Excuse me, I have provided so much evidence FROM REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS WITH SO MUCH REPEATED RESEARCH that showed 80-90% of height is inherited and nutrition plays a minuscule role in determining height. Nutrition only affects a few cms, probably 0-3cm, in modern societies.
You and njtt and some of the guys here keep harping on about calcium and calories when it is a scientifc fact that nutrition only affects very little of one’s height if one lives in a modern society with access to food and water. Not sure why you keep talking about that.
If one were to go down that cul-de-sac with you, firstly, you no proof that developed East Asian countries consume less of those in the first place.
The only website you provide is a third party badly referenced website saying that China, a third world East Asian country, consumes less milk. The validity of that article is suspect since there is no way to verify it and there are no authoritative scientist putting their name to it. The research methods were not stated as well.
Secondly, even if it was true that these countries consume less milk and calories, we already know that nutrition is not that main factor in determining height and it only affects very little of one’s height.
I did not start the topic to ask for answers (why would anyone ask for answers on an internet board from strangers?) I started it merely for fun and to see if anyone can provide further interesting insights to it. This is just for the benefit of those who are interested in the same topic.
Oh sorry. You really must forgive us. We didn’t realize all the question marks and "why"s in your original post were a rhetorical device and not a request for answers.
It will affect height but it does not affect height as much as you seem to think it will.
The North Koreans are starving. They eat rats and human flesh just to get meat because they are that hungry. From the day they were born, they are subjected to such malnutrition. You can google for this and read books written by reowned writers/governments who interviewed N.Koreans refugees which describe the kind of diet North Koreans have today.
The South Koreans are born into a nice air conditioned hospital. They eat decently and grow fat. Fish, kimchi, rice, beef, macdonalds. They see a doctor when they fall ill.
And guess what, the average N.Korea woman is only 4cm shorter than the S.Korean one. The average NK male is only 7cm shorter than his SK counterpart. Assuming you are not born into a third world country, and do not have to consume human flesh or rat flesh or drink river water to stay alive, nutrition is probably going to affect only a very few cms of your height (1-3cm max).
Your height is mostly determined by your parents’ height. So is the amount of facial hair you have, your eye colour, hair colour, chest size etc.
Anecdotally, the height difference between western Chinese populations (where many people, to this day, could have expected to experience childhood malnutrition) and the prosperous East Coast areas is striking, even among groups with relatively similar genetic heritage. Height is a big deal in China, to the point where even ordinary office jobs often have height requirements. “Height” is second only to money when it comes to being marriage material. Indeed, North Korean defectors in South Korea often report that they have trouble getting married because of their stunted height. So I think that nutrition does play a role, and that marriage probably doesn’t.
Of course, height differences within populations are real. Pygmies actually do tend to be pretty short. I don’t think anyone is denying that different populations can tend towards different heights. The question here is regarding the relative height of European and East Asian populations.
In this case, I’d venture that nutrition can account for the height differences- not on the Asian side, but on the European side. The medieval European diet probably wasn’t that great, and kept people from reaching their genetic height potential. I bet the East Asian diet hasn’t changed nearly as radically as the European one (think about the role of potatoes alone!) and thus shows less change.
You provide an example of two genetically similar groups. One of these groups suffers from malnutrition. The other does not. A male of average height in the malnourished groups is 7cm shorter than a male of average height in the well-nourished group.
The obviously conclusion form this example would seem to be that poor nutrition might account for a 7cm height difference, and yet somehow, you assert that “nutrition is probably going to affect only a very few cms of your height (1-3cm max.” This does not compute.
Yeah, I saw that. He also seems to indicate he’s not coming back to the thread. If he does come back and wants to continue this as a debate, I’ll consider moving it.
