Talk:Human height

Archive (August 2004-February 2006)

Height Growth Graph

The graph is too limited in it's function byt itself... There are two ways to provide a "cm of growth done" up to "age" of this data: Obtain the area given by the graph to put it on the Y axis of another graph with age in the X asis; Use the numbers obtained from the research to calculate this directly rather than calculate this the hard way (Placing the graph in power point, drawing lines over the lines to take the area beneath the lines drawn (that shall be many as the curves must become straight lines and thus brake into many more for this) and then make the data comparative (not all "2 years" are represented by an equal length of graph, the last "2 years" are not even used fully). I've done the first way but it's too time-consuming to do it all the time and I can't recall if the doc survived the perils an archive faces in a busy computer... So... Can someone help with method 2?

Height Table

The height table measurements looked vandalized compared to the last time I checked. For example, France's average height of about 5.3.

Also, is there sufficient data to compare average height's for major cities not just countries? Eversocratesgreen 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: UNITED KINGDOM

The survey which gave the UK its 2(?) entries is from a "Health Survey for England" thus showing the average height of the English population, not the UK. Perhaps it could be broken down to just showing England? Stuart McN 11:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Stuart McN[reply]

Canada

Line 2 of the table, for Canada, is wrong. The metric and imperial figures don't agree.

RE: CANADA

- The values did not even match the article referenced. Nor, was there any mention that the values were self reported. I have since entered the metric values directly from the article, and used the correct conversion for Imperial values (2.54 cm to 1 inch). Nacho0o0o 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You used the wrong figures (18+, instead of 18-24 year olds). I have since corrected them. 180 cm (5'11") for males, and 165 cm (5'5") for females. --Clatomos 07:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many per stadistics?

Age range, place, heights, they are part of the data but... What is missing is very important to... How many each of these researched investigated?

Graphics

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, but someone who knows how should remove the violet and blue graph with international height comparisons because it's confusing (with countries noted more than once) and in its current state, uninformative and misleading. It exaggerates differntiation by zooming in on a couple of centimeters.

Moore an Idiot?

Why does it say "Thank you, Moore you are truly an idiot" in this article?

Karube data removal

The karube link is dead, and should therefore be removed. This wasn't a source, but a list of sources, some of which seemed dubious or mislabbeled. It had alot of broken links in it for figures that conflicted with sourced data.

The link for karube has to go, but I think also does the data sourced to karube in the average height list. If someone can find the original sources for the karube data, then it can be added individually on a source by source basis (and find out who is being measured (age group etc) and whether they are self reporting height, or being measured).

This will greatly improve the list, as more sources have been added over time, and karube data is no longer neccassary to make up numbers. --rom

I'm not a fan of kurabe.net myself and to use the data sources that were listed there on a case-by-case basis always seemed reasonable to me. Evolauxia 00:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the data (eg Pakistan, that there seem never to have been a source for) are more deserving of deletion than karube. I have no problem with deleting karube data, but I think a case-by-case approach after some good faith effort has been made to track down the original source cited by karube would be the best approach. As for the link to karube, why not just redirect it to the copy (I put the link somewhere up above on this page). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with removing unsourced data; unsourced changes are reverted so it's only fair. Perhaps an admin should archive this talk page, it is getting tediously long. Of course, anyone could do it if we don't care about archiving the histories too? Evolauxia 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a copy for karube found, then an effort to find the original sources, and a few basic questions answered (age group of people measured, sex, self reported or measured data, year that data was collected, possibably race in a strongly multiethnic country etc).

Then karube is taken out of the table of values, but can be left in links because some may see value in figures we can't source or dispute.

karube is the name we have given whatever the list of heights in japanese was called.

But the first thing is to replace or delete the dead link.

--rom

FAO

Hey, I think this FAO dataset BODY WEIGHTS AND HEIGHTS BY COUNTRIES by W.A. Marshall has been mentioned before, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. What I don't understand is this page which lists the mean for each population according to the equivalent percentile for 1979 USA population. That all seems sensible, so for instance, Finns 15+ years old have a mean height which is at the 50th percentile for US 15+ year olds (approx 12th row from the top of the table). But then the table seems to repeat in a second version, and 15+ year old Finns are at the 30th US pencentile (below Belgium and Czechoslovakia). See what I mean? Does this make sense? I think I must be reading it wrong... Pete.Hurd 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had problems with that too. The second table is for weight, I think, although it's indicated as length. Compare it with the data from the girls. Junes 12:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurostat statistics

I have read that Eurostat has reliable statistics about height for Europe. Why is there no link to those statistics? Are they not available in internet?

I am not sure, because i'm sure i've linked them at one time. They were a bit hard to find, i remember that much. - rom

Unsourced edits

The average length table is the target of quite a few unsourced edits over the past month. I just reverted back quite a few versions and put this page on my watchlist; perhaps others can do the same. I think we should revert any unsourced edits; I just hope the table is accurate at this point. Junes 13:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table is not accurate. I don't think you should revert anything if you don't know the values are. But just kill all of the unsourced values, and karube - b, for a much more accurate table. - rom

It'S also quite interessting, that the Austrian data ís taken out of "ABS How Australians Measure Up 1995 data"----?

Are those height data reliable?

What are the sources? Are there any links to those sources? —This unsigned comment was added by LSLM (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 March 2006.

There are some sources mentioned in the article. You can find them if you scroll all the way down. Junes 08:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (by the way, you can sign your contributions with ~~~~)[reply]

From now on, I think we should ensure that all edits to the table are sourced and verifiable. We should also seek to find out the date of the measurements, the age of the people measured, and whether the height was self reported or measured.

This table gets really wonky, if a value isn't sourced well, then delete it. - rom

There is a difference of 10 cm between Spain and Germany. Come on, who believes that?. Spaniards have been shooting up much more than that. The height for young British is also wrong, etc. I think there is an absolute admixture of criteria, years, ages, in short, a mess. The Eurostats statistical yearbook 2004 is mentioned for young Germans, but not for other Eurpeans. Most other young Europeans are close to 1.80 in that yearbook, why are the Germans mentioned and not the other Europeans?. HCC.

Why's the height for young British wrong? and the 10cm difference between germans and spaniards you cite is comparing young germans to the whole spanish population, and not young spaniards. From the datat u've given the height difference is really 3 - 4 cm, do you find that easier to believe? -- rom

Where did they get the 177.8 and 164.7 height for italians? What does 2002 refer to? Where is the source? I am gonna have to change it and provide a real source if none provides more detailed informations about the source.

Eurostats 2004 statistical yearbook.

I propose using that yearbook for heights in Europe. I do not know if you have noticed it, but most of the countries in the list are European. The 2004 is the most recent data available. As I said earlier, why is it used just for young Germans?

As to the FAO statistics. I do not know if I interpret them well, but if I am not wrong boys aged 15-18 in Spain are taller than boys of the same age in countries like UK, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Czech Republic or Poland, which seems in absolute contradiction with the data shown on the list. Can somebody explain that? HCC

Where do you have a link to the Eurostat data? I found something like that, but it contained only data on health, demography and economy. Cartouche, 26 July 2006

Table 4.2.1, in Health Statistics: Key data on health 2002 (Cat # KS-08-02-002-EN-N). I downloaded a copy from I -cannot-remember-where, but that's 2002 (data actually much older than that). Otherwise, I suggest a book like Worldwide variation in human growth by Eveleth & Tanner. Pete.Hurd 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uuuh, I eventually found something: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/url/page/PGP_MISCELLANEOUS/PGE_DOC_DETAIL?p_product_code=KS-08-02-002 Cartouche, 3/9 2006

Yeah, that's it. Table 4.2.1 seems to be the source for the karube data for the respective countres. Pete.Hurd 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data for spain

Well here I have a very usefull article about height in Spain. It portrays well the development in height that can be seen in so many countries at the moment: http://www.el-mundo.es/magazine/num200/textos/asi1.html

The article is in Spanish, I hope you will be able to understand it. Just in case, I translate the relevant data: The studies are based on research by Professor Manuel Hernandez and Sigma Dos, a reknown research company in Spain.'

We have the following situation according to Sigma Dos.

A) Averages for 45-64 year-olds.

Males: 1,69 m Females: 1,58 m

b) Averages for the entire population:

Males: 1.73 m Females: 1.61 m

d) Averages for 18-29 year-olds.

Males: 1.77 m Females: 1.64 m

We have the following situation according to Professor Manuel Hernandez.

Males: 1.76 m Females: 1,615 m

Unfortunately Professor Manuel Hernandez does not mention ages. I guess it is for rather younger Spaniards.

Comments please.

HCC.

I'd assume that's the measured height of young spaniards, just by looking at it, but it would be better if we could find out exactly how those values where ascertained.

If you speak Spanish, maybe you could find out? -- rom

Meters to feet conversion

I have realized that the meter to feet conversion in wrong in many cases. I will see to it when I have time. HCC.

Well, I have already corrected from Spain downwards. The conversions were all wrong, I do not know why. I tink from Spain upwards they are all wrong. I will continue some other time. I have used this conversion tool: http://www.worldwidemetric.com/metcal.htm I assume that it is right. HCC.

Lifting weights: not enough information

The article says "...Exercise promotes secretion; however, too much work or anaerobic and muscular development can impede growth or even induce premature cessation, or can induce premature closing of the growth plates (indeed, adolescents who take steroids can experience stunted growth)." After reading this I am left wondering exactly which exercises will and which exercises won't stunt growth. The phrase "too much work or anaerobic and muscular development" is much too ambiguous for the average growing teenager who wants to lifts weights without stunting his growth. How much weight can I lift without stunting my growth? What's considered "too much"? Are certain weight exercises "safe" while others aren't? How old must I be? These are a few of the questions I have that I can't find the answers to. So, if anyone reading this knows the answers, please answer them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Packshack (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 May 2006.

from my weight training teacher, basically leg weight exercises before 16-18 is a bad move for this reason, you need to have a trainer to make sure your not putting your potential height at risk if your training heavy with weights in your early teens

Original research

I am not going to revert war over this edit, but I disagree strongly with these additions. I appreciate that the edit is trying to add balance to the article, but without reputable sourced supporting evidence, claims such as the following are unencyclopedic: "Clearly, a society of shorter human beings is easier on the earth's resources than a society of larger humans."

I have removed the following claim because it's demonstrably untrue: "The shorter frame has greater acceleration, quickness, agility and coordination" - for example, only one of the five fastest 100 m times was recorded by a sprinter shorter than 5'11", and the current record holders are both over 6'. Regarding the edit summary "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it", please note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes the edits to remain. --Muchness 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raw speed is not the same thing as acceleration, agility, coordination and balance. The taller sprinter can generate more torque, and possibly a greater top speed. All things being equal, the shorter sprinter will have the fastest start. Also, there are plenty of shorter humans with excellent raw speed so I am not sure your example means much of anything.Ttzzkk 05:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this section does not use relevant physics to explain its point. Torque applies only to objects that are ROTATING about a center. Running has nothing to do with torque. The only place that torque plays a role in this article is when a person falls, which involves rotation about a center of mass. Inertia and rotational interia are related but not the same thing. I am not editing this section because once all the physics is corrected, the entire section will become irrelevant. --physics graduate student, 29 May 2006

Clearly when one walks or runs the bones in the legs are in rotational motion. This is standard, accepted, well established physics.Ttzzkk 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a mechanical engineer, I feel some of the statements in this article are biased towards short people, saying that short people are faster simply because they have to exert a smaller torque to get their body moving is hardly a physical proof that they have better acceleration. Taking people of the same fitness (muscle to weight, muscle density etc.) while the taller person has to exert more torque to move, the taller person also has more muscle mass and can exert a greater torque in the first place.

Shorter people however are more agile than taller people, but this is not mainly due to less torque required, it is simply because shorter people generally have less mass (the concept of momentum).

The taller person will in general have more muscle mass than the shorter person, but there is a square factor in the torque equation. Muscle mass will increase linearly with height but the torque required to set one's body in motion increases by a factor related to the square of the length of the bones in the body.01001 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Muchness, I do not wish to get into arguments about editing the article itself, but I found this section to be particularly unfounded for a wikipedia article and just hope that whoever next edits this section reads my comments. --brett, 17 June 2006

Shorter people have better acceleration, that's without doubt. Remember that taller people with longer legs don't posess enough muscle mass in proportion to their leg length! Muscle force grows disproportionately slower than body mass! Yet it is true that small sprinters have short stride and thus they usually don't excel at distances longer than 60 m. And what about agility, yes, smaller people are more agile, because they have lower center of gravity. Cartouche, 26 July 2006

I'm removing the physics section from the article: it's been tagged for over a month, no sources have been provided, and a number of editors have raised legitimate concerns about this section's validity. --Muchness 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Orientals" aren't "shorter" than Europeans. From my experience Northern Chinese, Koreans raised on a modern diet are taller than Europeans--even scandinavians.

a doctor who is a friend of mine who speicalisis in glands and growth in children said that if all people of the world had the same dite and lifestyle thier average hieght would be almost the same and not that much differnces

Diet plays a role, but it's not everything. See Ruff (2002) Variation in human body size and shape. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 31:211-232; Bogin (1999) Patterns of human growth. 2nd ed Cambridge U Press; and Bogin (2001) The growth of humanity Wiley-Liss for current views of science on the matter. Pete.Hurd 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinaric Alps

This term is one usually applied to the former Yugoslavia, or atleast the western stretch where these mountains run. In fact it is a misconception to assume that these people are all tall, or in fact so tall everywhere. Only in its southern reaches are the people exceptionally tall, this means Southern Dalmatia, Herzegovina and the Republic of Montenegro with an overflow in Northern Albania (where the population is considered Illyrian and non-Slavic). If we were to talk about a country where there is surely an average close to 1,90cm for males, this can only be the newly independent Montenegro. Herzegovina would have to include Bosnia including Sarajevo and its north where people are of Italian stature, just as in the rest of Croatia outside of its Southern Dalmatian sector where people are mostly short and chunky (like Zagreb). Montenegro by contrast in small with barely half a million people and most of the young people are margianally above Northern European averages. Evlekis 27 May 2006, 10:38

I'd heard murmerings of tall people in these areas before (particularly Montenegro). I had an Italian friend who assured me these were the tallest people in the world. I remained sceptical, I thought they were taller than average at one time in Europes' past (like say Scottish people) and the stereotype had continued to current times. I thought because these areas aren't economically wealthy, they would probably be shorter than most europeans.

Earlier in this discussion page I talked to another guy from the UK who told me that people from Montenegro where extremely tall, he didn't have any concrete statistics though, so it couldn't really be included in the article.

There are many myths in terms of average height, but I'm glad this French study could confirm this interesting statistic. I, too, would like to know what exactly was meant by Dinaric alps (eg the literal region of the mountain range, or a selected area that's commonly referred to as Dinaric Alps which crosses a few borders). And also more about Illyrian people and the diet in these areas. -- r0m

From the full text article: "Pour des raisons d'organisation locale, nous nous sommes limités à la Dalmatie centrale (Split, Sibenik et leurs environs, Drnis, Sinj, Imotski, Vrgorac) et à l'Herzégovine (Mostar, Trebinje, Konjic et leurs environs)." So that's central Dalmatia and Hercegovina. Junes 09:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dalmatia and Hercegovina"? So was the article misquoted in reference to "Serbia and Montenegro"? The person who copied the source seems to have used the "non-full article". -- Fletcher

Health & Height

The article gives the impression that a taller population is healthier than a shorter one. While I do not doubt that this holds truth, it is not true. At least, not if we measure health by life expectancy. Japan, for example, is around 10 cm shorter than the US. Yet the US only has a life expectancy of 77.85 years [1], compared to Japan's 81.25 [2]. --A Sunshade Lust 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holds truth ... but is not true. In other words there is a correlation but not a direct proportional relationship. Japan has a longer female life expectancy than the US, the main cause of the difference. There are racial differences in height between the two populations with caucasians and most africans being taller on average than east asians given the same environmental conditions. A better comparison would be comparing Japan's rising height and life expectancy to Japanese height and life expectancy in the past, it would then be easy to see a relationship. Some american populations do live longer than japanese or even okinawans, Seventh day adventist in california have a longer life expectancy than any other group studied, and studies of average SDA height show they are slightly taller than the average population. Now, it's possible that in some circumstances like practicing caloric restriction, that some people say okinawans do traditionally, shortness may be an advantage in longevity. But practically in the real world the relationship is the other way around and men with above average, but not extreme, height live longer than average in any given population. -- r0m

The only sourced evidence relating height and health suggests that loss of stature owing to childhood disease may effect longevity. I am removing this section for as written it is OR. There is no evidence whatsoever that short stature not caused by disease is related to health or longevity.01001 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say no evidence whatsoever, you can't know that. Only that you haven't seen the evidence. There is plenty of evidence. Also don't remove sections when you haven't looked into the issue. "Height also has a direct relationship to longevity; research suggests that the height of a child at age 12 has a direct correlation with life expectancy as an adult." and "In Norway a survey by professor Hans Waaler revealed that tall people live longer: women aged 40 to 44 who measured between 145 and 149 centimeters had a mortality rate double that of women between 165 and 169 centimeters. Norwegian men aged 55 to 59 who measured 150 to 155 centimeters had double the mortality rate of those whose height was 185 to 189 centimeters." from http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_may99/tall.html . Plus there is other evidence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16484449&dopt=Abstract about the inverse relationship between height and risk of coronary heart disease in twin pairs. That was 2 minutes looking through google, how can you say no evidence exists? --rom

It should be added that the heart has to work against gravity to pump blood through the body. The heart of the taller person clearly must do more work to pump the blood. So from the perspective of simple physics, the tall persons cardivascular system must be under more stress and strain than the shorter person. Also, we have women in general having less cardiovascular problems than men, and we have the island of Japan having far better cardiovascular health than most other nations. Also, the majority of marathon champions are not that tall which suggests a functional advantage for the cardiovascular system of a shorter person.01001 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a quote from the study. The article is misleading and the disputed section should be deleted:

"Moreover, could there be a link among childhood infections, adult height, and subsequent cardiovascular disease? Several biologic indices of inflammation and/or some types of viral and bacterial infection in adults are apparently associated with increased cardiovascular risk (14, 15). As children with a history of frequent infections are known to have diminished adult height (16) and childhood respiratory infection probably reduces adult lung function, it may be useful to determine whether certain types of childhood infection can increase future cardiovascular risk. Studies such as those suggested here will not be easy, but the new information could be of considerable value."

You're joking right? How does that section support what you say? Changed paragraph to references which support the statements made. Pete.Hurd 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake for Spain

Below, copied from the statistics for Spain please observe:

You can see in the first row, the average male height is 170.0 cm in Metric and 5 ft 6.9 inch in feet, how ever in the second row, the average male height is 169.0 cm in Metic and 5 ft 7 inch in feet.

Thatś because they are from different sources.

The physics of human height

torque = rotational inertia X angular acceleration. Rotational inertia = sum of the products of the mass of each particle by the square of its distance from the axis of rotation. [3]These equations mean that the shorter human can accelerate more quickly than the taller human. The taller human requires considerably more torque to gets its body moving. This also means that the taller human can generate considerably more torque. For similar reasons the shorter human can decelerate more quickly and change directions more quickly than the taller human. This gives the shorter human more agility and quickness than the taller human.

These equations of rotational dynamics also show that the shorter human is prone to be more coordinated than the taller human. When the taller human sets himself in motion his body gains more angular momentum than the shorter human and it requires considerably more torque for the taller human to control his body. The shorter human will tend to be more coordinated than the taller human.

When the taller human starts to lose his balance, again his body will gain more angular momentum which will require more torque to control. The shorter human will tend to have better balance than the taller human.

These effects can easily be understood if one tries to control a 12 inch (30 cm) ruler as opposed to a yardstick (1 m ruler). The shorter ruler will be much easier to accelerate, decelerate, change directions, control and balance, although the yardstick can generate more power.

In many sports such as baseball, the greater torques that the taller players can generate give them almost an overwhelming advantage over the shorter player. In other sports such as basketball, the greater reach of the taller players is an overwhelming advantage. In American football the taller bodies can carry much more mass than the shorter bodies and this gives the taller body an advantage. However, in the case of running backs in American football the shorter players are able to use the advantages of greater acceleration, agility, coordination and balance to compete successfully against the more massive taller players. Many running backs enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame measure 5 feet 10 inches (178cm) or less, significantly shorter than elite players at other positions.

Acceleration, agility, coordination and balance are at a great premium in indoor soccer and we find a large number of players in this sport of short stature. There is also a great abundance of players of short stature in outdoor soccer(International football).

Spain's values

There is a new study that has been introduced that makes reference to four individual studies with the following measurements for 18 year-old Spanish males in different Spanish regions: Catalonia (Hospital of Vall d'Hebron): 1,73. Madrid: 1,77. Zaragoza: 1,77. Galicia 1,77. The 1.77 figure is consistent with the values presented in the other studies here. The case of Vall d'Hebron (Catalonia) is anomalous, and reading the article one can see that it may even be a print mistake. It is not logical to think that Catalans, who enjoy one of the highest living standars in Spain, are 4 cm. shorter that the rest of Spaniards. In any case, to introduce the smallest value among 5 available right now does not make any sense and is not representative, that is why I am deleting it. HCC. ---

If the data are sourced I don't see any excuse for deleting them. I don't buy the argument that Catalans must be taller because they are more affluent. I'd prefer to see the data as it is, rather than your demand that the data must be deleted because they contradict your preconceived view of reality. Pete.Hurd 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Pete, then we can add them. The problem is that in that same article there are data for 4 different Spanish regions, as I have pointed out. In the case of males three of them have the value of 1.77 (Madrid, Zaragoza and Galicia) measured, the same value that we have in the article used for the self-reported values for the whole of Spain. Shall we add all those data then mentioning each region? Then we would have to create a lot of different cells for Spain alone. And I can also mention other sources with different values. What is your opinion on that? Veritas 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have introduced the values mentioned in the article for each of the four regions. Veritas 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss changes Spain Values

I have discussed changes about Spain's values. If someone restores it without discussing that is vandalism. Veritas 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's restoring properly sourced material Pete.Hurd 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I see you use this form of "discussion" regularly Pete.Hurd 22:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what you have to do, discuss it first. I think you know that Pete. I have made my comments above. Veritas 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At 1.95 only one colleague was smaller than me when I was in the army in a Montenegrin division in 2003 (Serbia & Montenegro). The rest were my size and bigger. Tapaтaлo 8.9.06

Well, it seems that Montenegro may have even a taller average than the Diranic Alps. It would be interesting to have some sources and verifiable values on that. 65.2.121.156 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro

At 1.95 only one colleague was smaller than me when I was in the army in a Montenegrin division in 2003 (Serbia & Montenegro). The rest were my size and bigger. Tapaтaлo 8.9.06

Well, it seems that Montenegro may have even a taller average than the Diranic Alps as a whole. It would be interesting to have some sources and verifiable values on that. 65.2.121.156 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really interested in seeing more data about Former Yugoslav heights. -- rom

That's got to be a joke, surely, that implies the average height is about 2meters, that's about 6'7". No way.

That is why it would be interesting to have verifiable sources about Montenegro. Of course just a comment like that is not valid, but I think that Montenegro may well have an average that is even taller than the average for the Dinaric Alps as a whole. Of course, if there are no verifiable sources, we cannot do anything there. 65.3.246.136 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, please, that the sample in the Dinaric study was only 17 years old. Young adults may thus be about 1 cm taller (186,5 cm). That's almost incredible, but it falls very well among data reported 70 years ago by Carleton Coon. Then the Montenegrins were about 4-5 cm taller than the tallest people in the rest of Europe. Cartouche, 22.September 2006

Montenegro seems to get two entries, as itself but also as Dinaric Alps. I think I said before that the Dinaric Alps do vary in human height, and I suppose that Montenegro constitutes an area where the actual average is higher than other parts of the same continuum. Evlekis 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис[reply]

I agree about the 17 year olds. I and almost every other exceptionally tall male that I know went through a late puberty and kept growing until they were about 20. I remember my last year of primary school quite clearly and there were a few 11 and 12 year old girls who were tall, muscular and had visible breasts. Most of them are now of below average height. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aussie Jim (talk • contribs) 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

MONTE NEGRO 188,5 CM? WHO POSTED IT? Do you have a credible source? Cartouche, 16.9. 2006

The posted source contains no real information, only that Montenegrins can be over 190 cm tall. Cartouche, 23.10. 2006

I could post several such sources. They all say the same thing. Where I actually read 1,88.5 and the rest was in a book published in 2000 in Niksic, Montenegro. It spoke also of a slightly taller group of people living among the Tutse people of Rwanda and Burundi. I may be able to name the book but I cannot find first hand quotes from it on the web. Jordovan 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parent Age

There should be discussion about the effect of parent age on a child's height 4.225.125.110 13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)!![reply]

This could be true. Because I have a friend who is my age (13) and he is 5'11. His parents are both in their late fifties, early sixties. I am also 5'11 and 13, and my parents had me at about 37-38. But then again, I have a friend (a girl) who is 5'10 and 13, and her parents had her in their 20's. I live in Canada by the way.

Self reported stature

--It seems that finding actual reliable sources of international stature is more difficult to come by than I thought.Anyhow, I do feel that any heights listed as "self reported" should be taken off the chart because such reports would seem whooly unscientific, as exaggeration is quite common when it comes to human height.--71.222.48.14 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? There is actually a large literature demonstrating that self-reported height is _very_ reliable, see:

Brown et al 2002. Clin Nurs Res. 11:417-432.
Brener et al 2003. J Adolesc Health 32:281-287
Himes & Faircy 2001. Am J Hum Biol 13: 255-260
Himes & Roche 1982. Am J Phys Anthropol 58:335-341
Spencer et al 2002. Pub. Health Nutr 5:561-565

Pete.Hurd 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do those studies say? I've read that people tend to overestimate their height and underestimate their bodyweight. This may be due to what time of the day people measure their height (for instance if you measure your height in the morning and in the evening you will be shorter in the evening, and also heavier ... so you probably gain a BMI point a day.) But also it's due to self deception and wishful thinking, or not being able to convert inches to cm accurately.

This strategy of using self reported heights and weights works well for Canada, because it greatly reduces the amount of people who are obese in statistics for international comparison. IMHO

I think self reported heights should stay in, but be marked as self reported heights, and I think that measured studies are the ideal.

Middle Ages an era of tallness?

"The European Middle Ages was an era of tallness with men of above six feet (1.83 m) considered unremarkable."

Where did this idea come from? And in which countries or nations did six feet become unremarkable? In England, it seems to have been proven (http://www.plimoth.org/learn/history/myth/fourfttwomyth.asp) that the average mean stature of males from the Medieval to 18th century stood between 5'6" and 5'7." Thus a man of six feet would likely have been seen as rather tall, similarly to how modern American men might view a guy of 6'4" or 6'5."--71.222.48.14 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the statistics you gave a six foot man from medieval england would have been 11cm above average, which would be comparable to a 189cm(6'2.5" white american male) in modern times. A height that is above average but not remarkable.

Changing Height

Shouldn't have at least a note that many small people (even non-disease small) try to get taller by doing this or that? (actually, I want to know how to get taller ._.'). 200.230.213.152 04:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an adult, changing height is sedlom possible. The most important growth phases in a human's life are during his/her infancy and during puberty. Between that, growth is occuring, but at much smaller rates. Growth ends more or less completely with maturity. Therefore catching up "missed" growth as an adult is rather impossible. For further information, see for example Steckel (1995), Stature and the Standard of Living, in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 1903-1940 --Diskobox 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junk food

Diet (in addition to needed nutrients; such things as junk food and attendant health problems such as obesity), exercise, fitness, pollution exposure, sleep patterns, climate (see Allen's rule and Bergmann's Rule for example), and even happiness (psychological well-being) are other factors that can affect growth and final height.

I know a bunch of kids who are younger than me who always eat junk food and never excercise, yet they're all taller than me by at least three inches. I try to avoid junk food as much as possible and I excercise at least three times a week, but I'm still only average (5'3" and 13). My sister says excercising actually stunts growth because it wears you out, but my teachers say it's just the opposite. So would eating junk food and not excercising make you taller, or shorter? Why sigh, cutie pie? 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I answered my own question. My dad says junk food lacks nutrition, which would actually make you shorter, but those kids are still tall due to genetics. And sometimes it's not the food you eat, it's just genetics (i.e if you don't eat a lot, but your parents are tall, you'll probably be tall too). Excercising probably does make you taller, because all P.E teachers and athletes I've met are average height or above average. Why sigh, cutie pie? 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you a chink, cutie pie? u sucky sucky?

I have four cousin who are owerweighted. First one is 19 years old, weighs probably 230 pounds and is 6'3 tall. Second one is 16 years old, weighs probably 200 pounds and is 5'11 tall. Third one is 14 years old, weighs probably 190 pounds and is 5'11 tall. The fourth is 12 years old, weighs probably 210 pounds and is 5'8 tall (Nr.1, 2 and 4 are brothers).

Sounds like they are a relatively tall family, but as far as children being fat and eating junkfood being in the top 1% of height is a big risk factor for morbid obesity, I can't remember the source for that but it was reliable. Also in general fat children are likely to be above average height while they are children, something about being overweight causes them to have a growth spurt (could be something to do with insulin etc), but they don't end up being taller adults they just grew earlier.

So they are all eat much junk food. They never do sports. They hate doing sports. Some of them suffer from obesity.

I am 17 years old, weigh 140 pound, 5'8 tall and seldomly eat junk food. I eat very healthy. Meat, vegetables, fruit, dairy products,...

So my cousins are all taller than me. Why? Mabye I'm still growing. But you can't say that kids who eat junk foods don't grow much. I'm sorry for my poor English.

Maasai People

Someone needs to add somewhere in this article something about the Maasai people. I'm unsure why we keep making references to Montenegreans being the tallest people's on earth when the Maasai, who though they aren't their own country, measure quite a bit taller. ---

I also think that they are the tallest in the world.````

The info on this page is wrong. The Dutch are the tallest in the world (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040405fa_fact?040405fa_fact). The info on the Dinaric Alps and Montenegro is wrong, or at least unverified. The Masai have a reputation for tallness which is unjustified. 67.71.142.110 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page wrong and not the new yorker? The new yorker says that the dutch are 6'1" or 1.855cm or so. We haven't seen sourced data that high, the highest dutch average height i've ever seen was 1.84m which could be farely translated into 6'0.5" but not 6'1". Also I believe ( i can't remember exactly) that the article listed the average native born white male as 5'9.5" ..... well the measured data we have found and sourced lists the average white (presumabably non-hispanic) male at around 178.2 - 5'10", and this height is the case for even late middle aged men so is not just recent generations exceeding the New Yorker figures. I believe the New Yorker was trying to propagate a poltical point in that article, which would be OK as long as they used good data and properly converted from metric to imperial.

It is also possible that other groups in the world could be taller than the Dutch, but that the Netherlands has a higher average than any other nation. -- rom

Where do you get away with saying the Masai people's reputation for tallness is unjustified? Do you have any soure? --Criticalthinker 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table/Sources

As is, the sources for the table look fairly messy and there are no links in the table versions; I think each row should have a reference tag as you find in all other articles, with the references being added automatically at the bottom. SynergyBlades 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland's average height

"4 ft 5 in" for males, "4 ft 3.9 in" for females. Are these accurate numbers, or is someone pulling our legs? -Eric

Hard to believe, suggest delete, then investigate editor/source for correct value etc... Pete.Hurd 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the data seems to have come from averaging between the ages of 6 to 20 years of age, I'll fix. Pete.Hurd 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human height in the elderly

This article appears to be missing a whole section of information about height changes in the elderly... due to bone structure or whatever. See http://www.halls.md/chart/MenHeightWhite.gif -- it appears height peaks at age 25-40 and then declines. All I see in this article is ethnic height, height and intelligence, and height of children. -Rolypolyman 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older people do lose height, but height differences in age groups can also be caused by differences in nutrition etc among generations. You'd have to find sources that document height loss in individuals over the course of their lives.

Remove the average height table

It is not only confusing with many pairs of heights per country, but most heights are clearly outdated, and some only bad jokes (Germans 255.5 cm? Yeah, sure.) Either put just one and correct height pair per country, or what I would suggest, simply remove entire crap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.115.14.24 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Meters

Aren't human heights in metric countries usually quoted in centimeters? — Omegatron 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so (meters). OPen2737 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics section added

The mechanical equations presented here are verified, sourced, irrefutable and certainly one can be far more certain of them than most of the rest of the crap in this article.01001 07:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section you added contains no sources. Simply stating that the content you added is irrefutable is insufficient; the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth – you need to provide specific sources to verify your additions. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE for guidelines on how to add references for material, and see WP:OR for an explanation of why ~~we cannot accept~~ the physics section in its current form does not meet Wikipedia's content policies. Also, please note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to add the material to the article. --Muchness 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we?01001 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded, in case my intended meaning was unclear. The section you want to add contains one citation, a link to a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia articles "may not be cited as sources" according to WP:CITE. So I reiterate my objection above: this section does not provide any reliable sources to substantiate its claims. --Muchness 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as it stands now this article is comparing people of shorter and taller stature and basically giving short people the short end of the stick so to speak. Well being shorter does give one better acceleration, agility, cooridination and balance than being taller, and this article cannot with any fairness ignore this, especially since this article insists on a comparison as it now does.

I posted this section in its original form almost a year ago. It was immediately tagged, but also several edits improving it were made to this section proving that not everyone believes that this section breaks NPOV rules.

After posting this section the article began to shed its negative inferences towards shorter stature, and after some time a semblance of balance was achieved. When this section was deleted, I let it go as the article was more or less NPOV without it. As the article now stands, this section is needed for any sense of balance. 01001 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

This section as it currently stands just lists a formula without providing any context or explaining how it relates to the article subject. --Muchness 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some notes on East Asian height

by East Asian standards, Southern Chinese, Southeast Asians, and Japanese are shorter than Northern Chinese, Mongolians, Koreans (well exept for really malnutritioned North koreans). Though that hardly means all vietnamese are short or all mongolians will be tall.

Just like how italians and spanish would be considered shorter than germans and scandanavians. East Asian height is as diverse as that in Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.38.153 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've tried searching for some verified data on male height in Dalmatia, but to no avail. What I can say, being from Split (the largest city of Dalmatia), that the figure of 185,6cm is very close to truth from what I could have discerned out of my own observations. Take my high school class for instance: I stand at 178cm tall and was the third shortest male out of 22 that were in my class. The shortest was 175cm tall. The tallest in our class was 200 or 201cm tall. Further, there were 4 more who were above 190cm: 196,195,193 and 191cm respectively. The others were between 180 and 190cm tall. Once I went to college, things remained pretty much the same, except that there were around 70 guys with major in computer science and the tallest guy this time was 206cm tall. I know this information is of no use for the article section, but at least it helps portray the data posted with some real observed facts. Cheers. 161.53.129.244 13:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Taiwanese and Northern Chinese and Korean are pretty much the tallest Asians. ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill^/^lol 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

Who deleted the Spanish heights from the average height table? --Criticalthinker 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not know. I am putting them back.Veritas et Severitas 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking edit by IP

Some IPs numbers, always vandalize the Average height table.

Height of idiocy

It really is a stunning indication of all that is wrong about Piwikedia. 122.167.140.194 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height

I fixed the height of germany. My source was the Federal Statistical Office of Germany. http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/gesu/gesutab8.php (männlich = males, weiblich= females, insgesamt=both)

The source structure of the table is confusing. Someone shuld fix this. Why not writing the source in the column?

Self-Reported Heights

In the height chart, I propose that self-reported height listings for countries only be added when no other data for that country is available. Because, who really cares how tall someone thinks they are? People lie, on average, at least 2", so the self-reported heights are pretty ridiculous, especially when you have actual height measurements for particular nation. --Criticalthinker 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

What happen with Israel's heights in the height chart? I can't determine whether the "feet and inches" measurement was changed or the metric. Currently, the two don't match up, and it seems someone deleted the source of the information. --Criticalthinker 08:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]