Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

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.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
224 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Joshua Holland

RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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.

Nutrition is a key determinant of height. According to the study, "U.S. children consume more meals prepared outside the home, more fast food rich in fat, high in energy density, and low in essential micronutrients, than do European children." That is ultimately a cultural issue -- a result of a fast-food lifestyle that may have long-term consequences for growing bones. Public and corporate policies play a role as well: the United States stands out from Europe (and the rest of the world) in its lack of family-friendly workplaces. According to a study conducted by researchers at Harvard, it is among only five countries in the world that doesn't mandate some form of paid maternal leave. The only other advanced economy among those five is Australia, where women are guaranteed an entire year of unpaid leave.

That makes it all but impossible for most people to effectively balance work and family life and that, in turn, means more fast food on the run and less time taking care of sick kids -- both factors that constrain average height. And the potential impact on height might be greater still before the kids are born; research shows that every week of paid maternity leave significantly reduces infant mortality rates, a key indicator of prenatal health.

Priorities

The key finding of the study is is not that we are shrinking in absolute terms, it's that we're falling behind relative to our wealthy cousins. Europeans have grown in height as much as the rise in their average incomes during the 20th century would predict; Americans have not.

And it's not just height. Among the 20 most developed countries in the world, the United States is now dead last in life expectancy at birth but leads the pack in infant mortality -- forty percent higher than the runnerup -- and in the percentage of the population that will die before reaching 60. (Perhaps it shouldn't be much of a surprise, then, that we lead the world in mental illness.)

These are above all else, a reflection of our priorities. It's not just that we accept a child poverty rate that would be a front-page scandal in most of the world's wealthy countries, we also spend the least on social services. The two are correlated; as economist Sylvia Allegretto has pointed out, "Those countries with higher social expenditures -- as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP -- have dramatically lower poverty rates among children."

According to Lauderdale and Komlos, one has to look at the interplay between several factors to understand what's going on. "[T]he political economy of the healthcare system, education, transfers to the poor and government policy toward equality (hence taxation policy) all matter" in determining average height, say the researchers.

These are policy matters that are usually understood as ideological, as left-right issues. In one sense they certainly are, but they're also questions of gearing public policy to the long- or the short-term, and we seem to prefer short-term approaches. Investing in our children's health and well-being may not pay off in terms of lower taxes next quarter or next year, but it might allow them to walk a bit taller a generation or two down the line.
  • 1
View as a single page

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

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

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

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


AlterNet Home » Story Tools: email EMAILprint PRINT 224 COMMENTS
Advertisement
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.
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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.
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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?
[Report this comment]
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+
[Report this comment]
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?
[Report this comment]
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?
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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;
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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?
[Report this comment]
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.
[Report this comment]
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....
[Report this comment]
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...
[Report this comment]
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 . . .
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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.
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
[Report this comment]
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
» One big difference Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: One big difference Posted by: Swedish liberal
I think it is true
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 9, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up between the UK and the states. I was just looking at some family wedding photos. And it struck me: I was by far the tallest and biggest person there. It looked like a circus freak show: all these midgets lined up. I admit some members of the family are from traditionally short groups (latin america) but it was even the white ones too. I don't eat junk food and always prepare fresh meals and exercise. Maybe that's the secret?

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

» RE: I think it is true Posted by: morticia
Soft Science?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roger Király on Jul 9, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband asked me to read this article because I teach biology. This has to be one of the worst documented "studies" I've read recently. What countries were, in fact, included in "Europe"? Were any different ethnic groups included there (as compared to our white & black population in the U.S. study)? What age group was measured? (I would assume they had finished growing?) Of course, heredity and the environment must interact to produce the full-grown height of an individual. There are so many variables that could influence full-grown height besides the catch-all of poverty (and all the conditions that poverty entails - including diet and lack of health care). I didn't think that this sounded like a biological study, so I checked the credentials of the "scientists" involved in collecting and analyzing the statistics (from where? We were not told). John Komlos is a professor of economic history at the University of Munich and Benjamin Lauderdale is a graduate student at Princeton (although maybe he's finished his degree by now.) The authors are not geneticists or biologists and that makes me wonder about the depth of their knowledge in those fields. They are obviously most interested in the political and economic implications of height related to poverty. Was there any knowledge of the ethnic background of the Americans included (or even considered)? Height seems to a very specious measure for what these two researchers are trying to conclude. Better data = better conclusions in any study that I've ever read. Last of all, I'm not sure that the idea that undeveloped and poorer people are shorter. What about the African Masai (Masaai) who are a poor tribe and yet very tall? Their diet includes cow's blood and I doubt their health care is above minimal standards.

As a final comment, I direct readers to the book "Studies Show" by John H. Fennick. Fennick's book details how the media condenses findings into "simple sound bites easily transformed into headlines or nightly news reports." In the final analysis, one study means NOTHING. The scientific method hinges on the replication of any given study. Without such replication, both the validity and ultimate meaning of any single study (including the one under discussion here) are unproven and thus subject to any interpretation one wants to make. Lois Király

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

» RE: Soft Science? Posted by: Graeme
» RE: Soft Science? Posted by: Roger Király
Farm Bill
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brasilaron on Jul 9, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a very strong correlation between obesity (not sure about height) increases of US population and the subsidization of corn and soy. More hollow calories from cheaper food = fatter people with more health problems. The rates of subsidization for corn and soy and other price supports/controls are part of the Farm Bill that Congress is drawing up right now. The effects of this bill can be found in the health of Americans, the health of our environment and in immigration due to Latin American farmers forced off their land when markets in their home countries are flooded by subsidized US food.

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

False argument
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jul 9, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been reading articles about height for years being a 5' 3" female in a land where tall = better.

First off, all the flap about being passed by the Europeans in height is bullshit. American men have been averaging 5'10" for decades.

Second, height genes come from the father. Men who are tall will have tall children. My father was 5'7". His father was shorter than that and had a job that kept him active all day.

My mother kept junk food to a minimum and made home cooked meals pretty much every day. My sisters and I are all about the same height.

Granted, a quality diet that provides a day's supply of calories and nutrients will maximize height potential. Check the stats in post WWII Japan.

Also a clean environment will help. After the Industrial Revolution in Britain the average height for English men plummeted.

I am not saying that we do not need to discuss the state of the American health care system. We do. I also think we need to discuss how people eat and how we can especially help poor people to eat better.

I am saying that as America's prestige slides in the world thanks to the asinine policies of that jackass in the White House, since we cannot stand tall as a people who are actually doing good things around the world, focus is being placed on being the people who physically stand tallest.

And that's bullshit.

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

» RE: False argument Posted by: Graeme
» RE: False argument Posted by: helenwheels
» Indeed, a False argument Posted by: brasilaron
» You want stats? Posted by: BlueTigress
» One more thing Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: One more thing Posted by: Brasilaaron
» RE: One more thing Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: One more thing Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: One more thing Posted by: YogiBear
Try natural selection (or unnatural, in a visual-driven society, if you prefer)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xbj on Jul 9, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not going to make friends here, but here's the ugly truth:

In a culture based solely on physical attributes and attractiveness the way this one is (compared to the earlier 20th century before photography and Hollywood), where those (of both sexes) who are shorter and smaller generally have larger appearing eyes, longer eyelashes, thicker hair, larger appearing (in contrast) penises (in men), larger breasts (in women), in short, all the things that make people considered "cuter" than their couterparts, and also makes most movie stars and porn stars in particular much shorter than the average (5' 8" for men, and even more petite than the norm for women), it stands to reason that society as a whole, despite the workplace, would, when it comes to actual breeding, select the shorter for partners, as long as it doesn't go hand in hand with fatter.

Which is also why female models, who also generally tend to be taller than the norm, starve themselves to be the weight of someone much shorter; being super thin (but not to the point of anorexia) has the same effect on thickness of hair, length of eyelashes, etc.

The simple fact is excess fat takes up miles of blood supply and starves other non-essential (to anything but our concept of beauty) bodily organs like hair. As well as some, uh, much more essential organs in developing humans.

As to why this society is so pathologically physically image-driven, that's another discussion. But why we're getting shorter is no mystery, and has absolutely nothing to do with health whatsoever. Barking way up the wrong tree there.

One cursory glance at any one of a plethora of available "Who my baby daddy?" TV "talk" shows shows the natural selection of shorter/cuter/thinner among the braindead baby breeders at work. The horror of American society under a microscope.

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

America is only black and white? That's insanely offensive...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: marzipan on Jul 9, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This journalist failed to mention the obvious point that a more observant person would have explored.... What about Asian Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and every other mixture of our modern globalization culture??? America is not Black and White. We are Mexican and Japanese and Chinese and African and all combinations of "races". How can he ignore that large percentage of the population? That's shoddy journalism. If only black and white people are getting shorter, how come he didn't try to explain the reasons why other ethnicities aren't shrinking? And furthermore, why is this story spun as a tragedy of American culture? Being short doesn't make you stupid or incapable or socially inept or unhealthy. AlterNet is great but this story was careless and offensive to the nth degree.

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

» What's wrong with you? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» stupid bigot Posted by: brasilaron
American's gtting Taller??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jul 9, 2007 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No comment, just some info. Any article addressing diet and exercise is worth reading.. The real issue though is the impact on health related issues re weight gain.. height as the main focus? Interesting but an aside for sure.

""Americans Getting Taller, Bigger, Fatter, Says CDC
From Robert Longley,

Average weight for adult males soars to 191 pounds

Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:


Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
For women, the near opposite trend occurred:


Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Meanwhile, the report documented that average weights for children are increasing as well:


The average weight for a 10 year-old-boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds.

The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds.

A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds.

A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds.
According to the report, average heights for children increased as well over the past four decades. For example:

The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches.

The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches.

In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches).

Average BMI for children and teens has increased as well.

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

I hate liberals so much...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: janastasopoulo on Jul 9, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's all I have to say. They're as bad as conservatives, using poor arguments to back up their already held prejudices. Here's a gem from this article:

"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."

Thank you for that insight genius, people in Denmark and the Netherlands have ALWAYS been taller than Americans, they are also more genetically and ethnically homogeneousand have a milk-drinking culture (remember milk contains growth hormones in it).

This quote is enough to exhibit the dishonesty of this article. And by the way if the average height is 5'10" in the US for men, then we've actually GROWN quite alot, considering that the average height was 5'9.5" in 2002. 1/2" is VERY significant for a 5 year period.

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

» RE: I hate liberals so much... Posted by: brasilaron
» Of course he didn't read the article! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I hate liberals so much... Posted by: janastasopoulo
» You think *what*?!? Posted by: HeroesAll
» I'm not a rightwinger by the way... Posted by: janastasopoulo
» And the pope's not Catholic (NM) Posted by: Joshua Holland
so...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Jul 9, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so the average american is short, fat and miseducated ?

Wow I love this country :)

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

So It Goes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anambrose on Jul 9, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To quote my favorite combat veteran: "So It Goes".
The Right will say:"What we've lost in Height we've made up for in Width and that's the beauty of market based solutions".

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

» RE: So It Goes Posted by: morticia
Basketball players?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Darvon on Jul 9, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what about all those really tall athletes? If sports is the legendary passport out of poverty, poverty must be producing some very tall people.

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

Misleading article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 9, 2007 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was misleading and full of unfounded assumptions. In the first place, Americans are still getting taller compared to their own ancestors. The whole point of this article was that Europeans are getting taller than we are. So what, is it a competition??? While he makes valid social points, they really have nothing to do with some half baked stats we are not getting as tall as Europeans. THAT would be the reason we need longer vacations??? Social reformers would be laughed at. The poster who makes the point about immigrants is correct. Did they even account for immigration? As the most ridiculous post above was by Ateo who said obesity prevents people from reaching their full height. Do you have any facts to support that? Never heard it before, it seems half baked!

"Weight obsession is a social disease. If we cared more about CO2 than BMI there might still be time."

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

» Always helps to read the article ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Helps to understand the article ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
How Long Is It?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Jul 9, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, marketing - have some vision. Sell me something that makes me taller, please. One idea: start stocking stores with mens pants that have inseams shorter than 30" so that all the guys who are 5'6" will no longer be the freaks they are now. C'mon, you can bump those numbers a little. It's not as if you'd be screwing up the world economy. You'd rather be a fiction writer anyway. Have some vision. Think BIG.

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

poor frames of reference
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pzzp on Jul 9, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get hot under the collar when I hear bullshit sound bytes like "child poverty". The are misleading and uninformative, and coined to serve agendas. Children are not poor in a vacuum. In reality is the adult family that is poor, and a child as a function thereof. Take care of the "family poverty" and you'll take care of the child.

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

This article is somewhat misleading
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sartre on Jul 9, 2007 3:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) It says that average height indicates the welfare of a society? People from certain parts of the globe are naturally shorter than others, ex: Chinese vs. Germans.

2) Why is height correlated with good things? There's no inherent reason. Large size might not be optimal for one's environment.

3) Maybe American's "average" height increases relative to European's is being damped by immigration from Asian countries.

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

» Not if you read it ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not if you read it ... Posted by: LeslieGem
» RE: Not if you read it ... Posted by: YogiBear
With Europeans giving up 20-40 pounds to the Avg American,
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cpfieffer on Jul 9, 2007 5:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it makes sense that the Avg American comes up two inches shorter. Try a little experiment. Gain 30 pounds and record your height after five years. I'll bet you lose an inch or more as your posture suffers and you lose the fight against gravity.

I imagine after several generations of natural selection, the weaker frames in the U.S. -- those that lose the most stature to weight gain -- will become a shrinking percentage of the average and our avg height will increase. Then, we'll be hearing about how the avg. American is as tall as the avg European but twice as thick.

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

"The oil we eat: Following the food chain back to Iraq"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bifheart on Jul 9, 2007 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- is the title of an article by Richard Manning in the February 2004 Harpers Magazine, which discusses the history of our extraction of nutrients from soil, the consequent reduction of its nutrient density, and how we've used oil to make up the difference. I'm sure some of you will judge this completely worthless, as it is merely anecdotal, but others may find it interesting anyway, and certainly relevant, so here 'tis:

" Fenced-in wheat agriculture is like rice agriculture. It balances its equations with famine. In the millennium between 500 and 1500, Britain suffered a major “corrective” famine about every ten years; there were seventy-five in France during the same period. The incidence, however, dropped sharply when colonization brought an influx of new food to Europe.

The new lands had an even greater effect on the colonists themselves. Thomas Jefferson, after enduring a lecture on the rustic nature by his hosts at a dinner party in Paris, pointed out that all of the Americans present were a good head taller than all of the French. Indeed, colonists in all of the neo-Europes enjoyed greater stature and longevity, as well as a lower infant-mortality rate—all indicators of the better nutrition afforded by the onetime spend down of the accumulated capital of virgin soil. "

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

the most rediculous article ever
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lordzombie on Jul 10, 2007 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i think this must be the nost rediculous article Ive ever seen here on alternet, do they take into account the shifting population demographic? its a real, "their dicks are bigger than ours" argument

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

» Demegraphic Posted by: YogiBear
Paul Cardwell
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Jul 11, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I must be. I used to be 6'2", now I am closer to 6'1". Of course being 74 years old might account for some of it. The difficulty of getting real food, even in an agricultural region, might be the rest.

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

Put Garbage in and BU__! SH__! comes out!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: williameon on Jul 13, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans are wider then anyone else on the planet.

You better watch out!
There is a time bomb about to explode.
FAT PEOPLE!
All around you.
They’re waddling around like Ducks.
Holding on to their shopping carts for dear life.
Carts full of prepackaged, unadulterated Poison.
They’re so Fat that they are almost unable to walk!
Why?
They are starving to death.
Skinny people trapped in large bodies.
Their bodies are searching for nutrition
And all they get is:
A Cor- “Pirate” Witches brew of Poison!
High fructose corn syrup,
Over refined White flour and
Hydrogenated oil.
They are addicted to it!
You could make a glue out of it,
That would last a thousand years!
Indestructible,
Artery clogging,
Fat producing,
Nutrition less:
Glue.
An epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes is infecting this nation!
It is a National Healthcare crisis.
Kindergartens are filled with fat kids that,
The Petrol Chemical, Agra business Conglom-“Pirates” are pumping full of,
Poison!
Into our bodies, minds and souls.
Please!
Read the label.
Avoid these chemicals like the plague!
Less is more.
Fresh local fruits and vegetables only.
Oh!
I forgot
They can’t even read anymore.
How could they?
After taking a insulin shot and eating a pile of junk food for breakfast,
Then bouncing off the walls!
How could you learn?
Even the Chinese people are demanding protection of their government
F
Protection from the
Corpirate onslaught.
On their lives, heath, environment and happiness!
When their head of the FDA,
F--Ks up?
They execute him.
Here,
He goes thru a revolving door again and
Gets a huge payoff!
Who’s responsible?
For this mess?
We are!
We let them do it.
Sure they weaseled their way around us, lied to us and cheated us but,
Who can save us?
From these Corporate Parasites?
That Screw the American people for fun and profit.
Only we can!
First we need to organize.
Then we must effect positive change.
We are going down the wrong road.
To Corporate Doom.
We must decentralize the Media system.
It belongs to us.
The air waves belong to the people.
We license the use of them.
The Faux Media has broken their contract.
By limiting and controlling and contriving the News.
A well informed public is the only answer.
The Media must be used as an unbiased information tool.
There are enough other media venues that the entertainment industry can use.
Local Television and Radio services,
Must be used to inform and educate the public.
Kick Pepsi out of our School’s hall ways and Lunch rooms.
The Con-Glom-Pirates must be stopped.
From pouring pollution into the environment and contaminates into our food.
There is a conflict of interest here.
Greed is destroying our national Health.
What is more important?
Their profit?
Or
Your health?

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

impeachment
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call in your vote TODAY for impeaching Bush and Cheney at this number: 202-225-0100

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:

“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).

LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…

SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259

Pelosi’s e-mail address :

Americanvoices@mail.house.gov

CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.

Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.

Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050

MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350

http://www.bcimpeach.com/

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

Health not Height, should be where our concern lies!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JayDee on Jul 13, 2007 9:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a petite woman, (5'1", 115 lbs), of Lebanese origin, a family which emigrated here in the late 19th century, and which was nurtured on home grown, home-cooked food, I had the extreme good fortune to be raised by parents who owned a restaurant. I started working there when I was five; I was washing dishes the night Elvis played at the auditorium in my home town.

I was also bullied horribly - teased, taunted and picked on throughout school because I was so much smaller than my peers. It is my opinion that we, as a society, are far too concerned with appearances, dazzled by surfaces, with a deluxe emphasis on the tall, lean, lanky and glamourous realm that only a very small and lucky few occupy.

Want to have issues and baggage? Grow up slowly and not statuesquely and the world of insults is your oyster. It is astonishing to me how preoccupied we are with measurements. The infant mortality rate? That is a significant and beyond troubling reality.

We should focus on healthcare and overall well-being; size is over-rated and I do not mean that as a sly or sexy innuendo.

Let's stick to statistics that matter; stature's high billing (pun intended) is a red herring.

Let's stick to issues that matter: the environment, healthcare and freedom, spring to mind as deserving of top billing.

We are a nation comprised largely of a mass-media nurtured, instant-gratification accustomed and personal responsibility deprived population and things are going to get worse - not better, until we get our priorities straight - across the board instead of ensuring only the comfort and well-being of those lucky few who occupy a tiny percentile of our number, yet enjoy the most vast percentage of health, wealth and privilege.

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

Scientistic Method
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Jul 14, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Isolate 1 characteristic and make it a monad.
2. Nationalize the characteristic.
3. Reify the characteristic to represent a continuum of value in relation to a magnitude. Good Better Best = Tall Taller Tallest. Quality = Quantity.
4. Be Objective - stand outside of History and Observe.
5. Compete for the Gold Ribbon.
6. Try to forget Napoleon and Mussolini and elect the tallest candidate around.
7. Make being tall necessary for survival.
8. Watch your head as you leave the laboratory to go publish your results.
9. Be tall, be free; be Gulliver and travel with the Good Word.
10. Being precise is not always being accurate and vice-versa.

All in the way of proving the proposition that some people are taller and others shorter in different parts of the globe. Now that will get us out of this fine mess we're all in!

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

Newsletter

AlterNet Headlines

 
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement