Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

Are You One of the Shrinking Americans?

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 9, 2007.


Junk food diets and shoddy healthcare are making Americans shorter than Western Europeans.
Advertisement

According to a new study, white and black Americans have been shrinking dramatically relative to their European counterparts since the end of World War II.

Researchers say a population's average height is a "mirror" reflecting the socioeconomic health of a society and speculate that Americans' worship of "market-based" social policies may explain why we're now looking up to the Germans and Swedes.

It's a dramatic reversal. We had always been giants, with the tallest men in the world, going back as far as the data exists (at least to the mid-19th century). During the First World War, American GIs still towered over the Europeans they liberated. But for three decades beginning at the end of World War II, Americans' average height stagnated while Europeans continued the growth-spurt that one would expect to see during a period of relative peace and rising incomes.

Now, with an average height of 5'10", American men are now significantly shorter than men from countries like Denmark (6-footers) or the Netherlands (6' 1"). In fact, Americans -- men and women -- are now shorter, on average, than the citizens of every single country in Western and Northern Europe.

And our vertical challenge is continuing to grow; American whites born between 1975-1983 started growing again, but still not as quickly as Western Europeans born in the same period. Meanwhile, the average height of American blacks in that age group remained unchanged.

The study avoided capturing the effect that immigrants coming from less developed (and presumably shorter) countries might have by looking only at non-Hispanic whites and blacks in the United States. The researchers also compared people born in the same period in order to avoid the effect aging has on height. The data were actual measurements rather than the heights people reported to researchers, as some earlier studies had used.

How can one explain that reversal -- a turnaround the study's authors, Benjamin Lauderdale at Princeton University and John Komlos at the University of Munich, call "remarkable"? They believe it's a result of "differences in the socioeconomic institutions of Europe and the United States":

We conjecture that the U.S. healthcare system, as well as the relatively weak welfare safety net, might be why human growth in the United States has not performed as well in relative terms ...

What determines the height of a population?

Scientists have a good understanding of the factors that determine height. Genetic variations are key to individuals' heights but aren't a significant factor in the average height of a population. That has to do with health and nutrition, especially during childhood, from prenatal health through adolescence. The authors of the study note that, in the scientific community, "there is widespread agreement that nutritional intake, the incidence of diseases and the availability of medical services have a major impact on human size."

More research is needed to fully understand why Americans are shrinking relative to the Europeans, but some differences between the two cultures -- and their political economies -- stand out.

Healthcare is one. It's not just that Europeans are universally covered while one out of seven Americans is uninsured; it's also the difference in approach. Specifically, public-sector healthcare puts a greater emphasis on prevention, while our for-profit insurance-based system creates incentives to treat illness rather than prevent it. This leads not only to much greater costs -- the United States spends about twice as much per person on healthcare as the rest of the advanced economies do -- but also plays a likely role in our declining stature.

The United States also has far more concentrated wealth than any of its European allies. That means that while we are, on average, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we also lead all the advanced economies in poverty. Poverty limits access to both healthcare and good nutrition.

A more important factor, in terms of average height, is childhood poverty. Here, the United States stands alone among the advanced economies with a stunning figure: 18 percent of American children -- almost one in five -- live in poverty. No other industrialized country comes close -- it's about five times the child poverty rate in Northern Europe. Again, nutrition and access to healthcare both vary with family income for children just as they do in adults.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: industrialized nations, diet, health care, height

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The corporate greed of American culture is making us short and fat.
Posted by: zyxwvut on Jul 9, 2007 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe this is an example of the problem sorting itself out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THE WORLD IS STILL RUN BY OOMPA LOOMPAS Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» Who runs the world? Posted by: ikonoklast
Interesting statistics
Posted by: ateo on Jul 9, 2007 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasn't aware of these statistics.

Nutrition is obviously a huge factor in childhood development. I would add, though, that physical exercise should not be overlooked.

I think the sedentary nature of America in general has clearly extended to its children (video games, computers) and that is probably a factor in their stunted growth. Obesity is another big factor in preventing people from reaching their maximum height (as determined by their genetics).

I've said for years that I would never consider trying to raise a family in the U.S. I am the grown up version of one of those 18% of children living in poverty. Welfare, government cheese/peanut butter/canned pork, food stamps - the whole deal.

The only reason I've got anything today is because I sacrificed a few years of my life in the military to get the money to pay for college. I wouldn't put a kid through that and even though I've got the means to support a middle class family I have to look to the future.

Is the U.S. going to be the sort of place I'd want my grand children growing up in 30 years from now? I don't even want to live here now, let alone in 3 decades.

Time to turn an eye to Europe and consider heading back where we came from. Australia is more my style though. Most of the benefits of living in Europe with a warm climate and a less heavily populated land mass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting statistics Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: Not Australia Posted by: oregoncharles
» Exactly Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Italians Posted by: ateo
» Huh? Posted by: dkm
» East Timor Posted by: HeroesAll
Child Poverty Rates: Stunning.
Posted by: Markson on Jul 9, 2007 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew we had the highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world, but I had no clue as to how extraordinarily high our rates our compared to the other countries. Five times higher! That is a national shame (one of many), that deserves absolute outrage and decisive action. But any attempt to ensure the spirit of democracy, in which all its citizens are given equality of opportunity, is met with hysterical cries of communism. And yet none of these critics oppose a bloated national security budget or corporate welfare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Child Poverty Rates: Stunning. Posted by: MartianBachelor
» choose Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: Child Poverty Rates: Stunning. Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: Child Poverty Rates: Stunning. Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: He's got a great point actually Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: He's got a great point actually Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: Mexicans are shorter Posted by: DinTN
leave the sinking ship
Posted by: richholland on Jul 9, 2007 2:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
watching tv I was shocked by Al Gore simpifying natures problems.
Watching Hillar Clinton, a paranoid, powerloving bitch.
No Hope from them.
From a socialistic dutch family I learned;
1. good food,
2, free education,
3.payable housing.
that is the base of humanity......
to be billionaire, fuck a centerfold that is USA, stupido man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: leave the sinking ship Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: leave the sinking ship Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: leave the sinking ship Posted by: Trazom
» RE: leave the sinking ship Posted by: Swedish liberal
Interesting
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 9, 2007 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The effect of childhood poverty is exacerbated by the fact that (like many places but especially in abstinence-only, abortion-clinic-bombing America) poorer families tend to have more children. And this increases their level of poverty as well as the number of children growing up in that poverty.

Not that the situation isn't gradually getting worse over here in the UK now too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting Posted by: richholland
» RE: Interesting Posted by: zyxwvut
Pau
Posted by: Pau on Jul 9, 2007 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is ridiculous to try to make a genetic difference between europeans and "americans". Sure, in today's USA, there is a significant proportion of non-european genes, but it seems that the study in case refers mainly to the caucasian sector of the population.
In the past century, the alimentary habits in Europe have changed very much. It has gone from a large percentage of the diet originating in very locally grown food (many self sustaining farms), to sources of food from diversified origins. This, besides the increment in food quantity and quality has caused that for the last three generations , the offstrings are almost always taller than the parents.
This is not the case in USA, where dietary habits have gone from natural foods, to prefabricated meals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pau Posted by: richholland
» Why just women? Posted by: HeroesAll
America liberated Europe in WWI?
Posted by: Pip Wilson on Jul 9, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America liberated Europe in WWI? What a novel concept!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: America liberated Europe in WWI? Posted by: InsertNameHere
» RE: Posted by: EasterBunny
» Exactly Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: America liberated Europe in WWI? Posted by: angryyoungwoman
The invasion of those 20M+
Posted by: gistre on Jul 9, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
four-foot tall illegal Mexicans into the U.S. is driving down the average height of the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some thoughts Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The invasion of those 20M+ Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: The invasion of those 20M+ Posted by: tcolkett
did they collect data on poverty?
Posted by: Shakti on Jul 9, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the researchers collect data on poverty (or SES) to correlate with height? This would give credence to the theory that it is poor nutrition and other social factors that cause stunted growth. In other words, are impoverished Americans shorter than affluent Americans? This should be an easy research question to answer, with data collected by ethnicity to control for those factors.

I am very short and grew up in what most would probably call an affluent family (private schools, nice vacations, stay at home mom). We certainly did not go hungry.

So, while I am a vocal critic of U.S. social Darwinism ("devil take the hindmost") and support more government social programs and a better safety net, at the same time I am a bit skeptical of using height as a measure of these things.

I think I am also personally offended that being short is still seen as such a handicap, a bad thing, an indicator that something is wrong. It makes me feel inadequate. Can you imagine if they had published data that said, "Americans are becoming darker than Europeans!" Everyone would instantly recognize this for the bigotry it represents. Why should we desire to be tall? Why is being tall good?

Tall people take up more space and use more resources. I say, three cheers for diminutive folks! Small is beautiful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo, Shakti! Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: did they collect data on poverty? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: did they collect data on poverty? Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» Say what? Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Say what? Posted by: angryyoungwoman
Does it occur to anyone that the immigrants are short?
Posted by: olderworker on Jul 9, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have so many people coming from China, Vietnam, and Mexico who are short that it probably reduces the AVERAGE height of the U.S. population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I happen to live in Boston... Posted by: olderworker
» Race factors Posted by: YogiBear
Very interesting
Posted by: lawstudent08 on Jul 9, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most interesting articles Alternet has posted in a long time. Fascinating (and under-reported) topic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Suitable;
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Jul 9, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
We don't need no water let the motherfuckers burn
Burn motherfuckers burn

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being smaller lowers your carbon footprint
Posted by: Cosmo on Jul 9, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps we should embrace our shorter stature -- it means we consume less of the earth's resources. What if we all were only 3 feet tall? Think of the savings in building materials, the cars we would need, the food we wouldn't be eating. We could probably double the world's population with the same resources. But someday, we have to confront the ultimate question -- how many people at what level of lifestyle will we choose to inhabit this tiny marble we call Earth? If we don't decide this, it will be decided for us by circumstance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's going all pear-shaped Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: It's going all pear-shaped Posted by: morticia
» Cradle-to-grave double-wide Posted by: eddie torres
» Modern American version.... Posted by: morticia
» I can't help remembering... Posted by: HeroesAll
» okay, i'll live in a hobbit house Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Endemic or negligent?
Posted by: maxfactor on Jul 9, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beeing from Europe (explicitly excluding GB) and having lived in the US - the single most amazing thing was the food quality. It just leaves you hungry and craving for more. Everything healthy and tasty has been substiuted with the least costly ingredient - no matter what its effects on health, growth or mental capabilities.

I would therefore suspect that not only height is affected but also mental health and growth. One indication are the dropping SAT scores aswell as the shorter average lifespan.

The average life span of an US-citizen approaches that of Morocco. Their health system is rather simple.

I guess there is some cleaning up to do in this cutthroat society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ndemic or negligent? Posted by: zyxwvut
Getting shorter.
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 9, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to be 5 feet 11. Now I’m an inch shorter. The reduction, I’ve been told, was caused by growing old (I’m 72). However, I believe the explanation made by the noted French hygienist and statistician, Louis-René Villermé, who wrote in 1829, “Misery produces short people.”

Based on Villermé’s theory, by the time George W. Bush leave office, I’ll be four feet tall, if that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad Language Posted by: Lincoln fan
nutrient density was almost....
Posted by: Farmertim on Jul 9, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
touched upon, but not quite.
And for good reason, know one really knows what it means who sets food standards in this country.
Mineral bases of our soil are depleted to the point that the 99% of food grown in this country(organic or not) is mineral deficient and the rest of the food headed this way with the onslought of USA brand of farming reaching south america at increasing rates.
If one would chart the increase in pesticide use and the shortening and fattening up of america one would see a stark coralation between the two.
Pest only eat unhealthy plants....unhealthly plants are mineral deficient, not only is the processing creating problems with our food...it is lacking in minerals to begin with and compounding the problem by creating items we consume that does not represent the food we are programed to eat.
Maximum production without concern for quality...take that practice to any animal group and see the results over three generations...and you have a weak non producing offspring and an end of the gentic line that has been compromised through poor management and a lack of attention to the basic needs of the animal, and nature culls it out.
Actually one can now..if your allowed into the sterile environment of the Confinement operation.
Most likely your not, for the animals have lost all ability to fend off disease and are removed from any possible contamination to keep them alive.
Minerals are fed to offset the lack of them in the feed but fed minerals are not as effective as those grown in the food in which they eat.
So ..the result is a weak fragile small and fat animal..fed to humans...which in turn are becoming what they eat...small, fat and fragile.
The cure is out there...and its not rocket science..its soil science and how its supposed to work..but unfortunately it does not fit the corporate model in the form of cost effectiveness..or top down integration.
Farmer Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmm...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 9, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it all seems to come right back around to a simple difference... valuing ideology over humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmm... Posted by: brasilaron
. . . pfft! . . . we, as a people have short memories and are small-minded as well . . .
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Jul 9, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the period mentioned (WWII onward) we have been at war with someone or another almost the entire time, spending, spending, spending. What good we could have done with all that money, who we could have been as a people, has been lost . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once upon a time
Posted by: willymack on Jul 9, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We used to have to go to several different stores to get everything we needed for nutritional sustenance. Nowadays it's one stop and you have enough for a week or more. In the past you had to THINK about what you needed previous to going to the store, and as a result, spent much less on junk you didn't need. The greengrocer had fresh, locally produced fruits and vegetables. Try to get a decent tomato at a supermarket now. You walked a lot more as you went to the store more frequently, and didn't need a car for your shopping. My guess is that putting everything the store owner wants you to think you need under one roof has produced a people alienated from the source of their well-being-the rural food producing areas, along with the knowlege of what's really good for them, and our increasingly urban way of life of junk food gobbling, racing hither and thither on missions that turn out to be, in the long run, largely meaningless. I don't think this way of life is good for our physical or mental health.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» New Yorkers mostly still live like that Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Don't forget pollution
Posted by: Swatopluk on Jul 9, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Eastern Germany it was observed that children born and grown up in the Bitterfeld area were on average 1.5 cm smaller than in other regions. Bitterfeld was where the main chemical industry combinates were located, infamous for polluting water, soil and air to an intolerable degree. Would be interesting to see, whether similar effects can be found e.g. in Texas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't forget pollution Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Don't forget pollution Posted by: brasilaron
» ya know Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: ya know - typo Posted by: schokoprinz
soda pop country
Posted by: messedup on Jul 9, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many, many different things will stunt your growth, junk food is a highly likely factor. For me specifically, I avoided caffeine and sugar as much as I could during childhood and turned out taller than both my brothers. Hormonal shifts are probably the main culprit these days.

If you want to help get your kids off junk food, first let them get a bit hungry and then let em eat a whole tube of pringles and a 20 oz. soda in one sitting.

They'll never forget the experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

other factors
Posted by: kathat on Jul 9, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The amount of children who are raised in houses and apts. with nothing around but cement. For a huge apt. complex there is usually 1 area to 'play' in.
Even the schools playgrounds are compact and theres not enough space or eqipment to allow real play and running.
2. Truly poor children do not eat at fast food restaurants- they eat endless boxes of macaroni and cheese products, fishsticks, corndogs and those red tv dinners that are always on sale 10 for 10.00.
3. Hormones in milk products. Chemicals in baby shampoo. Check into just whats in all the personal hygeine products in use these days. There are almost no rules governing what is considered safe.
We are obviously doing something wrong....I think the fact that 1 in 110 children have a chance of being autistic now is even more alarming than the difference in stature.
Somewhere along the line rules about food and ingredients in products gave way to corporate interests. Its not just the Bush administration, this has been happening for years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Re: #3 - Rate of Autism Posted by: LizFun
» Ah yes, mac and cheese Posted by: ateo
Anecdotal evidence
Posted by: Barzileel on Jul 9, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is interesting. I remember that fifty years ago most of the young fellows in the RAF unit at Clark Field (in the Philippines) were an inch or two shorter than my 5"8 1/2". I have not shrunk but I am now at least two inches shorter than most of the young Englishmen I meet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stupid
Posted by: owcole on Jul 9, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a stupid article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» be more specific? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
It's the exercise--not the food? --from a farmer
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 9, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that it has a lot to do with how much physical exercise we get nowadays, not necessarily what we are eating.

I live in rural Nebraska, where I am a farmer. We have tons of old photographs of the family and people in the community from 50 years ago. I remember looking at them with my late father a few years ago, and I remarked how none of them showed a single overweight person. My dad confirmed that he thought people were much heavier today than what he remembered from years ago.

The diet in those days was loaded with fats and high calorie foods, yet people didn't seem to get heavy. They ate eggs and butter, and things cooked in lard. I think it has to do with the amount of physical exercise that people--at least farmers--had to do then vs. now. In the 1930's EVERYTHING on the farm was basically done through manual labor. I wouldn't even care to think of the physical effort it took to put-up 60 acres of hay bringing it in from the field and hauling it up into the barn--all done manually with pitchforks! Or to hand scoop 5000 bushels of corn into the bin.

I know my evidence is anecdotal, but you should see the fat farmers walking down the street in my town today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Height is not all it's cracked up to be
Posted by: LizFun on Jul 9, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aging Asians have fewer hip fractures than Americans - partly because of diet, and partly because of their stature. (I read this in an article a few years back - probably on AlterNet - regarding diary products and bone health) Apparently, the shorter you are, the less distance to the ground when you fall, hence height challenged folks are less likely to break a hip!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh Yeah
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Jul 9, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Born: 1976
Height: 6'5"
Country: Canada
Healthcare: Priceless

I didn't eat a lot of junk food growing up, yup - bag lunches. That wasn't a lifestyle choice really, more that we were just plain broke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh Yeah Posted by: YogiBear
Farmertim and Mary Vance know the short end to this story
Posted by: grn1 on Jul 9, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dark Side Of Soy, second article by Mary Vance explains why growth is stunted, it starts immediately after birth. I know this to be true as 7 of the breastfed babies I know are much larger and brighter than formula fed babies. Mary writes; The highest risk is for infants who are fed soy formula. "It's the only thing they're eating, they're very small, and they're at a key stage developmentally," says Daniel. "The estrogens in soy will affect the hormonal development of these children, and it will certainly affect their growing brains, reproductive systems, and thyroids." Soy formula also contains large amounts of manganese, which has been linked to attention deficit disorder and neurotoxicity in infants. The Israeli health ministry recently issued an advisory stating that infants should avoid soy formula altogether.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are here.
Posted by: solrev on Jul 9, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Height is a genetic characteristic. It requires good health and this includes good nutrition to reach the genetic potential of an individual. The number of persons not achieving this genetic potential, even with the poverty data in the article, will not be enough to statistically shift the population distribution. The height of 5’10’’ is probably our genetic population max. If one looks at the height distribution for the entire planet, a population with a mean of 5’10’’ may not even be statistically different from a population with a mean of 6’1’’. The baby boomers probably have more to due with the height distribution in the population than the malnourished. What ever the eventual effect may be there is no excuse for what we are doing in this land. If you want to use those little brains someday you better feed them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We are here. Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: We are here. Posted by: Graeme
» RE: We are here. Posted by: PirateJesus
» RE: We are here. Posted by: Graeme
Pear-shaped nation
Posted by: eddie torres on Jul 9, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While getting shorter, Americans are still Number One in the weight department. According to F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2006:

"From 2004 to 2005, the percentage of obese people increased in 31 states and stayed constant in the rest. No state showed a decline."

Americans are increasing their Body-Mass-Index (BMI) to the point that many no longer fit into standard CT or MRI scanners.

Which isn't all that big a deal, since 45 million can't afford those machines anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Remember "Fight Club?" Posted by: morticia
» Soylent Green is... Brad Pitt? Posted by: eddie torres
» Gurk! Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Gurk! Posted by: morticia
UNRAVELING THE FAT TRAP
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 9, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SIMPLE REALITY: YOU ARE BEING SCAMMED INTO BEING OVERWEIGHT

By the way, another reason Alternet would be better off calling for abolishing the DEA is it legalizes MSG despite its dangers while at the same time keeping cannibas illegal despite its various health cures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the poor are doomed
Posted by: vwaites on Jul 9, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in this country. I remember thinking as a teenager how strange it was the the poorest americans are often the most overweight. But then you lean as an adult (college student) that a box a store brand powdered cheese and mac is cheaper than ONE POUND OF GRAPES. And then you have our health care system to top it off.

Famers are given breaks for producing a large cash crops like corn (high fructose corn syrup, which is in just about everything) making it a cheap filler. and now you have Soy (see: the dark side of soy), ect. Farmers are encouraged to grow one crop, and more of these than others. So why in the world would a farmer work on hard to grow crops (like tomatos) when he/she could grow corn (and given the panning of solar and hydogen cars, ethonol is one the way!). Rememeber when farmers would grow serveral kinds of crops? And I can't help but wonder if the quality and nutritional value of what you do get has declined... can they still practice crop rotation if they are only producing one crop?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Sweden 15 % of the children live in poverty
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Jul 9, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Sweden 15 % of the children live below the Swedish poverty index level. Sweden is the country with supposedly the best welfare system in the world and as a function the worlds highest taxes. Sweden has also the lowest income inequality in the world. How is it possible that the US figures as the same as the Swedish when it comes to poverty?

The answer is that the poverty benchmark is only applicable in each country since it is a benchmark set from the overall median income in the country. It is not a benchmark that measures poverty as such. It measures more income inequality not absolute poverty levels. This is also why the US nearly always comes out far down in socioeconomic statistics because of this relative measurement. In one study it come out that living in the US was worse than living in Slovenia. This study was heavily criticised in Sweden for using biased indices to get the politically correct results the scientist wanted. The Anglo Saxon system is bad and the North European system is perfect. However neither is true. Both have serious drawbacks.


Americas "poor" some 18 % are not all poor in an absolute fashion nor is Swedens 15 % “poor” poor at an absolute level. Sweden is not a but compared to the US, yes poor indeed. “Poor” countries can have indices that are better than the US for instance child mortality is better in Sweden and in Cuba.

And the 15-18 % “poor” most certainly feel poor compared to the top 10 % of the population, but that is a feeling not a fact. It is a function of being able to consume less not to live less comfortable and not being fed or have adequate schooling

Both in Sweden and the US there are about 10 % of the population that is outside the systems, they live permanently outside, single mothers and ethnic minorities. I have always found his to be a strange fact that Sweden and the US is so similar when it comes to its down and outs although the completely different approach to taxes and Public spending. It seems that it is a constant but is it only a relative constant or is a fact that 10 % is always down and out? You would probably find the same in Cuba and China. It seems not to matter which system you choose, the "poor" is always shafted by the middle class, this is extremely apparent in the Swedish welfare system that is universal but excludes the 10 % not in the system. In the US system it seems that the lower middle class is shafted cannot afford healthcare and college studies.

The average Joe however live extremely well both in Sweden and the US. The really poor seem to have it better in the US than in Sweden since the US welfare system is basically catering to the absolutely poor, they have free education, free healthcare, free day-care. But as a matter of fact fewer people live 10 years later under poverty level than does in Sweden how can that be i.e the down and out status in Sweden is more permanent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» simple math really Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: simple math really Posted by: schokoprinz