an indicator that if the woman picks this guy their will be a greater probability for success in the offspring.

long limbs and overall height = favorable conditions = better mate selection criteria, as women choose favorable conditions over non favorable.

[ReadRothbard]

height is an indicator of successful genetic expression.

this is why girls are attracted to taller men.

it is an indicator that if the woman picks this guy their will be a greater probability for success in the offspring.

long limbs and overall height = favorable conditions = better mate selection criteria, as women choose favorable conditions over non favorable.

Height only works as an indicator if health and upbringing when discussing entire populations or demographic groups (ex. Japan vs. Vietnam). Height is, however, an incredibly unreliable indicator of upbringing when looking on an individual level. This is true in the same way that black men often make better basketball players than Asian men, but, on an individual level, it would be silly and stupid for a coach to dismiss an Asian man as a potential basketball player simply because most players are black.

[ForcedPuberty]

actually, limb length and torso length are very good indicators on the individual level about knowledge, upbringing, nutrition, as well as an accurate prediction for successful progeny(probability).



tall men have better gene expression, and so girls are attracted to them because all animals are attracted to that which provides the best genes for reproduction and survival.

[Puertoricanwasp123]

tall men have better gene expression.

Shorter people are just as good, in fact most have proven to me that they are smarter and sometimes better at fighting than their tall peers.

[ReadRothbard]

This is true when discussing entire groups, but not on an individual level. Like I said, on an individual level these indicators of limb length and height are rather unreliable.

[joax]

Don't bother arguing, most people on here don't care about statistics and other high-level topics.

[ReadRothbard]

Me?