Was it environmental conditions caused by Britain’s Industrial Revolution that stunted the growth of the proletariat? Something about “dark Satanic mills”?
Several years ago, The Smithsonian had an exhibit on humans which featured an analysis of human height over the centuries. On average, children grow to be two inches taller than their parents.
Something for the ladies to consider when talking to we tall guys - I’m 6’3", 6’4" first thing in the morning, and shoes only add to that - is that when we’re talking to you, we’re looking downwards, and you’re craning your head up, and if you’ve got a low-cut or thin top, you’re (ahem) displaying yourself. So go easy on us.
Lute Skywatcher writes:
> Several years ago, The Smithsonian had an exhibit on humans which featured
> an analysis of human height over the centuries. On average, children grow to
> be two inches taller than their parents.
Oh, please, consider just how impossible that is over the long run. Say a generation is 30 years. In 120 years, the average height would increase by eight inches. In 300 years, the average height would have increased by twenty inches. I don’t believe that in any 30-year period the average height has increased by two inches, and certainly over any long period that can’t be consistently true.
I was only reporting what the exhibit was, not pontificating on its accuracy.
What was the setting of the books, and when were they written? The average height was less than it is now, and this shows in books (which are still popular/classics) from that time.
One more reason to be glad I’m a tall woman—and I wear heels. Speaking of heels, Quartz…
There’s a popular supposition to that effect, if nothing more rigorous. George MacDonald Fraser alluded to something similar in one of his “McAuslan” army stories, remarking on how the unhealthy urban environment and diet had made the Glaswegians in his platoon small and slight compared to their forebears (although what they lacked in stature they made up for in attitude, as many an Afrika Korpsman discovered to his cost).
I remember the Children’s Encyclopaedia I read as a lad attributing this to the change in Scottish eating habits from whole-grain porridge to white-flour bread. This may well have been reflected elsewhere too. Machine milling led to white flour being more widely available and inexpensive, and it must certainly have been easier to munch through your daily calorie allowance as white bread than wholemeal.
I’m 5’ 9". I’ve played a lot of chess in Holland, and the Dutch certainly seem tall to me!
(They also all speak about 3 languages more than me. 
)
The one thing that’s most annoying about exactly six feet tall is buying suits. 6’ is right on the border of sevearl brand’s switch from regular to long. Add in that I am rather broad shouldered and this makes buying a new suit a fairly involved procedure. I don’t have to do it often, as I don’t work in a suit, but a guy needs to dress up every now and then for certain occassions and I like my clothes to actually fit.
At 6’, I sometimes feel much shorter than a few guys I know, but part of that is their ultra thinnisity coupled with their being a couple of inches taller. However, when I wear my fancy western boots while dressed up, the heel adds a couple of inches to my height and I have the sensation of feeling like a polar bear in an double breasted suit… Other than that though, I don’t tend to notice my height placement too much, which leads me to believe I must be near average for my area. Yeah, I don’t notice it too much at all when in work clothes or just jeans and stuff. Go figure.
I too am just around 6 feet. (Truly, about 5’ 11 1/2"). However, unlike a few posters here, I have noticed that I am taller than most people. Certainly not to the point where I’m taller than most everyone, but most people. Of course, I’m also a big guy, about 225 of mostly muscle, so that may skew things.
Thanks Quartz. Just ruin the view for me, why don’t you?
I’m 6’3" on a good day, when the stars are in their proper alignment.