Coming Up Short

People in other countries used to look up to Americans, but that is changing:

Economist traces height trends, by Tom Hundley, Chicago Tribune: When John Komlos wants to take the measure of a nation's economic well-being, he doesn't check its gross domestic product or consumer price index. He ignores ... unemployment figures. Instead, Komlos takes a look at how tall its people have grown.

"Height is a very good overall indicator of how well the human organism thrives in its socioeconomic environment," he explained.

Komlos, a professor in the economics department at the University of Munich, Germany, has dedicated his professional life to the study of anthropometric history—his own coinage for the academic field that studies the links between a population's height and general well-being.

What Komlos has learned is that Americans, despite their nation's prosperity, abundance of food and cutting-edge medical technology, stopped getting taller in the 1950s and have now been passed by their European cousins.

"Americans were head and shoulders above Europeans in the 18th Century, and it stayed that way for two centuries," he said. "Now it's the other way around."

This, according to Komlos, suggests that Europeans eat better, have better access to health care and enjoy a more equitable distribution of national wealth. They will almost certainly live longer than their American counterparts. ...

Genetics determines an individual's height—whether a person is shorter or taller than the national norm—but external factors determine a population's height.

While the media quickly latched onto the height rankings, Komlos and other economists were more interested in the external factors that were causing the startling disparity between American and European growth rates.

In the 2004 paper, Komlos fingered two likely suspects: the growing gap between rich and poor in the U.S., and its lack of universal health care.

Although the U.S. has been the dominant economic power since the end of World War II, its wealth has not been very evenly distributed. According to standard measures, countries such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian nations are at the top of the list; the U.S. ranks near the bottom, tied with Ghana and Turkmenistan, according to UN figures.

When income is distributed more evenly, it follows that access to health care also is evenly and equitably distributed, Komlos said.

He noted that a high number of Americans are without health insurance (a U.S. Census Bureau report put the figure at 47 million for 2006), meaning that millions of American children do not get top-notch medical care during the critical growth years. Meanwhile, the "tall" countries of the world have been providing their citizens with cradle-to-grave health care for generations.

Komlos does not claim that his research has established a causal link between a nation's height and its health care delivery system, only that "height is a pretty good indicator of how well a society treats its children and young people."

Komlos is struck by two things when he visits the U.S.: the alarming proportion of the population that is overweight, and the shortfall in height—especially among females.

Could America's diminished stature have something to do with its expanding girth?

Very likely, Komlos said. "The tremendous amount of fast food consumed by Americans ... has to have an impact," he said. ...

The latest national height data contains some good news and some bad, Komlos said.

The good news is that there are indications that Americans may have started to grow again. The bad news is that this growth trend appears to be bypassing black females. "This is an uncomfortable finding, especially at a time when Europeans and other developed countries are not only catching up but exceeding us," Komlos said.

Here's Paul Krugman on the same topic. He says:

We seem to be left with two main possible explanations... One is that America really has turned into 'Fast Food Nation.'

A broader explanation would be that contemporary America ... doesn’t take very good care of its children. ... Whatever the full explanation..., our relative shortness, like our low life expectancy, suggests that something is amiss with our way of life. A critical European might say that America is a land of harried parents and neglected children, of expensive health care that misses those who need it most, a society that for all its wealth somehow manages to be nasty, brutish — and short.

Update: Eric at Edge of the American West has a brief follow-up on whether this is due to immigration (it's not). Free Exchange weighs in here.

Comments

[hari]

This a very interesting idea - not as esoteric as it sounds -to get at behavioral economics and whatnot.

For example, I've been noticing (since mid-1960s) growth of children in Sweden - mainly in Stockholm (where I lived most of the time). If you look at some of the differences in childrens mental and health development, the best place is a kindergarten staffed by licensed staff. They not only get a balanced lunch for meal but a lot more, as I saw from my own kids.

These children are taller than I can envision why. My kids are very tall inspite fo their mixed-racial origin. My daughter was so tall as a teenager, she complained about problem of finding a dancing partner!

I'm not a child psychologist, but I've a feeling that if you can manage to develop kindergarten schools with professional staff to manage kids during their infant/impressive development phase, there's a lot that can be done by society to enhance their development in later life.

It's not a social guarantee but it helps parents who are both in fulltime professional work.

The young PM of Sweden today claims his children are taken to kindergarten and collected by him (after office) when he shops/makes their evening meal at home. Can you believe what that means for the kids?

[bakho]

Interesting stuff, especially about female height. There is a correlation between low birth weight babies, earlier puberty and reduction in height in females.

The US has much higher rates of low birth weight babies than other developed countries. Not having universal pre-natal care is penny wise and pound foolish.

[robertdfeinman]

This has been discussed elsewhere a few years ago. At the time similar work was criticized because it failed to take into account the changing ethnic demographic patterns caused by immigration.

In the US immigrants from South and Central America tend to be shorter than those from Western Europe. I don't know if this has been factored in since the early round of discussions.

I'm always wary of studies where the author then goes on to make some moralistic judgment about the younger generation based upon the "data".

I claim that obesity in the US can be traced back to the rise in drinking sugary soft drinks. When Coke came out it was in a 6.5 oz bottle and was an infrequent treat. Now the standard size is 16 oz and 200 calories. One Coke a day means it takes 17 days to add a pound of weight. This turns out to be about 20 lbs a year. Most people don't change their eating habits when they add a can of soda to their overall diet.

School systems that are substituting juice are not helping. Juice is mostly sugar water as well. Am I right that obesity is caused by Coke? Is the author right with his moralistic focus?

[reason]

Robert D Feinman...
Re migrants - I'm sure that the studies that Krugman referenced, quite explicitly controlled for ethnic background. In fact in found that the average height of Latino migrants had been increasing and that of purely Western European Americans had been decreasing.

[Sonia]

The change in height trends in the post war II period may be the result of lowered European growth in the post war period resulting from famine and displacement in the immediate post war period as well as low income for the next several decades in southern Europe. Improvement from the deprived Post War nutrition level almost certainly contributed to an increase in average height in Europe. over the last several decadeds. In contrast, the relatively high standard of living for most Americans in the Post War period may mean that most American have been at their genetic potential throughout the Post War period.

Lack of health insurance, particularly among children, is frequently a transitory phenomenon. Considerably more work is needed to demonstrate that height and health insurance are related.

Changes in ethnicity may in fact be important in explaining changes in height even if the the height of Hispanics is increasing as long as the typical height of Hispanics is less than that of other Euro Americans. According to a recent report 25% of children under 5 are now Hispanic. Immigrant health and height are functions of nutrition in the home country and the United States and possibly of differences in potential height between ethnic groups.

[hari]

People from mediterranean basin are shorter than those born in northern europe/scandinavia. The average height difference sometimes can be huge....However mediterranean diet is built on olive oil, garlic and lots of fresh vegetables and seafood. Until recently, olive oil was not commonly used in northern europe and scandinavia.

Can it be that dietrary changes - due to introduction of mass tourism - since 1970s - has led to growth of taller europeans?

[Dormilon]

This feels funny.

While I agree that a nutritious, protein-rich diet and adequate preventive healthcare will influence overall population heights (and life expectancy), there are simply too many factors left uncontrolled or, at least, unmentioned in these articles.

I would like to see the studies that controlled for latino- or Asian-specific immigration and the subsequent generations that are growing at substantially faster paces than the national average. I suspect that this argument holds merit.

Moreover, throughout the recent past, Europe has maintained an interesting gradation of height that decreased with latitude. Is this solely attributed to better diets and healthcare? Have Italians, Portuguese, Greeks and Spaniards all experienced significantly worse diets and healthcare relative to their northern neighbors? And how does this compare with the remarkable life expectancies in many of these countries? Indeed, the Japanese have among the highest rates of life expectancy, yet are well below their American or European peers in average height.

And what about the commonality of those groups isolated for generations on islands? Does a fish-rich diet lead to shortness?

In short, rather than resorting to a political talking point about the absurdity of our healthcare system, let's provide some more detail and evidence.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"When Coke came out it was in a 6.5 oz bottle and was an infrequent treat. Now the standard size is 16 oz and 200 calories."

Not to mention that it was originally made with real sugar, and now is made with high-fructose corn syrup (switch for both Pepsi and Coke was 1984). *Big* difference there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

[jean]

At any time you can go to MacDonalds (except during school, at least for young children) and find it well populated with young children under 10. Are they there as a monthly treat? Or is it just one out of many meals they eat there? Fast food is a bargain: cheap and lots of calories, albeit 'empty' calories. Despite the problems of global warming, good quality protein is a must for a healthy, growing body. But when you are poor, the calorie/cost ratio is probably paramount.

Also, high fructose corn sugar is ubiquitous, and it does strange things to the body, not the least creating a dependence/craving on the stuff. And probably it does things we don't even know about. Supersize me!!!

Our national diet is a disgrace: the food pyramid is a result of intense lobbying by the various areas of agribusiness, irrespective of the nutrious value of the food. And the food pyramid is what dictates what the government feeds to the public. And that is a vast amount of people.

[Sonia]

More analysis. The work cited above by Komlos was limited to non-Hispanic Whites so did not include persons of Asian origin. Interestingly the most recent work by Komlos indicates a turn around in heights of persons born after 1973. See abstract below. Maternal age at first birth also needs to be considered. The decline in births below age 20 among Euro and African American females may have resulted in improvements in height in recent years (access to birth control and abortion may have contributed). Also Medicaid and more recently SCHIP may be contributed to improved health among low income chidren.

The Height of US-Born Non-Hispanic Children and Adolescents Ages 2-19, Born 1942-2002 in the Nhanes Samples

JOHN KOMLOS
Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich - Faculty of Economics; CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research)
ARIANE BREITFELDER
Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich - Faculty of Economics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 2007

NBER Working Paper No. W13324

Abstract:
We examine the height of non-Hispanic US-born children born 1942-2002 on the basis of all NHES and NHANES data sets available. We use the CDC 2000 reference values to convert height into Height-for-Age z-scores stratified by gender. We decompose deviations from the reference values into an age-effect and a secular trend effect and find that after an initial increase in the 1940s, heights experienced a downward cycle to reach their early 1950s peak again only c. two decades later. After the early 1970s heights increased almost continuously until the present. Girls born in 2002 are estimated to be 0.35[sigma] and boys are 0.39[sigma] above their 1971 values implying an increase of circa 2.5 cm between birth cohorts 1971 and 2002 as an average of all ages (Table 3). Age effects are also substantial - pointing to faster tempo of growth. Girls are c. 0.23[sigma] taller at age 11 and boys 0.15[sigma] taller at age 13 than reference values (Figure 3). This translates into an age effect of circa 1.7 cm and 1.3 cm respectively. Hence, the combined estimated trend and age-effects are substantially larger than those reported hitherto. The two-decade stagnation in heights and the upward trend beginning in the early 1970s confirm the upswing in adult heights born c. 1975-1983, and implies that adults are likely to continue to increase in height. We find the expected positive correlation between height and family income, but income does not affect the secular trend or the age effects markedly.

[Les Spero]

How about a very simple answer--- if many shorter immigrants (asian and hispanic) enter your country, average height will decrease.

[Barkley Rosser]

The Dutch are now the tallest. Very noticeable when visiting Amsterdam.

[anne]

"How about a very simple answer--- if many shorter immigrants (Asian and Hispanic) enter your country, average height will decrease."

How about:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008818

August, 2007

The Height of US-Born Non-Hispanic Children and Adolescents Ages 2-19, Born 1942-2002 in the Nhanes Samples
By JOHN KOMLOS and ARIANE BREITFELDER

[Joy]

As a short person I can't buy into the assertion that the overall health of a population may be measured in height, on the basis that being overweight and tall is way, way, way worse for your life expectancy than being overweight and short. In fact, just being tall is worse for your life expectancy than being short and overweight. Apparently it has something to do with how far your heart has to pump your blood.

[GoatGuy]

A little demographics ...

People from hotter regions (year-round) are shorter generally, have a lower proportion of lipid cells, and are generally more trim. The reason is simple enough: surface area of a solid body goes up as the square of height, whereas mass goes up as the third power. In a hotter climate, the smaller frame affords greater heat dissipation, longer endurance, faster movement. I'm no Darwinian, but certainly selection must have played a role there.

Likewise, in the high northern latitudes, the same square/cube law relationship combined with the long stretches of bitterly cold weather ... gave advantage to taller people, and especially those who had higher proportions of lipid storing cells.

This is the underlying reason for the differences in height amongst the Europeans (and in many regards, Americans ... due to a similar demographic stratification parallel to Europe for immigrants).

A comment above rightly questions whether the marked uptick in immigration (and though not stated, this population's higher number of progeny) is impacting average height statistically. It is probable, of course. But to what degree?

Another comment (and the focus of the article) is that nutritional completeness during development is at the root of the issue, and that in turn is dependent on the transcendence of prosperity and health-awareness. Probably also so, as the author submits.

It seems to me though that the European Ideal is at the root of their climb in height: almost universally from my experience, the people of Europe are keenly interested in the variety of food, the quality (or perceived quality) of the food, the amount ... and the balance of nutritiousness provided by the food. Its kind of a super-national mania to some extent, making the much humorously derided 'organic leaf eaters' movement of America look positively backward by comparison. The European Ideal has generated the prosperity and wealth for the EU such that almost everyone has access to foods (and interest in them) that just isn't available (or generates interest) here in the States.

Then again, its amazing how much extra it costs to feed, clothe, educate, entertain, medicate and transport a couple of growing kids. When a 'family' has no children (ever more popular of a life-decision in Europe), all those Euros can go to fastidious feeding options. Does this REALLY signal prosperity, or the final wheeze of the passing of a golden society?

I lean toward the latter.

[anne]

"A little demographics ..."

A lot of rubbish ... but well imagined in a grotesque sort of way. Now, back to blaming Latinos.

[Jas Jain]

--
Aren't Europeans doing much better than Americans in sports, e.g., tennis?

Jas

[methinks]

Krugman says:
"as the authors themselves point out, even high-status Americans are falling short: “rich Americans are shorter than rich Western Europeans and poor white Americans are shorter than poor Western Europeans.”

For all you bourgeois apologists, who turn somersaults rather than look at things the way they are, explain this.

[Bupa]

Barkley Rosser said...
"The Dutch are now the tallest. Very noticeable when visiting Amsterdam."

Not since Montenegro became a country two years ago. Though small in population (600,000) Montenegrins are tall in height. Visit Podgorica some time. Though you cannot take a high speed train there as the James Bond movie suggests.

[Jas Jain]

--
more...

Why Are White Europeans So Much Better Than White Americans In Sports?

E.g., tennis. I am quite sure that in basketball a team of white Europeans will easily beat a team of white Americans. No? Boxing?

The most important piece of evidence is the medal tally at Olympics, especially, in individual events.

Jas

[Jas Jain]

--
One area where the white Americans do lot better than the white Western Europeans is: financial manipulation, deception, fraud, Ponzi schemes, etc. The question is: Why?

Jas

[methinks]

Jas Jain says...
"One area where the white Americans do lot better than the white Western Europeans is: financial manipulation, deception, fraud, Ponzi schemes, etc. The question is: Why?"

That's easy! Me-first-screw-everybody-else is the national pastime.

[hari]

Dutch have always been tall and slim...but they're now going bulging around the middle, specially the younger generation.
They don't look so tall...any more!

[Bupa]

"Dutch have always been tall and slim...but they're now going bulging around the middle, specially the younger generation.
They don't look so tall...any more!"

Surely that can can be attributed to high fructose corn syrup.

Farmers feed it to pigs to fatten them up.

Perhaps it is time for warning labels on soft drinks.

[btg]

isn't this old news... i recall reading about this trend months ago.

says...

"The most important piece of evidence is the medal tally at Olympics, especially, in individual events."

Nonsense - individual events in pure athletics tend to have a very strong racial bias - yes racial, not cultural.

One of the few sports that is truly non-racialized is soccer - the primary factor is stamina and no racial group has any pre-disposed advantage.

[mikx]

Since there are supposedly many studies controlling for ethnic/race background, it should be easy to answer the following questions:

1. Average height of American Swedish vs swedes in Sweden
2. American-Dutch and Dutch
3. American-Norvegians and Norvegians
4. Japanese Americans and Japanese.

It was observed, by Thomas Sowell among others, that despite hype about high crime rate in America, American-Swedes have lower crime rates than Swedes, same is true for many (most?) ethnic groups whose countries of predessors have low crime rates.

I will not be surprised if upon close look we will find that "pure bred" Americans are the same or taller than teir co-ethnics.

Perhaps race/ethnicity intermarriage play biggest role.

[Dave Schuler]

Mikx beat me to the punch. We have a significantly more diverse population than Northern Europe does. Even excluding Asians and Hispanics from the study doesn't do it. We have white people of European descent here who are Jewish, Italian, Spanish, Greek, etc. The study is methodologically unsound.

You'd need to do something along the lines that Mikx suggests—compare ethnic Swedes in the U. S. to their counterparts in Sweden, ethnic Dutch in the U. S. with their counterparts in the Netherlands, etc. But even that isn't sufficient since our immigrant populations don't come from Sweden or Holland generally (for example) but from specific areas in Sweden and Holland. What are the height distributions within Sweden and the Netherlands? How do the heights of people in the areas from which we derive our various ethnic populations compare with the people in those areas now? This sounds like pseudo-science to me.

[methinks]

And pigs can fly........

[Mark Thoma]

I think I should have left this part in:Studying the U.S. military
In new research that will be published next month, Komlos looks at the height of American military personnel.

His interest in the military has ... to do with ... the fact that militaries tend to gather and keep extensive data on their personnel. The U.S. Army collects data on the birthplace not only of its soldiers but also of their parents, enabling Komlos to control for those who are children of immigrants.

Some critics of Komlos' previous work suggested that U.S. heights may have skewed downward because the national statistics he used included significant numbers of immigrants and their children, who tend to be shorter.

The new findings corroborate his previous work.

[Patricia Shannon]

http://www.kansas.com/news/story/416017.html

BY JOE STUMPE
The Wichita Eagle
For decades, the federal government has said one thing and done another when it comes to the diets of the youngest at-risk children.

The government's familiar food pyramid touts the importance of fresh fruits and vegetables.

But food checks distributed as part of the federal Women, Infants and Children program can't be used to buy those foods.

That is expected to change in 19 months, when details of proposed WIC adjustments have been worked out at the state level, where the program is administered.

The proposed changes include women and children getting money to buy fruits and vegetables -- about $8 to $10 a month for women and $6 a month for children.

"This is the biggest change that has happened to the WIC program in decades," said David Thomason, a state health department employee and director of Kansas' WIC program. "This is a major, major change."

And it's not the only one. Other changes on tap in the WIC program include:

• Baby foods and more whole-grain products such as bread and tortillas will be eligible for purchase with WIC vouchers for the first time.

• WIC participants will get less milk, cheese, eggs and juice.

• The program will increase its emphasis on breast-feeding by offering more incentives for breast-feeding mothers.

WIC food checks went to 73,302 people in Kansas last month, including 16,963 women, 4,552 infants up to 1 year old, and 8,596 children up to 5 years old.

[Patricia Shannon]

One factor that doesn't get much attention is that psychological abuse can cause a child to stop growing. If the abuse stops, the child starts growing again.
I have heard people from other countries say that the U.S. is a nation of child abusers, and I would concur. (The pendulum may have swung too far in the opposite direction for some.) (Anne, please read to the end of this before you start calling me names.) A couple of years ago, there was a heated exchange of letters in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about harsh treatment of their children by African-American parents. The AA's were writing in defending this as being part of their culture! I pointed out that the wonderful results were shown in increased rates of crime, drug use, and early pregnancy. I saw no more letters in defense of being harsh to children. Of course, harshness towards children is not at all limited to people of any one race or culture. AA leaders who really want to improve the lot of the AA community should be educating and training parents in good parenting skills. Of course, this would be good to apply to all potential parents.

[Patricia Shannon]

Short people have a reduced probability of cancer, and we are more ecological, needing less cloth for our clothing, less food, and smaller furniture!

[Deng Jintao]

Short people always get ticked off when this issue comes up.

Best example of diet/environmental factors affecting height is Japan. Look at any family photo, you'll see the adults who were born and grew up during and immediately after the war are significantly, even dramatically, shorter than their kids born in the 70s/80s.

[methinks]

Deng Jintao says.
"Look at any family photo, you'll see the adults who were born and grew up during and immediately after the war are significantly, even dramatically, shorter than their kids born in the 70s/80s."

Deng, as George Bush says: I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts.

[methinks]

Patricia shannon says:
"A couple of years ago, there was a heated exchange of letters in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about harsh treatment of their children by African-American parents. The AA's were writing in defending this as being part of their culture!"

Have you ever thought about how or why this "harshness" developed? It developed because a black child could lose his life for saying or doing the wrong thing, or doing nothing at all. Even today black mothers worry when their male children grow to be too big and strong, or have attitude. They know that this can cost them their life. Whether it's an Emmett Till, James Byrd or a Sean Bell, this country has a long and sordid history of murdering black men for nothing at all. So when you talk about psychological abuse and its effect on growth, you need to indict much more than black parents.

[Lafayette]

Not very comforting

Article (Krugman): A critical European might say that America is a land of harried parents and neglected children, of expensive health care that misses those who need it most, a society that for all its wealth somehow manages to be nasty, brutish — and short.

A European might well say that ... and more.

I am in touch with a great many European expats who, having lived in the US, have come "home" to Europe. I always ask, why? The quality of life is the invariable reason, usually associated with parents wanting their children to have their cultural background - which seems natural of parents. That is, as migrants, they decided not to become immigrants. Because they had a choice and they chose not to stay.

Immigrants, from poorer countries, don't have that same choice. They tend, therefore, to remain and bring their children up as American citizens.

And, this trend has been noticed since long before lead-head took office and brought America to new lows in terms of global dislike. Global appreciation, in this case, is based upon mostly an external consideration of the US -- and particularly America’s curious interpretation of "democracy".

What Americans don't seem to understand, when they see how much America is presently disliked, is that it is not just in regard to the Iraq War. (Most Europeans remain convinced that Afghanistan was the Right War and Iraq the Wrong War.) In fact, the dislike goes beyond just war, and extends to the interpretation of democracy. After all, democracy was invented in Greece, historians like to say, not in the US.

It was a serious misconception on the part of lead-head (and his neo-conservative running dogs) to think that what was good for America was good for the world -- whether the world liked it or not.

Foreigners have a wide variety of opinions regarding America's cultural values, its lifestyle and even standard of living. Not everyone believes the picture of America that either American TV programs convey or Hollywood, for that matter. (Apart from the violence that they do believe typifies America; which is a shame, since it focuses on just one unfortunate characteristic.)

Shows like “Dallas” did convey an image of America as a hard-hitting social entity, where money determined relationships both externally (in business) and internally (the family). Btw, those actors show up regularly at Country Western shows in Europe and are hugely popular.

Most Europeans that go to the US on vacation are pleasantly surprised with the friendly and easy-going manner of Americans. What is it then that is so upsetting about America?

Simply put, it is that America is behaving like a bull in a China shop; whether it is a matter of foreign policy or Wall Street shenanigans that have global repercussions. Both give the impression that the plane has no pilot, and its flying on "automatic". Most of the world really doesn’t give a damn how the US runs itself. It does matter, however, when that functionality spills over to either World Markets or Politics.

And, my take of current opinion here is that most Europeans think that the matter is very much out of control. They don't think that the next PotUS, even if a Democrat, will likely have a very great impact on what has become culturally ingrained values.

Not very comforting, that notion, is it?

[anne]

http://lyricstrue.net/bandsongtext/Randy_Newman/Short_People.html

1977

Short People
By Randy Newman

Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
To live

They got little hands
Little eyes
They walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet

Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
`Round here

Short People are just the same
As you and I
(A Fool Such As I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It's A Wonderful World)

Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
To love

They got little baby legs
That stand so low
You got to pick 'em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That got beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time
Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
'Round here

[David]

How about comparing the average height of Europeans to Mexicans and Asians? Then cross that with immigration, birthrate and other populations trends among the Mexican and Asian groups in the US over the past 50 years. Then, check impact on height, factoring for ethnicity. Give me a break. Stop overlooking the obvious. I agree that US healthcare can be better. But, please don't find evidence in every stat you see. That just makes the overall argument worse.

BTW: This entire height = superiority discussion is a bit creepy. I'd say there are about 2 billion Chinese and Japanese people who would disagree. This is such a Euro-centric view..... fine for 1908, laughable in 2008.

[reason]

David...
First of all (once again) the evidence excludes hispanics. Secondly, nobody is saying height = quality. People are saying that healthier people grow taller, all other things being equal.

[Johny europe]

Jas Jain says...
--
more...

Why Are White Europeans So Much Better Than White Americans In Sports?

E.g., tennis. I am quite sure that in basketball a team of white Europeans will easily beat a team of white Americans. No? Boxing?

The most important piece of evidence is the medal tally at Olympics, especially, in individual events.

Jas

Posted by: Jas Jain | Link to comment | May 29, 2008 at 11:04 AM

I think this would be a really bad way of comparing, if there was oen thing that really struck me in my visits to the USA, was the belief in 'magic potions'. Nowhere in the world did I see as much advertising for all kind of suposedly magic junk that you could either smear on your body or inject with needles. Botox treatments also originated from the USA, and I could go on and on.

Since it is allready so widespread in the general culture (all those treatments above are resented as unnatural in Europe and only practiced by freaks or ageing bourgeois who desperately seek to stay young), it is no way suprising that Americans Sporters would cheat by injecting all kinds of junk. Just like East-Germany 30 years ago, the only difference is East-Germany utlimately crumbled since it was imposing it on the athletes whereas in the USA the athletes are doing it for their financial benefits and keep quiet in fear of loosing their earnings.

Every recent major American sporter had a smell of cheating, and only now are slowly some things being revealed. But cases are legion: steroid abuse in baseball, Lance Armstronng's EPO usage, Marion Johnes etc, etc.

As cubans are well known cheaters in the Judo sports (much influenced by USA probably) I hardly keep count of US achievments in sports since, compared to European standards they are probably cheaters. I say compared, because in our meat for example it is forbidden to add hormones, since it destroys the quality of the food, while yours is full of it.

And so people using the 'technologic advances' in medicine are less ressented as cheaters since for many Americans it's fair game. (Hence the lower incentive from USA instances to go after their heroes, but are gradually forced now by International agencies)

In sports where endurance and only muscles prevail the dominance of drug cheating has the biggest effect, hence also the dominance of USA in such disciplines (sprinting, jumping, cycling, athletics ...), wheras in sports requring tactical insight, technique and not just muscles, the effect of drug-cheating is leveled down, it still helps but is not as dominant (tennis, soccer, Badminton, Racing...

Of course you can always go chinese and count of an apparatus built on finding the rare Gem in a population with over 1 billions possible champs.

Even if I think chinese are big lyars (like every totalitarian undemocratic regime), I still think of them as more genuine than Americans.

[Begonia Buzzkill]

Not long ago I had read:

The US food stamp program was instigated in our Nation under the guise of "National Security". Our nation's rabid right wing members who want to return our society back to an era (that never existed) probably would like this piece of our history to become extinct . . . or would they prefer Americans return to the era of massive malnutrition and bad health to keep our National Security at high risk?

Apparently, in the history lesson of Food Stamps:

Millions of American men conscripted to serve in the military during World War II were suffering from malnutrition and horrendous medical issues making them unfit to serve.

Hence . . . poverty and malnutrition was recognized as an issue of US National Security.

Today the right wing seems to think those social ills aren't their problem yet they are the ones depending upon threats to National Security to fill their pockets and fill political offices....while at the same time tapping into those victims of our social ills to perpetrate violent corporate takeovers in nations with natural resources - while in uniform.

[Peter G.]

"Genetics determines an individual's height—whether a person is shorter or taller than the national norm—but external factors determine a population's height." This cannot be true. If genetics were the sole factor in determining individual height it would be the sole factor in determining average height.

[Peter G.]

"Genetics determines an individual's height—whether a person is shorter or taller than the national norm—but external factors determine a population's height." This cannot be true. If genetics were the sole factor in determining individual height it would be the sole factor in determining average height.

[methinks]

Peter G. says...
'Genetics determines an individual's height—whether a person is shorter or taller than the national norm—but external factors determine a population's height.' "This cannot be true."

It isn't true. What the study points to is if children are deprived they will never actualize their genetic potential. The quote was not from the authors of the study and is misleading and inaccurate.

[mrrunangun]

An unspoken assumption underlying the conclusions of the study is that all other things are equal and that health and nutrition are the only things that determine height across populations. This is an obvious fallacy, but for the researcher to admit that would be to admit that the research was a waste of his time and his grantor's money.

Similar unspoken assumptions underlie studies that purport to measure the quality of teachers' teaching, doctors' doctoring, etc in which the populations they attend have more to do with the measured result than the skill of the individual. A teacher in a wealthy suburb will have students' whose test scores will be far above those of students whose teacher is equally able but in a school district in a depressed low income appalachian mining town.

[Patricia Shannon]

methinks says...

Patricia shannon says:
"A couple of years ago, there was a heated exchange of letters in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about harsh treatment of their children by African-American parents. The AA's were writing in defending this as being part of their culture!"

Have you ever thought about how or why this "harshness" developed? It developed because a black child could lose his life for saying or doing the wrong thing, or doing nothing at all. Even today black mothers worry when their male children grow to be too big and strong, or have attitude. They know that this can cost them their life. Whether it's an Emmett Till, James Byrd or a Sean Bell, this country has a long and sordid history of murdering black men for nothing at all. So when you talk about psychological abuse and its effect on growth, you need to indict much more than black parents.

I'm sure you're right. But also, people of any race who are stressed out, poor, and lacking in power often take it out on their defenseless kids. No matter the historical causes, it needs to change, for the good of the children, which is for the good of the country.
And the people who defended their actions didn't use your argument. They said the way they treated their children shouldn't be criticized because that was the way their culture is. As a person who has tried to change the European-American (EA) culture for the better, including to stop racism, I don't accept that. AA's rightly feel free to criticize the EA culture, and demand that it change.

[Patricia Shannon]

Since nutritional deprivation in the pre-natal period and childhood can permanently reduce a child's cognitive ability, it is in our national interest, as well as a moral matter, that pregnant women children have a nutritious diet.

[methinks]

Patricia Shannon Says:
"people of any race who are stressed out, poor, and lacking in power often take it out on their defenseless kids. No matter the historical causes, it needs to change, for the good of the children."

Who would dispute that it needs to change. People don't only take it out on their children, they take it out on each other. We can't eradicate poverty? We can't feed, clothe and house everyone? We can't provide a decent life and livable wage. You tell me, what stands in the way? I'll tell you that it is a handful of parasites who live off the labor of not only people in this country but people throughout the world. They stand in the way. And people need to acknowledge it before we can move forward.

[mikx]

I asked previously, if there are so many studies, tell me who is taller Swedes or Swedish-Americans, Dutch or Dutch-Americans.

No answer. No one has even attempted to answer. Just the usual factless bloviation.

Mark Thoma cites:

Studying the U.S. military
In new research that will be published next month, Komlos looks at the height of American military personnel.

His interest in the military has ... to do with ... the fact that militaries tend to gather and keep extensive data on their personnel. The U.S. Army collects data on the birthplace not only of its soldiers but also of their parents, enabling Komlos to control for those who are children of immigrants.

Ok, and how exactly mmilitary records help with progeny of Dutch-Americans (tall) and Irish-Americans (not so tall), both parents being native born?

Only 50% of Americans identify their ethnic background, 50% state that they are Americans only.
I would hazard to guess that majority (75% - 80%) of white non-immigrant Americans have mixed ethnic background.
With large part of their DNA coming from Eastern Europe ethnics who tend to be shorter.

If studies do not take this into account ... well I let Mark Thoma explain why those studies worth more than paper on which they are printed.

[ceti]

This study seems to favour the White Nordic Aryan physique doesn't it? With just the right amount of exercise, healthy food, and proper genetics, we can achieve the Master Race!

Seriously, you have to be wary of such studies. While it might critique America, it does so from a "fascist ubermensch" mentality that holds in contempt the Americna melting pot and allo those nasty poor people and their poor eating habits.

[ceti]

Moreover, this is an old idea that goes back to social darwinism as the British dismissed Indians and Chinese as nations of rice eaters, as opposed to the beef eating that made them tall, strong, and powerful.

[Patricia Shannon]

methinks
I'm on your side.

[PG]

I am familar with Komlos work and his arguments are somewhat silly. He makes mountains out of millimeters. I you actually look at the published height data from health surveys and data on conscripts (mostly 19 years old), Americans and Europeans are very similar in height.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, non-hispanic white and non-hispanic black males, aged 20-39, are 178.2 and 177.8 cm (respectively). Mexican American males, 20-39, are a little under 170cm. (if you want the number in inches, divide by 2.54). Non-hispanc whites and blacks born between 1980 and 1983 are about 179cm and 178cm, respectively.

Data on 19 year old male conscripts from various European countries are as follows: Norway - 179.9cm, Sweden, 180.2cm, Denmark- 180.9cm, Germany - 180.0cm, Switzerland - 178.1cm, Austria - 178.4cm, Portugal - 173cm (their Spanish Neighbors self report at 176cm), Greece - 177.4cm (urban recruits - 178.1cm), Poland - 177.4cm, Turkey - 176.1 cm, Hungary - 176.5 cm.

Health and Growth Surveys from various European and European derived countries for males in their early 20s are as follows - Holland - 184.0 cm (ethnic dutch only - Dutch born men of Turkes and N. African descent are 174 adn 175cm, respectively), UK - 177.2cm, Czech Republic- 180.3cm, Iceland - 180.6cm, Italy (Rome and North) - 176.9cm, Italy (South of Rome) - 174.2cm, France - 177.0cm, Australia - 178.4cm, Lithuania - 181.3cm, Estonia (17 yrs old) - 179.1cm, and the Dinaric Alps (only 17 yrs old)(S. Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and N. Albania) - 185.6cm.

As one can see, the only white populations that are significantly taller than American whites are the Dutch and People from the Dinaric Alps (W. Balkans). The other populations from N. and NE Europe are slightly taller than white Americans (but within 1 or 2cm) and the rest are somewhat shorter.

By focusing on tall German and Scandinavian nations Komlos is being misleading. One cannot rule out genetic factors in height differences. Looking at Komlos' own published work, he notes that increasing SES is correlated with higher stature in all countries, and, while Germans and Scandinavians are slightly taller, and the Dutch much taller, than American whites, when one matches Americans and N. Europeans of similar SES, the stature differences remain. This is not what one would expect if the height difference were a product economic inequality and lack of health care for the poor. One would expect affluent Americans to be similar in stature to their N. European counterparts, while the European poor would be much taller than the American poor. This is not the case. All N. European groups are taller at all SES levels. Also, how does Komlos theoy account for the great stature in the Dinaric Alps, which is one of the poorest regions in Europe?