Talk:Human height/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Karube data removal 2 FAO 3 Eurostat statistics 4 Graphics 5 Unsourced edits 6 Are those height data reliable? 7 Eurostats 2004 statistical yearbook. 8 Data for spain 9 Meters to feet conversion 10 Lifting weights: not enough information 11 Original research 12 Orientals Not Shorter 13 Dinaric Alps 14 Moore an Idiot? 15 Health & Height 16 Mistake for Spain 17 The physics of human height 18 Spain's values 19 Discuss changes Spain Values 20 Montenegro 21 Parent Age 22 How many per stadistics? 23 Self reported stature 24 Middle Ages an era of tallness? 25 Changing Height 26 Junk food 27 Maasai People 28 Table/Sources 29 Iceland's average height 30 Human height in the elderly 31 Remove the average height table 32 Meters 33 Physics section added 33.1 Relevance 34 some notes on East Asian height 35 Canada 36 Spain 37 Blocking edit by IP 38 Height of idiocy 39 Height 40 Height Table 41 Self-Reported Heights 42 Height Growth Graph 43 Israel 44 Height's effect on life (job and social) 45 Montenegro 46 Categories of Americans 47 Effects of environmental factors vs. genetics (diet, exercise, etc) 48 China 49 New Canada Height in Chart 50 Criticisms on race and height 51 European Union Average Height 52 Philippines 53 China 54 Southern Chinese 55 Bao Xishun 56 The China problem 57 Dinaric Alps height 58 Czech Heights 59 Unfreeride's contribs 60 Yugoslavs are the tallest Europeans - Guinness has Rwandese as the tallest in the world 61 Yes Yugoslavs are taller than Dutch, get over it 62 What value is height in the modern world 63 Cavelaars et al 2000

Karube data removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--rom

FAO

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

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

Eurostat statistics

I have read that Eurostat has reliable statistics about height for Europe. Why is there no link to those statistics? Are they not available in internet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.156.225.203 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

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

Graphics

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, but someone who knows how should remove the violet and blue graph with international height comparisons because it's confusing (with countries noted more than once) and in its current state, uninformative and misleading. It exaggerates differntiation by zooming in on a couple of centimeters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.54.46.236 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC).

Unsourced edits

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

The table is not accurate. I don't think you should revert anything if you don't know the values are. But just kill all of the unsourced values, and karube - b, for a much more accurate table. - rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.83.195 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

It'S also quite interessting, that the Austrian data ís taken out of "ABS How Australians Measure Up 1995 data"----? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.171.131.245 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

The exact same page is on answers.com [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.242.4 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Are those height data reliable?

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

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

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

This table gets really wonky, if a value isn't sourced well, then delete it. - rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.83.195 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

There is a difference of 10 cm between Spain and Germany. Come on, who believes that?. Spaniards have been shooting up much more than that. The height for young British is also wrong, etc. I think there is an absolute admixture of criteria, years, ages, in short, a mess. The Eurostats statistical yearbook 2004 is mentioned for young Germans, but not for other Eurpeans. Most other young Europeans are close to 1.80 in that yearbook, why are the Germans mentioned and not the other Europeans?. HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.76.232 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC).

Why's the height for young British wrong? and the 10cm difference between germans and spaniards you cite is comparing young germans to the whole spanish population, and not young spaniards. From the datat u've given the height difference is really 3 - 4 cm, do you find that easier to believe? -- rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.83.195 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Where did they get the 177.8 and 164.7 height for italians? What does 2002 refer to? Where is the source? I am gonna have to change it and provide a real source if none provides more detailed informations about the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.19.120 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Eurostats 2004 statistical yearbook.

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

As to the FAO statistics. I do not know if I interpret them well, but if I am not wrong boys aged 15-18 in Spain are taller than boys of the same age in countries like UK, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Czech Republic or Poland, which seems in absolute contradiction with the data shown on the list. Can somebody explain that? HCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.76.232 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you have a link to the Eurostat data? I found something like that, but it contained only data on health, demography and economy. Cartouche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.100.0.50 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

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

Uuuh, I eventually found something: [2] Cartouche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.100.61.114 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

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

Data for spain

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

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

We have the following situation according to Sigma Dos.

A) Averages for 45-64 year-olds.

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

b) Averages for the entire population:

Males: 1.73 m Females: 1.61 m

d) Averages for 18-29 year-olds.

Males: 1.77 m Females: 1.64 m

We have the following situation according to Professor Manuel Hernandez.

Males: 1.76 m Females: 1,615 m

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

Comments please.

HCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.76.232 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

If you speak Spanish, maybe you could find out? -- rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.83.195 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Meters to feet conversion

I have realized that the meter to feet conversion in wrong in many cases. I will see to it when I have time. HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.140.197 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

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

I assume that it is right. HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.248.169 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Lifting weights: not enough information

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

from my weight training teacher, basically leg weight exercises before 16-18 is a bad move for this reason, you need to have a trainer to make sure your not putting your potential height at risk if your training heavy with weights in your early teens —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.192.2.139 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

Original research

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

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

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

Please note that this section does not use relevant physics to explain its point. Torque applies only to objects that are ROTATING about a center. Running has nothing to do with torque. The only place that torque plays a role in this article is when a person falls, which involves rotation about a center of mass. Inertia and rotational interia are related but not the same thing. I am not editing this section because once all the physics is corrected, the entire section will become irrelevant. --physics graduate student, 29 May 2006 {{subst:unsigned|146.151.107.199|16:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

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

Like Muchness, I do not wish to get into arguments about editing the article itself, but I found this section to be particularly unfounded for a wikipedia article and just hope that whoever next edits this section reads my comments. --brett, 17 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.218.71 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shorter people have better acceleration, that's without doubt. Remember that taller people with longer legs don't posess enough muscle mass in proportion to their leg length! Muscle force grows disproportionately slower than body mass! Yet it is true that small sprinters have short stride and thus they usually don't excel at distances longer than 60 m. And what about agility, yes, smaller people are more agile, because they have lower center of gravity. Cartouche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.100.0.50 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

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

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

Orientals Not Shorter

No, "Orientals" aren't "shorter" than Europeans. From my experience Northern Chinese, Koreans raised on a modern diet are taller than Europeans--even scandinavians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.34.168 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

Show me a sample population of asians bigger than the netherlands that support this. I reckon every race hasn't reached it's potential yet. I know scadanavians seem to have peaked in Norway at about 181 but so has Japanese at 171cm. I think there is a genetic difference. Perhaps caucasians and asians are similar but to give the underdog the benefit of having greater potential is bad logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.105.120 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

a doctor who is a friend of mine who speicalisis in glands and growth in children said that if all people of the world had the same dite and lifestyle thier average hieght would be almost the same and not that much differnces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry White (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

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

Dinaric Alps

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

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

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

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

-- r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.39.215 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

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

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

-- Fletcher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.144.29 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I've seen a noticable presence of very tall people (but not just *all* of them) in Brcko and in Sarajevo as well.

In Brcko you could see one man above 200cm every twenty men or so.

Also i've seen a Serb school in Glyfada, Greece (they were from the south) where literally all boys were above 190cm.

I bet the situation would be more or less very similar in Zagreb/Beograd and the rest of ex-yugo cities.

Also i think the illyrian assumption is nowhere sound.

Nobody knows who illyrians were, since they couldnt write.

Now about the situation with albanians. From the nearly 1m of albanians in greece, the tallest you can find are shorter than 1.85. The average albanian is considered tall if about near 175cm. --Achilleus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.35.211 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Moore an Idiot?

Why does it say "Thank you, Moore you are truly an idiot" in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.22.88.97 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Health & Height

The article gives the impression that a taller population is healthier than a shorter one. While I do not doubt that this holds truth, it is not true. At least, not if we measure health by life expectancy. Japan, for example, is around 10 cm shorter than the US. Yet the US only has a life expectancy of 77.85 years [3], compared to Japan's 81.25 [4]. --A Sunshade Lust 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Holds truth ... but is not true. In other words there is a correlation but not a direct proportional relationship. Japan has a longer female life expectancy than the US, the main cause of the difference. There are racial differences in height between the two populations with caucasians and most africans being taller on average than east asians given the same environmental conditions.

A better comparison would be comparing Japan's rising height and life expectancy to Japanese height and life expectancy in the past, it would then be easy to see a relationship.

Some american populations do live longer than japanese or even okinawans, Seventh day adventist in california have a longer life expectancy than any other group studied, and studies of average SDA height show they are slightly taller than the average population.

Now, it's possible that in some circumstances like practicing caloric restriction, that some people say okinawans do traditionally, shortness may be an advantage in longevity. But practically in the real world the relationship is the other way around and men with above average, but not extreme, height live longer than average in any given population.

-- r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.158.62.17 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

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

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

about the inverse relationship between height and risk of coronary heart disease in twin pairs. That was 2 minutes looking through google, how can you say no evidence exists?

--rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.71.223 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

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

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

"Moreover, could there be a link among childhood infections, adult height, and subsequent cardiovascular disease? Several biologic indices of inflammation and/or some types of viral and bacterial infection in adults are apparently associated with increased cardiovascular risk (14, 15). As children with a history of frequent infections are known to have diminished adult height (16) and childhood respiratory infection probably reduces adult lung function, it may be useful to determine whether certain types of childhood infection can increase future cardiovascular risk. Studies such as those suggested here will not be easy, but the new information could be of considerable value." 01001 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Mistake for Spain

Below, copied from the statistics for Spain please observe:

Country| Met. (M) | Met. (F) | Feet (M) | Feet (F) | Group Spain | 170.0 cm | 160.3 cm | 5 ft 6.9 in | 5 ft 3.1 in | a Spain | 169.0 cm | 158.3 cm | 5 ft 7 in | 5 ft 2.9 in | 45-69 (self reported) o

You can see in the first row, the average male height is 170.0 cm in Metric and 5 ft 6.9 inch in feet, how ever in the second row, the average male height is 169.0 cm in Metic and 5 ft 7 inch in feet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.33.195 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Thatś because they are from different sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.5.135.51 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

The physics of human height

torque = rotational inertia X angular acceleration. Rotational inertia = sum of the products of the mass of each particle by the square of its distance from the axis of rotation. [5]These equations mean that the shorter human can accelerate more quickly than the taller human. The taller human requires considerably more torque to gets its body moving. This also means that the taller human can generate considerably more torque. For similar reasons the shorter human can decelerate more quickly and change directions more quickly than the taller human. This gives the shorter human more agility and quickness than the taller human.

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

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

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

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

Acceleration, agility, coordination and balance are at a great premium in indoor soccer and we find a large number of players in this sport of short stature. There is also a great abundance of players of short stature in outdoor soccer(International football). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 01001 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

Spain's values

There is a new study that has been introduced that makes reference to four individual studies with the following measurements for 18 year-old Spanish males in different Spanish regions: Catalonia (Hospital of Vall d'Hebron): 1,73. Madrid: 1,77. Zaragoza: 1,77. Galicia 1,77. The 1.77 figure is consistent with the values presented in the other studies here. The case of Vall d'Hebron (Catalonia) is anomalous, and reading the article one can see that it may even be a print mistake. It is not logical to think that Catalans, who enjoy one of the highest living standars in Spain, are 4 cm. shorter that the rest of Spaniards. In any case, to introduce the smallest value among 5 available right now does not make any sense and is not representative, that is why I am deleting it. HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.246.15 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

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

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

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

Discuss changes Spain Values

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

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

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

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

Montenegro

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

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

I'm really interested in seeing more data about Former Yugoslav heights. -- rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.91.116 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

That's got to be a joke, surely, that implies the average height is about 2meters, that's about 6'7". No way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.21.146 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

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

Remember, please, that the sample in the Dinaric study was only 17 years old. Young adults may thus be about 1 cm taller (186,5 cm). That's almost incredible, but it falls very well among data reported 70 years ago by Carleton Coon. Then the Montenegrins were about 4-5 cm taller than the tallest people in the rest of Europe. Cartouche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.61.114 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

MONTE NEGRO 188,5 CM? WHO POSTED IT? Do you have a credible source? Cartouche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centrum99 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

The posted source contains no real information, only that Montenegrins can be over 190 cm tall. Cartouche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centrum99 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

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

Parent Age

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

This could be true. Because I have a friend who is my age (13) and he is 5'11. His parents are both in their late fifties, early sixties. I am also 5'11 and 13, and my parents had me at about 37-38. But then again, I have a friend (a girl) who is 5'10 and 13, and her parents had her in their 20's. I live in Canada by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

How many per stadistics?

Age range, place, heights, they are part of the data but... What is missing is very important to... How many each of these researched investigated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.106.122.187 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Self reported stature

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

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

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

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

What do those studies say?

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

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

I think self reported heights should stay in, but be marked as self reported heights, and I think that measured studies are the ideal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.75.172 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Middle Ages an era of tallness?

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

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

From the statistics you gave a six foot man from medieval england would have been 11cm above average, which would be comparable to a 189cm(6'2.5" white american male) in modern times. A height that is above average but not remarkable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.75.172 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Changing Height

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

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

Junk food

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

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

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

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

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

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

So my cousins are all taller than me. Why? Mabye I'm still growing. But you can't say that kids who eat junk foods don't grow much. I'm sorry for my poor English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.33.236.1 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like they are a relatively tall family, but as far as children being fat and eating junkfood being in the top 1% of height is a big risk factor for morbid obesity, I can't remember the source for that but it was reliable. Also in general fat children are likely to be above average height while they are children, something about being overweight causes them to have a growth spurt (could be something to do with insulin etc), but they don't end up being taller adults they just grew earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.72.216 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Once again genetics play a vital role in height. If your parents are shorter than other teenagers parents, you will most likely be shorter than your peers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.210.137 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Maasai People

Someone needs to add somewhere in this article something about the Maasai people. I'm unsure why we keep making references to Montenegreans being the tallest people's on earth when the Maasai, who though they aren't their own country, measure quite a bit taller. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criticalthinker (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

I also think that they are the tallest in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.110.18 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

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

Why is this page wrong and not the new yorker? The new yorker says that the dutch are 6'1" or 1.855cm or so. We haven't seen sourced data that high, the highest dutch average height i've ever seen was 1.84m which could be farely translated into 6'0.5" but not 6'1".

Also I believe ( i can't remember exactly) that the article listed the average native born white male as 5'9.5" ..... well the measured data we have found and sourced lists the average white (presumabably non-hispanic) male at around 178.2 - 5'10", and this height is the case for even late middle aged men so is not just recent generations exceeding the New Yorker figures.

I believe the New Yorker was trying to propagate a poltical point in that article, which would be OK as long as they used good data and properly converted from metric to imperial.

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

-- rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.67.40 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

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

Table/Sources

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

Iceland's average height

"4 ft 5 in" for males, "4 ft 3.9 in" for females. Are these accurate numbers, or is someone pulling our legs? -Eric —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.137.84 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

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

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

Human height in the elderly

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

Older people do lose height, but height differences in age groups can also be caused by differences in nutrition etc among generations. You'd have to find sources that document height loss in individuals over the course of their lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.164.230 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Remove the average height table

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

Meters

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

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

Physics section added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance

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

some notes on East Asian height

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

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

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

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

Canada

Line 2 of the table, for Canada, is wrong. The metric and imperial figures don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.57.16 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

RE: CANADA

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

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

Spain

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

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

Blocking edit by IP

Some IPs numbers, always vandalize the Average height table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Height of idiocy

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

Height

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

The source structure of the table is confusing. Someone shuld fix this. Why not writing the source in the column? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.148.228 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Height Table

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

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

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

Self-Reported Heights

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

Height Growth Graph

The graph is too limited in it's function byt itself... There are two ways to provide a "cm of growth done" up to "age" of this data: Obtain the area given by the graph to put it on the Y axis of another graph with age in the X asis; Use the numbers obtained from the research to calculate this directly rather than calculate this the hard way (Placing the graph in power point, drawing lines over the lines to take the area beneath the lines drawn (that shall be many as the curves must become straight lines and thus brake into many more for this) and then make the data comparative (not all "2 years" are represented by an equal length of graph, the last "2 years" are not even used fully). I've done the first way but it's too time-consuming to do it all the time and I can't recall if the doc survived the perils an archive faces in a busy computer... So... Can someone help with method 2? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.240.157.143 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Israel

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

Height's effect on life (job and social)

This article from Popular Science can be used to improved the Role of an individual's height section. The section can be greatly expanded. At one point is minimalizes the role of height in the corporate world, but I disagree after reading this article. Article Printer friendly

I also suggest linking that section to the article on Heightism--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro

Does anyone know the source of the heights in Montenegro and other countries in the vicinity? I'd appreciate the information. Sincerely, John.Komlos@gmx.de —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkomlos (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Categories of Americans

I believe the categories of Americans broken down as White non-hispanic, Black non-hispanic and Mexican American is politically incorrect. I believe Hispanic American is more proper. I am a Puerto Rican American and do not feel represented in a "Mexican American" category as I have no Mexican heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.8.173.221 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

• Nope, you got this wrong. The data is specifically pretaining to Mexican Americans. It is not just a poor replacement for Hispanic. Someone does need to find the average height for ALL Hispanic Americans, though. --Criticalthinker 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the clarification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.152.239.216 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Effects of environmental factors vs. genetics (diet, exercise, etc)

Does anyone know if there are any environmental factors such as diet and exercise on height, specifically on male height? I've gotten scattered evidence from various sources. I've had some, for example, that have said there is no effect of exercise on human height and others that have said that environmental factors such as exercise definately make an impact. Jotsko 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

China

Why everytime a chinese vandalize the table of average height around the world?They always post references in chinese and post wrong date from China people's height. The average height today of young males in China is greater than Italy, France and Spain? And almost the same height of americans?No way, the average height of chinese increase, but that increase is not that great. In the 80' the average height of chinese man is 1,64 m:(http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID10E/uid10e16.htm#results) Today the average height of chinese male is about 1,66-1,68 m. For furthers information consult the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) : http://www.cpc.unc.edu/china

Sorry for the bad english, that is not my native language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.207.80.200 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Could you please add a letter for this information, and the source like every other height category? Also, the link says you need to sign-up for the information. --Criticalthinker 03:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New Canada Height in Chart

Am I the only one that finds the new heights for 12-17 years olds in Canada totally irrelevant? Aren't we supposed to be finding heights for adult populations, mostly, unless there is something very remarkable about teenage heights? I think that the 12-17 year old numbers just add to confusion. --Criticalthinker 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms on race and height

Someone stated: "There are racial differences in height between the two populations with caucasians and most africans being taller on average than east asians given the same environmental conditions."

It is not true. Equal is unfair. Every race needs special treatment for optimal growth. Asians and Africans need more vitamin D because Caucasians can synthesize vitamin D easily from their light skin in the sun. There are economic differences between the races. 90% of East Asians are lactose intolerant, so they need special calcium supplements. Your brain consumes about 30% of your energy. East Asians, which have genetically larger and more powerful brains, needs to consume more calories for their brains. (see race and intelligence (test data)) Diet is unfair. Wheat makes your grow taller than rice. Asians are more adapted to eat fish. Cultural factors are unfair. Asians devalue exercise and Blacks value exercise. Asians mature late. Blacks mature early.

71.175.33.237

Larger and more powerful brains? You sound like you've got a grudge about being Asian. I know that Asians do have larger brains on average, but you seem to think that it's fine to make racial comparison about asian brain size, but grossly unfair to compare asian height. I'm pretty sure that Asians are genetically shorter than most Caucasians and Africans (with the obvious exceptions of African pygmies etc). Many Asians have fairly light skin, and milk isn't the only place to get calcium - leafy vegetables etc.

Compare the average height of equally lactose intolerant whites to equally lactose intolerant asians to get your answer about that being the cause of the difference. Lactose intolerant babies will be smaller, but i'm not so sure that it will make a big difference for people who develop lactose intolerance after infancy. For instance 45% of African American children are lactose intolerant but still grow up to be taller on average than Asians.

I think that Asians are genetically ~ 1 standard deviation shorter than Europeans given similar conditions. Japanese arguebably have better diets than Americans, yet white and black americans are on average 178cm and the young japanese adults are 171cm. A standard deviation for height within a population is usually 6 - 7cm. From another perspective that means well nourished asians are 96% the height of their white or black counterparts. User:203.33.160.124

"Larger and more powerful brains? You sound like you've got a grudge about being Asian. I know that Asians do have larger brains on average, but you seem to think that it's fine to make racial comparison about asian brain size, but grossly unfair to compare asian height."

Since race and intelligence is well-proven and there are no reliable studies concerning height differences between races. Is it fair that whites are taller and more intelligent than blacks?

"Many Asians have fairly light skin" The East Asian culture values that white skin is superior. Most Asians would avoid spending time in the sun as much as possible; and many Asians would do anything to avoid tanning: They avoid exercising outdoors, which can cause exercise deficiency and bad growth. Have you see that 28% of Koreans use skin-whitening products? (http://www.synovate.com/knowledge/infact/issues/200406/) Have you see Asians carrying umbrellas to shield from the sun? Some Asian women have lighter skin than an untanned Asian man, due to their skin whitening products.

A large portion of black Americans have partial white and African heritage. Since lactose persistence is a dominant trait, a biracial white African would have the ability to drink milk.

The Japanese are shorter than Northern Chinese people. South Koreans and Taiwanese people are taller than the Japanese, despite their lower economic conditions than the Japanese. You also cannot compare the Japanese with other East Asians. The Japanese has partial Ainu heritage. The Japanese have iodine overdose they get from seaweed, which have similar affects to iodine deficiency.

You seem to forget the cultural factors. Asian people exercise far less as whites or blacks. Most Asian people are immigrants, and are not on a Western diet.

"Japanese arguebably have better diets than Americans"

"Better" is vague word. Western diets are much richer in calcium than Asian diets, which promotes height. Too much nutrition at an early age will start puberty earlier, which can actually decrease height. A majority of Asians eat white rice instead of whole grains such as brown rice, which causes hormonal imbalance.

There are tall and short Asians. Northern Chinese are on average taller than Southern Chinese people, and likely to appear genetically superior. (Northern and Southern China) However, Northern Chinese people are more likely to eat wheat than Southern Chinese; which may be a factor of height.

71.175.42.106 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Asian people excercise far MORE than whites or asians, if you are speaking about the american context. I read an article about physical fitness of Japanese youth, and they were above average compared to suburbanised western countries. Many industrialised asians live in large cities, were more people use public transport, ride bikes and have to walk around (like the netherlands).

The mongoloid race probably evolved in Siberia, enduring very cold conditions, and would be unlikely to have a strong vitamin D deficiancy. White skin is considered to be attractive, probably everywhere where people aren't naturally white. (And i've heard that the european preference for a tan was because in the industrial revolution being locked in a factory showed low social status, while having leisure time in the sun was considered upper class and healthy).

Ainu's are taller on average than Japanese (and contribute more Sumos than average), so that isn't a factor in Japanese being short. Japanese are taller on average than Chinese. Even though Chinese people like to claim the reverse. 45% of African Americans are lactose intolerant (even though on average they have 20% euro ancestry), why don't we see a bimodal distribution of African American height with a peak at 178cm for the lactose tolerant men, and a peak at 171cm for the lactose intolerant half. The reason is because lactose tolerance isn't the only factor determining height.

The tallest NBA player ever drafted was Japanese. The tallest current player is Chinese, since Shawn Bradley retired. So what? The tallest person in the US is a woman - Sandy Allen - are women on average taller than men? Outliers don't mean very much.

But ... go ahead, one day we will find a study comparing the heights of Asians, Europeans and Africans bought up in the same conditions, their heights will be more similar than they have in the past, but differences will remain.

Stereotypes of Asians being tiny are from a time when the average height was 1.65m or shorter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.70.92 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Did you even re-read Human height#Race_and_height?

You cannot compare Japanese with other Asians. The Chinese are blocked from the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese are affected by the famines from the Great Leap Forward.

They are adults walking around they are not children. There is a lack of extracurricular sports teams in East Asian education.

Walking does not release as much Human Growth Hormone like jogging or running. They also ride bikes slowly, which is still slow exercise. Have you see any Asians on any sports teams?

Most Asian children are still are on an Asian diet because of their parents' influence.

Yes, the "mongoloid" race in the past didn't, but now they do have vitamin D deficiency. Now they avoid spending time in the sun.

There are Northern and Southern Han. The Northern and Southern Han evolved separately. American Indians "evolved" from the Northern Han people. Native Americans and Northern Han and Koreans have dry ear wax. Southern Han people have wet ear wax, due to the hotter climate.

Did you see Human height#Average_adult_height_around_the_world? Northern Han are taller than Southern Han. A six foot Northern Han is not uncommon. Taiwanese people are higher than the Japanese, probably from their economic success. However, Taiwanese people are taller than the PRC's average even they are Southern Han!

South Korean men are only 4 centimeters shorter than Non-Hispanic white men in the US. Taiwanese men are only 6 centimeters shorter. Japanese men are shorter than South Korean and Taiwanese? Why? Iodine overdose and cultural factors. South Korean men are only 4 centimeters shorter, despite all Asians are affected by cultural factors.

Did you ever see a study on lactose persistent and intolerant African Americans? If you did, where did you find it? That study might be biased.

When did you get that 20% of African Americans are mulattos? However, there may be more mulattos than the past.

Mulattos, by intuition, will grow taller since for lighter skin and whites are taller than blacks. Also, studies have shown that mixed-race parents will spend more on their children and give them better nutrition than "single-race" parents. They are also less likely to apply skin whiteners. Thus, they will grow much taller.

If 45% of blacks are lactose intolerant, then 35% of them are monoracial black lactose persistent. The heights mulattos and the monoracial-lactose-intolerant-blacks may average out near the monoracial-lactose-persistent-blacks average. This may be why there is no difference between lactose intolerant and tolerant blacks.

Lactose intolerant African Americans might eat more calcium than Lactose intolerant Asians. Lactose intolerant blacks might spend more time in the sun since they are already black enough. Blacks spend more time outside exercising than whites or blacks do. Where did the study survey? Most blacks live in and the Southeastern United States, where it is the most sunny. Many of them are immigrants from Africa, where it is the most sunny, and their skin is adapted to. African immigrants are high-achieving minorities and highest per capita income in the UK (see Model Minority#Black_immigrants_from_Africa), so they might be most likely to get surveyed from campuses.

Asians have lower bone density than whites. A study found that on average Asians consume less than 400 mg of calcium while whites consume more than 1000 mg of calcium. [6]

28% of Koreans surveyed use skin-whitening products. The use of skin whitening products stunt growth since it contains mercury and hydroquinone. Asians sometimes use illegally imported skin-whiteners from Asia. Fetuses in pregnant Asians that have used skin whiteners will have severe damages due to mercury and hydroquinone poisoning. (see Skin whitening#Criticism)

Northern Han appear to have higher IQ than Southern Han. Beijing has an IQ of around 110. Shanghai has an IQ of 109.4. South Korea: 105. Taiwan: 104. Japan: 105. Hong Kong: 106. Singapore: 104. But some do use skin whiteners more often that contain mercury. It may be Height and intelligence.

No matter how far you control the variables, there are still some inexact variations. You have to control every variable, such as the amount and type of exercise every race do every day, exposure to sun, climate, per capita income, diet, the rate of vitamin D synthesis in skin, participation in athletic teams, vacation time, leisure time, number of children, parental uprising, human growth hormone supplements, etc..

It is theoretically possible to be raised in an environment that is optimal for Asians where Asians will be the tallest and whites and blacks will be shorter.

So raised in the "same" conditions is vague. Every race need particular conditions for optimal growth. I assume you meant the average environment in the United States. However, Asians can still be taller if everything is exactly equal (which is ethically impossible to experiment, and can improved with adoption studies. To be extra controlled, must not "select" which race to adopt. However, stereotypes of Asians by whites are common... Whites might not want their Asian children to exercise or participate in athletic teams. Asians in adopted Caucasian families might have more stress. Adopted children might believe these stereotypes in media. ).

I believe it is impossible to perfectly study which "race" is the tallest. It is only possible only after a quantum computer has been invented to analyze DNA code or in a (technological) singularity.

But ... go ahead, one day we will find a study comparing the heights of Asians, Europeans and Africans bought up in the same conditions, their heights will be more similar than they have in the past, but differences will remain.

This is probably a stereotype that non-Asians and ironically some Asians believe.

71.175.42.106 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Asians are lower bone density than whites? They have smaller bones (and stature!) on average, but I didn't know they had worse bone density. In anycase, it's well known that Africans have better bone density than Europeans, even though europeans have a better diet and drink more milk. So lactose tolerance/diet isn't the only factor there - there is also genetics!

Medieval Europeans had stronger bones than current europeans, and I imagine worse diets and less milk - excercise and stress makes bones strong, not just milk! (or even milk by itself).

We are all human, there isn't wildly divergent nutritional needs for races. One of the few exceptions is a relatively recent mutation that lets whites drink milk (some small pockets of Africans have an even more recent mutation).

Vitamin D theory is unconvincing to me. Most Canadians are vitamin D deficient, but they aren't any shorter than white Americans, or Australians. The probable place that east asians evolved is in very cold conditions. Yet even Seoul is no further away from the equator than Melbourne, Australia. Most Asians live closer to the equator than most Europeans - and have relatively light skin anyway - do you really think Vitamin D could be such a great influence? Many Asians live in the tropics.

As for overdosing on iodine, most westerners have Iodised salt and then eat too much of it - what makes you think that westerners aren't overdosing on iodine?

Westerners don't sit around lifting weights before their bones fuse so they produce more human growth hormone - in fact that's usually discouraged!

Saying South Koreans are only 4cm shorter than White Americans? South Koreans are the tallest east asians ever (afaik) and they might even be measuring people in shoes to sound more impressive? Even then the average is only given as 5'8" for them usually! Since they are comparing themselves to North Korean and Japan, in a way that western countries wouldn't bother. If you want to compare the tallest groups of Asians to the tallest nation of whites the difference is even more than a standard deviation.

The average height in Singapore for a young man is 171cm and that is one of the wealthiest regions in Asia ....... Yes, the young men measured there grew up eating better - more vitamins, more protien less trans fat, less sugar, less simple carbs than most westerners.

Also more than 20% of African Americans are mixed race, the AVERAGE african American has 20% white ancestry - some have more, some have less, but the average person who considers themselves african American has 20% european ancestry. That doesn't mean 80% have pure african ancestry - because then 20% of African Americans would be 100% europoean! which obviously doens't make sense.

There is a tendency for more lactose tolerant europeans to be taller than less lactose tolerant ones, but lactose tolerance in the balkans is below average for europe, yet some regions there are among the tallest europeans.

Also Asians haven't been proven to have "more powerful brains", and i'm deeply sceptical about taking the average iqs for cities and comparing them doing it for countries is problematic enough!. Asians have on average better spatial ability by one standard deviation as compared to Europeans, in the other areas of tests they are almost up to european standards. I don't know the implications of this, or the relevence to human height - maybe you're trying to argue some type of flynn effect in regards to nutrition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.70.92 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Yes, Asians have lower bone density in that study. African Americans have higher bone density than whites? Where did you find it?

Africans in Africa are much shorter than African Americans due to poverty.

You seem to only say what African Americans are, not Africans in Africa.

It is impossible to prove that medieval Europeans have stronger bones.

Most Canadians take multivitamins. Look at the statistics. Yes, some Asians, such as some Northern Chinese, evolved from very cold conditions, but not all Asians. The intensity of sunlight does not depend on the location on the earth. Some places are sunny. Some places are cloudy. For example, Europe is mostly cloudy everyday, and that is why Europeans have light skin and hair. Climates can still be cold but sunny. Look at the Alaskan Natives and Eskimos. They have dark skin but live in cold climates.

Have you even read my post? I said that it is their culture that white skin is precious and they DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT GETTING TANNED.

"Many Asians live in the tropics." Are you kidding me? Almost all Asians (except Southeast Asians) live in the temperate zones.

I assume that you are mentioning Southeast Asians. You seem to believe that all Asian are homogeneous. Southeast Asians do somewhat appear to be genetically shorter, but you cannot generalize.

Look at the statistics. Japan is the only few nations that has iodine overdose. Don't guess.

Europe has higher economic stability, high per capita income and the best food and drug regulations. Look at the PRC. It often export food that contain toxic chemicals or fake food. Do you read the news? China exported poisonous pet food, fake milk and executes politicians. [7] The richest cities in China are still MUCH poorer than South Korea or Taiwan.

Between 1979 and 1985 the average stature is DECREASING. [8] Therefore, it is unreasonable to survey 20 to 30 year old Chinese people. Also, Northeast Chinese are constantly taller than other Chinese even economic and other variables are controlled. [9]

Just because there are tall Balkan basketball players, it does not represent all Balkans. Remember what you said about the out liners.

The "Asian race" is NOT anywhere homogeneous.

Again, studies found that the average IQ of Chinese children, including the countryside, (which must attend mandatory education) is 105. Nutritional deficiencies, toxin poisoning, fluoride poisoning and sanitational problems are factors (which, again, proved to be SIGNIFICANT). Northeastern Chinese cities have higher IQ.

As I said, the cities in China are MUCH poorer than other Asian nations. But given the same conditions as in Western nations, I think that Asians will perform better in almost all areas. In what other tasks do Asian perform not as good as whites do? Reading? It is just a complex stereotype, the statistics also include immigrants, Southeast Asians and Indians, which are poor in reading.

This is a typical stereotype that is believed by racial supremacists

Why are you not verifying and citing any sources and ANALYZING AND CHECKING THEM HOLISTICALLY for the stereotypes and opinions you believe, even when it is extremely simple to find sources?

In conclusion, you cannot compare countries. You have to compare different races WITHIN a country to get the best results. Obviously fallacious results can be concluded by comparing different races in countries. For example, there are much less (percentage wise) Asian Nobel Prize winners than non-Ashkenazi whites in Asia, yet there are more Asian-American (percentage wise) Nobel Prize winners than non-Ashkenazi whites in the U.S.

There are no studies comparing intelligence of different races where height is controlled. If such study exists, I believe that Asians will be superior at all tasks than whites.

71.175.42.106 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the dinka people of sudan are said to be the tallest people in the world. so it is not necessarily true that african americans are taller than africans due to poverty.Muntuwandi 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote from article:

The popular belief that Dinka "often" reach more than seven feet finds no support in the scientific literature. An anthropometric survey of Dinka men published in 1995 found a mean height of 176.4cm, or roughly 5 ft 9.45 in (Chali 1995). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.42.106 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

"Better" is vague word. Western diets are much richer in calcium than Asian diets, which promotes height. Too much nutrition at an early age will start puberty earlier, which can actually decrease height. A majority of Asians eat white rice instead of whole grains such as brown rice, which causes hormonal imbalance.

Who'se being holistic now? In any case blacks and whites have puberty lower than white, so nutrition causing early puberty does not explain why Asians (mongoloids) are shorter.

All this BS about sunlight, Mongoloids (people who like like chinese) evolved for cold climates, now some of them live in the tropics (parts of china are tropical) yet they are supposedly shorter than northern chinese ..... if vitamin D is the cause, why would this be case? People aren't plants, and even if they were your arguement wouldn't make sense.

You think all White people are high school quarterbacks who spend all day drinking milk, eating their mothers chicken and lifting weights to release HGH.

Lactose intolerance doesn't explain the large height gap, (blacks are the same average height in the US), sunlight doeesn't (even seoul is only as far from the equator as the bottom part of the australian mainland, and no australians feel sun deprived) plus northern chinese are supposedly taller than southern, whites and blacks in general do less excercise .....

You say some ideas racial supremacist when you say that Asians (who whenever i mention them you say are too hetereogenous to talk about) would be better than whites in all tasks? Where's your equal or better analytical ability there? Can't you see that YOU are a supremacist?

There are possible nutritional explanations for inferior asian height, however due to the fact that asians born in western countries are also on average shorter than the host population (this doesn't happen with other groups who are shorter for environmental reasons) I think the only feasible explanation is that asians are on average genetically shorter than whites or most blacks.

User:203.33.160.124

So why are whites taller when whites mature later?

Did you even read my comments about East Asians avoiding the sun? Did you read about whites tanning? People in Seoul avoid the sun.

We all evolved from many ice ages. The last age ended about 10,000 years ago. However, a part of China was the coldest place on Earth during the last ice age. There are two kinds of Asians: One that migrated from Southeast Asia to China, and one that migrated across Mongolia. (One group that migrated south around the Himalayas and one group that migrated north around the Himalayas.) But they all look similar.

Do you even know that white Australians are not natives to Australia, even you are Australian? White Australians do not avoid the sun.

"due to the fact that asians born in western countries are also on average shorter than the host population" It is an untrue stereotype. Did you know that half of the Asians are immigrants? I personally know many Asians that born in America more than six feet tall and lactose persistent (yes, they are 100% Asians). Did you read what I said: Western Asian children are sill on an Asian diet because their family is on an Asian diet.

Unfreeride 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't understand ..... ASIANS don't live in extremely cold areas .... they live in warm temperate zones.

"You can't understand ..... ASIANS don't live in extremely cold areas .... they live in warm temperate zones. " and this is exactly why your point about vitamin D is so ridiculous. Asians who have evolved for cold temperatures and live in warm ones arent' going to be more vitamin D deficient than other populations (not htat this has been shown to adversely affect height anyway!).

OFcourse White Australian's aren't native to Australia but no one thinks that the Australian climate gives people a lack of vitamin D, even though parts of Australia are as far away from the equator as china. Your points just don't make sense!

Are people from Sweden shorter than people from Spain? no .... why ... because height doesn't have much to do with light exposure!

There are 6 feet asians, just like there are 6 feet women - they just aren't as common as 6 feet tall caucasian or blacks, because the average is lower.

It's not an untrue stereotype that people of Asian descent born in western countries aren't shorter than host populations. I have a number of Australian born asian friends, and they are shorter on average no doubt. THey consider someoene 5'11" to be tall 1.8m. Because that's the 90th percentile of their height. average must be a bit over 170cm ie not tall.

You just don't want to believe it because your an asian supremacist.

User:203.33.160.124

You continuously contradict yourself. You continuously do not believe that ASIANS AVOID THE SUN.

Many Asians live in cold temperate zones, NOT in warm temperate zones. Most of Asia is hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

You are the one that's being illogical and stereotypical. Sweden has better per capita income, better food regulations, etc. Sweden is slightly more cloudy than Spain... Sunlight and environmental factors are NOT mutually exclusive. Asians avoid the sun MUCH more than Swedes... Spain is economically MUCH better than Asia.

Not because I do not want to believe it, but because I do not believe it.

So I ask you again, why do you accept that whites are taller than blacks when white mature later then blacks? Your reason is illogical. I assume that blacks are taller than whites? correct?

Why did you revert it? [10] ...because of Stereotypes?

And why did you quote yourself, and falsely advertise that I said them? Is it propaganda?

I will never believe your illogical oversimplified dogma.

"Because that's the 90th percentile of their height."

"average must be a bit over 170cm ie not tall."

That's ridiculous. You obviously cannot rely on your improvised statistics. Where are your sources for these statistics? Did you make them up yourself?

WHY DO YOU CONTINUOUSLY AVOID ASIANS AVOID THE SUN, POOR PER CAPITA INCOME, DIET, EXERCISE, AND OTHER CULTURAL CONTRIBUTORS?

Unfreeride 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why'd I revert it? because i've seen better statistics myself and that was a sus source.

Maturing later actually often makes people talller, they've had more time slowly growing before their pubertal growth and homrmone surge which fuses their long bones. Asians mature later than whites who mature later than blacks all things being equal.

The statistics about 180cm being tall to Australian born asians are what asian people have said to me. They were less improvised by the fact you know (or think you know because you don't strike me as a meticulous person) 6 foot lactose persistent asians, i'm sure there are many 6 foot lactose persistent asians but that doesn't mean they are average. There are millionaires in Indonesia, it doesn't mean indonesia is richer than luxembourg.

Asians avoid the sun .... whites sometimes wear sunscreen, most canadians are vitamin D deficient, but Canadions are taller than Asians. Vitamin D has very little to do with it.

Asians don't do less excercise than whites - what's your source?

{You are the one that's being illogical and stereotypical. Sweden has better per capita income, better food regulations, etc. Sweden is slightly more cloudy than Spain... Sunlight and environmental factors are NOT mutually exclusive. Asians avoid the sun MUCH more than Swedes... Spain is economically MUCH better than Asia.}

We aren't talking about the underdeveloped areas of Asia, we are talking about first world countries like Japan, South Korea, taiwan, Singapore etc We have good statistics for Japan - per capita income (PPP) IMF 32,647 (2005). Japan isn't a newly emerged economy, it's GDP has been higher than many western countries for a long ime now. Australia per capatia income (PPP)32,938 (2005)

Pretty similar now compare heights - Australia 178.4cm (18 - 24), Japan (17) 170.7cm, Japan (20) 169.2 cm

Difference is more than a standard deviation, and I could just have easily compared Japan to a taller western country like Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Balkans.

Your vitmain D point I have thoroughly shut down. Your points about economy had already been factored into my arguement (which is why i'm only comparing heights in developed countries). Your points about excercise are flipped, Asians excercise more.

You are the one who relies on stereotype, ie south east asians are naturally shorter, i think they woudl the same height as Japanese, Tiawanese etc if they had the same high level of affluence.

If you want to compare Korean height, the tallest asians - and i havent' been happy with sources yet -, compare it to the Dutch and the difference only grows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.160.124 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

1. Japan has iodine overdose.
2. Asian do not exercise more. [11] [12]

[13]

1. You cannot compare Japan, the shortest height, with others.
2. Sunblock does not help much.
3. Why don't you compare with Beijing, with others; when Beijing is much more undeveloped than others?
4. Most Canadians take multivitamins.
5. So do you accept that the ones maturing later, such as Asians, will be taller?

Unfreeride 14:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Asians mature later, but have a lower genetic potential for height on average. Blacks mature earlier but are pretty much the same height as weights, due to genetics.

The Japanese are taller than Chinese on average. The reason I talk about Japan is because they have less reason to lie, and they are largest developed country in Asia. Chinese like to think of Japanese as shorter despite reality.

I suspect the Beijing height is fraudalent, it doesn't gel with my experiences of beijing, I think that height might be used for nationalistic purposes. See the above point about chinese thinking they are taller than Japanese.

Most Canadians do not take multivitimans, which in any case has not been proven to have health benefits or increase height.

Most Canadais are vitamin D deficient, and even if this wasn't the case, you've provided on evidence about comparitive levels and effect of height, and I've shown you how stupid that point is. Why would the Northern chinese be stereotyped as taller if vitamin D deficiency was keeping height down? In that case it would be other way around.

User:203.33.160.124

You always contradict yourself. You said that the South Koreans are the tallest, even South Korea is not as economically developed as Japan. The Northers appear genetically superior.

The Chinese economy develops very fast. You cannot judge you experiences a few years ago from your Beijing "experience". The younger people are much taller than the slightly older ones.

Yes, vitamin D deficiency does stunt growth because it does not help calcium absorption.

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CHECK YOUR SOURCES, NOT ME.

Unfreeride 01:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't always contradict myself. You contradict yourself by stating vitamin D deficiency causes asians to be shorter and then that northern chinese are much taller than southern chinese even though if vitamin D deficiency was holding back height the opposite would likely be true.

Most Canadians are vitamin D deficient, yet their youth are a similar height to Australian youth, you would not expect this to be teh case if vitamin D was a major source of stunted growth.

As for you raising an objection about South Koreans being the taller than Japanese, if this is the case ( i know i've said it i'm just sceptical about the source, since south korea wants to be much taller htan the north and this is a point of contention), only goes to show that you aren't able to grasp real world data. Height and GDP per capita don't have a direct proportionate relationship, they correlate with each other but are not directly predictive. Netherlands has a lower income and higher height than the US, but by international standards both countries are wealthy and tall - their is still a correlation but not a direct relationship. That can also be the case with South Korea and Japan.

"Yes, vitamin D deficiency does stunt growth because it does not help calcium absorption. " really? you know what else "does not help" calcuim absorption? ... caffeine, by far the favourite drug of the west so why then are westerners taller?

I didn't provide any source about vitamin D, so you must have checked nothing.

"The Northers appear genetically superior." Does height really come down to superior and inferior? Maybe it does to you, no wonder you are so defensive about height.

User:203.33.160.124

You do not check sources but you improvise your own statistics by intuition and by contradictory inferencing.

You seem to have dementia. You forget that I said "The intensity of sunlight does not depend on the location on the earth. Some places are sunny. Some places are cloudy. For example, Europe is mostly cloudy everyday, and that is why Europeans have light skin and hair. Climates can still be cold but sunny. Look at the Alaskan Natives and Eskimos. They have dark skin but live in cold climates."

Canadians are not vitamin D deficient.

WHY DO YOU ARGUMENT THAT VITAMIN D IS NOT A INFLUENCE WHILE YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. You go off the point. You selectively compare Japanese height with others, but not other Asian height with others. The Netherlands does not have significantly lower per capita income than US.

Asians have SIGNIFICANTLY less bone density than Europeans.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CHILDREN DON'T DRINK CAFFEINE.

YOU SEEM TO LACK ANALOGICAL REASONING. "SUPERIOR" IS MEANT TALLER.

YOU ALWAYS FORGET MY COMMENTS AND MAKE CONTRADICTORY COMMENTS FROM MY PREVIOUS POSTS. WHY DON'T YOU RE-READ ALL OF MY POSTS BEFORE YOU COMMENT?

Unfreeride 23:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not check sources but you improvise your own statistics by intuition and by contradictory inferencing.

You're the contradictory one, try and answer if vitamin D (from lack of sun exposure)deficiency is depressing asian heights, why are North Chinese supposedly taller than south chinese?

As for Canadians Vitamin D deficiency "For many reasons, Canadians are among the people most at risk of not having enough vitamin D. This is due to a quirk of geography, to modern lifestyles and to the country's health authorities, who have unwittingly, if with the best of intentions, played a role in creating the vitamin deficiency." This hasn't made Canadians any shorter than Australians. Australian and Canadian heights have remained very similar. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

Don't say "Canadians are not vitamin D deficient." because YOU don't check your sources.

Here's something I can say, if Canadians are very often vitamin D deficient but not shorter than Australians (people of a similar racial make up), then vitamin D deficiency is not a major factor in depressing height.

Try another analogy, if vitamin D deficiency depresses height significanly than Africans growing up in England should be MUCH shorter than Asians. Are they? No. They still mature faster than whites and end up about the same height.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CHILDREN DON'T DRINK CAFFEINE. No, it isn't. American (and many other) children drink Coke don't they? And American kids drink the most soda. Plus many energy drinks are popular. But this doesn't make American children shorter, because affecting the aborption of calcium to the bones isn't a hugely influential factor in determining adult height.

"Meanwhile, the Chinese government is also aware of changes in the Japanese and is instituting milk drinking in China subject to budgetary constraints. For the first time in history, the average height of Japanese women is either taller or equal to that of the Koreans and Chinese. Some Chinese are even known to have broken their leg bones into two to lengthen them in a vain attempt to catch up with their height."

and about Japanese versus American diets "In some dietary studies, it is found that Japanese on the average take about three times less meat calories, but three times as much calories from milk. They also take less than half of their calories from sugary substance, and most 100 calories more from eggs than Americans. And of course, they take about six times more portions of rice than Americans. This may account for why Japanese women are growing taller and slimmer at the same time instead of fatter."

Japanese have been traditionally shorter than Mainland asians due to living conditions and diet, now that Japan is rich they have come closer to their genetic potential, one day if China keeps developing people from Beijing may grew to be this tall.

User:203.33.160.124

WP:SIG

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS WITH FOUR TILDES Unfreeride 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BEIJING IS TALLER THAN THE JAPANESE YOU IGNORANT RACIST.

The article "Authorities are implicated because the main way humans achieve healthy levels of vitamin D isn't through diet but through sun exposure." Asian try anything to avoid the sun that's why asians are vitamin D deficient.

New Englanders have the whitest skin and the nation has to best food regulations and diet, per capita income, ETC... THEY EXERCISE MORE

SO DO ASIANS DRINK SODA? SODA IS CHEAP. YES, ASIANS IN CHINA JAPAN AND KOREA ALSO DRINK SODA.

DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT 90% OF ASIANS ARE LACTOSE INTOLERANT?

THEY DRINK SOY MILK, WHICH CONTAINS ISOFLAVONES THAT STUNT GROWTH.

"six times more portions of rice" THEY EAT REFINED WHITE RICE THAT CAUSES HORMONE IMBALANCE.

Unfreeride 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Asian try anything to avoid the sun that's why asians are vitamin D deficient." and so evidently do Canadians who live a colder and cloudier environment, yet they aren't short.

"New Englanders have the whitest skin" the stereoptype of all new englanders being WASPs hasn't been remotely true for over a century.

Americans drink more soda than Asians, and take in more caffeine.

Don't call me racist, you're the Chinese supremacist - so you are racist.

{{""six times more portions of rice" THEY EAT REFINED WHITE RICE THAT CAUSES HORMONE IMBALANCE."}} Do you have any idea how many simple carbs, which I assume you are referring to, are ingested by Americans in comparison to Asians. American eat more simple carbs.

"THEY DRINK SOY MILK, WHICH CONTAINS ISOFLAVONES THAT STUNT GROWTH." That's interesting, you know some white people are also encouraged to eat alot of soy products, and don't eat much meat. Seventh Day Adventists - and they are on average taller than other westerners. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1855500&dopt=Abstract

1. If vitamin D is a factor depressing height in asians, why are northern chinese supposedly taller than southern chinese? 2. Why aren't black people growing up in cloudy cold england shorter than Asians (they have a colder climate, less sun light and much darker skin)? 3. Why are canadians as tall as Australians, who are a similar racial make up, but get much more sunlight?

You're struggling. 203.33.160.124 06:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Northern Chinese are genetically taller.

Southern Asians avoid sunlight.

See the article rickets

Those at higher risk for developing rickets include:

• Dark-skinned children
• Breast-fed infants whose mothers are not exposed to sunlight
• Breast-fed infants who are not exposed to sunlight
• Individuals not consuming fortified milk, such as those who are lactose intolerant

See melanin

In contrast, in Africa, which is near the equator, humans require intense sunlight to penetrate their dark skin to make Vitamin D. This is all well and good. However, when blacks lived in England during the Industrial Revolution, they were the first to develop symptoms of rickets, such as retarded growth, bowed legs and fractures because not enough sunlight was available.

Fortunately, in 1930, Vitamin D was discovered and dispensed as a supplement to add to the diet. Now many common foods like milk and bread are Vitamin D fortified.

Why do you think that blacks in england are NOT shorter? If they are not, then they are African immigrants. Of course the ones born there are shorter.

So why do whites do not get rickets when Africans in New England get rickets? Because of their white skin.

Canadians have white skin.

Asians don't drink soy milk fortified with vitamin D. Vitamin D is required for calcium absorption.

Asians eat unfortified bread.

You cite the wrong study. You do NOT know what a lacto-ovo vegetarian is. A lacto-ovo vegetarian is a vegetarian who is willing to consume dairy products (i.e. milk and its derivatives, like cheese, butter, or yogurt) and eggs. Lacto means "milk" and ovo means "egg".

Calcium intakes of lacto-vegetarians are comparable to or higher than those of non-vegetarians. Typically, this ratio is high in lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets and favours bone health while vegans have a calcium to protein ratio that is similar to or lower than that of non-vegetarians [14]

Chinese eat low-protein diets. [15] Factors that enhance calcium absorption include adequate vitamin D and protein. [16] Therefore, Chinese do not get adequate calcium absorption.

"Vitamin D status depends on sunlight exposure and intake of vitamin D fortified foods or supplements. Sun exposure to the face, hands, and forearms for five to 15 minutes per day during the summer at the 42nd latitude (Boston) is believed to provide sufficient amounts of vitamin D for light-skinned people (79). Those with dark skin require longer exposure (79). Sun exposure may be inadequate for those living in Canada and at northern latitudes in the United States (especially in winter months), for those in smoggy regions and for those whose sun exposure is limited. Furthermore, infants, children and older adults synthesize vitamin D less efficiently (77,79,80). Sunscreen can interfere with vitamin D synthesis, though reports are inconsistent and may depend on amount of sunscreen applied (79,81,82). Low vitamin D levels and reduced bone mass have been observed in some vegan populations at northern latitudes who did not use supplements or fortified foods, particularly children following macrobiotic diets and adult Asian vegetarians" [17]

"Foods that are fortified with vitamin D include cow's milk, some brands of soymilk and rice milk, as well as some breakfast cereals and margarines" It says that not all soymilks. Soymilks in Asia are not vitamin D fortified.

"Growth of 30 percent Chinese babies impaired by lack of breast feeding" [18]

fake and low-quality milk is common in China.

The future of the milk formula market in China lies with better product quality and greater brand loyalty following the revelation last year that much of the formula on sale there was fake. The move towards higher margin products is likely to prove lucrative for both domestic and foreign players alike, writes Chris Jones. [19]

Canadians have light skin. Only a little time spending in the sun is enough. Also, vitamin D in food there is sufficient. "Furthermore, infants, children and older adults synthesize vitamin D less efficiently" Therefore, the unfortified milk in Asia that does not contain vitamin D is bad for the bones of infants.

Milk in Asia is not usually fortified with vitamin D.

"Among these countries, young adult Caucasian American men and women have the highest average daily vitamin D intake" [20]

See http://jn.nutrition.org/content/vol135/issue2/images/large/z4w1020540480002.jpeg

Unfreeride 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For all your points about Vitamin D, they have been demonstrated to be irrelevent. Totally irrelevent. Posting them is besides the point and doesn't advance your point at all.

Japanese, Koreans, Singaporeans, Taiwanese etc drink fortified milk, in fact Japanese women take more calories from milk than American women.

"Growth of 30 percent Chinese babies impaired by lack of breast feeding" a figure that would be similar in every country in the world, many mothers use formula for various reason and it's not ideal. I have no doubt that food and drug regulation in China is sub par, but the Chinese are the SHORTEST east Asians bar only the North Koreans, even the youth of Korea and Japan are the same height as medieval Europeans who grew up with less food, more diseases and backbreaking labor. Imagine if we compared the height of modern European youth to the average of Asians in the medieval period!

"Why do you think that blacks in england are NOT shorter? If they are not, then they are African immigrants. Of course the ones born there are shorter." Find me any data at all to demonstrate that children of Carrieban parents are shorter than Asians and I would concede you have a point there. Unfortunately you will have to rely on fraud because even west african children born in England are much taller than Asians, since your vitamin D point is kaput.

I do know what a lacto-octo vegatarian is, but you don't know that Seventh Day Adventist are encouraged to eat soy products yet still end up taller than average for westerners. Soy products don't stunt growth.

"Northern Chinese are genetically taller." you can only be talking in comparison to Southern Chinese, since Northern Chinese are much genetically shorter than Europeans and Africans.

203.33.160.124 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"For all your points about Vitamin D, they have been demonstrated to be irrelevent. Totally irrelevent. Posting them is besides the point and doesn't advance your point at all."

Your censorship isn't going to work anymore. You liar.

milk Formulas there are fake.

Just give me a study that specifically measure African immigrants in a Caribbean state. Africans in the Caribbean like the sun and citizens in third-world nations exercise a lot.

"Unfortunately you will have to rely on fraud because even west african children" DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE. It is not all about vitamin D. It is about food regulations, rich, etc.

Give me a source that dictates Northern Han are genetically shorter than whites.

Unfreeride 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No censorship, you are a racist and open discussion is your enemy. Why do you have so little insight that you can't see that you're the sumpremacist! You are trying to prove a position that Asians are taller with no regard for the facts! You also think that Asians are more intelligent! On that respect you can't be satisfied with the asian advantage of one SD in spatial ability, you also lie to claim that Asians have higher verbal and analytical ability than whites even though tests don't show this.

How can I be a supremacist when I think that blacks have a similar genetic potential to whites? I've never tried to claim that whites are the tallest as a group, or the most intelligent and you have done this for Asians. All I'm claiming is that East Asians are shorter than whites and blacks even when conditions are equal.

Even if Chinese baby formula is sometimes fake, we still have Asians who didn't grow up in poverty (ie japanese, koreans, taiwanese, singaporeans, Asians growing up in the west) who had the same food and same regulations who are still shorter than Europeans on average.

In conclusion, no matter which way you spin it, not all East Asians grew up in poverty, but all East Asian groups are shorter than the European or West African average. The reason can only be genetics.

203.33.160.124 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

the SAT scores on Asians reveal that Asians score a higher percentile in the critical reading section than whites. While 99+ percentile of whites score 800 on critical reading SAT, 99 percentile of Asians score 800; even the income distribution for Asians is narrower; even when South Asians, Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders, who score much lower, are grouped together (which drags down the East Asian percentile significantly); even when Asians are stereotyped to have poor critical thinking and verbal skills (see Stereotype threat); even the majority of the families are immigrants that did not master language. [21]

YOU do not accept that whites have lower analytical ability so why I have to accept it?

"How can I be a supremacist when I think that blacks have a similar genetic potential to whites?" Did you mention blacks' IQ?

It's cultural and dietary reasons. Whites are accustomed to drink milk. It is also unlikely that lactose-persistent Asians drink milk because a majority of them don't drink it.

No matter what you say, I will NEVER believe you.

IT IS NOT GENETICS.

Unfreeride 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"No matter what you say, I will NEVER believe you." this statement proves that you are not arguing from logic or evidence, but instead from blind prejudice. You seem to have a feeling of inadequacy, that I would argue is well justified, you just conceded defeat in this argument, you cannot be dissuaded by logic from a view you did not come by from logic.

Your arguments have all been rebutted and serve only to demonstrate your prejudice. 203.33.160.124 06:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

European Union Average Height

Recently Eurostat conducted a study about general health, and the average height of EU members was revealed to be 5'7". Unfortunately I cannot find this report anywhere online. It would be nice to add the average height of EU members to the table. Marcus1234 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)Light skin doesn't seem too crucial in the NBA nor do I think height correlates with sun-cancer, but light skin might. Can you supply data to correlate sun-exposure or any vitamin D depriving factor with height within asian populations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Philippines

Does anyone know the average height? Nothing appeared in Wikipedia's table about it. If you do know please give your source. Aix Duran

4 feet 11? 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)70.18.52.179

China

There, the Chinese average height chart has finnally been corrected. 171.7cm male and 162cm female. Since Beijing is the capital and symbol of China, I added the record to compare the height differences of the capital with the rest of the country.

Northern Chinese are the tallest Chinese and Asian, while the southern Chinese are smaller according to the climate and economy in the region. I do not understand that why everytime there is someone who always change the chinese record to the old 1997 measurement of elders. Please correct it once its changed again. English is my second language, so parden me if I made grammer mistakes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidc1711 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Again, why is there always someone who has absolutely no life messing with the Chinese height table and changed it to 165cm of 2004 measure? I dare to say that no such measurement even exist in 2004. The height is already corrected to China 171.7cm and China Beijing 175.3cm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidc1711 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

So once the "idiots" Changed the record incorrect again,please help me change it back.

Here is the actual information for China.

|China (PRC)||171.7 cm||162 cm||5 ft 7.2 in||5 ft 4 in||male 20-25, female 16(measured)||http://www.xishui.net/info/2005-10/2005-10-5-2069.htm

|-

|China, Beijing||175.3 cm||162 cm||5 ft 9 in||5 ft 4 in||male 20-25, female 16(measured)||http://www.xishui.net/info/2005-10/2005-10-5-2069.htm

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.162.177 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

That information is dubious. I can't read Chinese, in fact I can't even see chinese characters in my browser but both those heights are an exaggeration. I've been to China and the people were much shorter than this. People had their picture taken with me, and kept asking me how tall I was, I'm no giant. The only explanations are 1. It's a lie, or propoganda. 2. It's the average height of military men, and chinese select taller people for their military service and bring the tallest to their capitals. (I had a teacher who was 6'6" and had a daughter even taller than himself, his daughter played basketball and went to china. He said that there were lots of girls taller than his daughter and if young people were tall they were often in the military.)

There is simply no way that chinese, northern or otherwise, are legitimately taller than the much wealthier - koreans, japanese, singaporeans, taiwanese etc. I'll believe it when it comes from an impartial source (not the peoples daily etc), and when it can be read in English. When I tried to find more information I read the average height in beijing had increased by 1.75cm .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.160.124 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

If you have been to China, it really depends on the province you are going to. AS you know, China is made up of 50+cultural groups, each group has a large height difference. The life style in China are not as poor as you westerners think it is, there are absolutely noway that the people in China could be that short. For example if you go to China Shandong山东and Beijing北京, most male teenagers 18+ are atleast 178cm and up. Ofcourse there are no actual records of 18 adults, but that was just an estimation of my personal experiance. I am not Chinese, infact I am a Germany abroad student in China, and thats how I learned the Chinese language. I am 180cm and I look just average in most north Chinese provinces. The Chinese people are increasing height at a very fast rate, most of the Chinese friends of mine are usually 3cm taller than their big brothers a few years older.

The Chinese first began as the northern Chinese, later they expanded their land to the south and west. The southern asians(now southern Chinese)at the time even dubbed them as "the huge mens from the north" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.162.177 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the Chinese are the superior race. The Chinese are the tallest and the most intelligent.

Unfreeride 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that asians(north asians) are the same average height as caucasians and negroids? 71.175.60.251 01:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the average height of Asians is taller than the average height of whites if given the same environmental conditions. #Criticisms on race and height

Unfreeride 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Southern Chinese

now, according to date, apparently shandong is the tallest, standing at 山东 175.44 cm, roughly 5 feet 9 and a half. You southern people used to laugh at us from shandong, saying we are stupid, barbaric, and misogynistic. But when white people conquered you, you crawl back to us. I don't remember how many times a chinese american told me to go back to china. Just like to say, you little southern bastards should all be screwed.

70.72.162.177

This has become the angry asian male with an inferiority complex thread. The heights are beyond dubious, especially those of Beijing, China. At 185cm I see eye to eye with about 1 in about 60-70 men in the city. I'd say more but my girlfriend is Taiwanese and watching what I type. Please stop embarrassing the chinese people with stupid statistics and ridiculous claims of chinese supremacy.

124.168.39.104

Please sign your posts 70.72.162.177 and 124.168.39.104.

"At 185cm I see eye to eye with about 1 in about 60-70 men in the city." this is tall for a white guy

The Chinese can be taller than 185cm if they are on a western diet and culture.

Unfreeride 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course some of them are taller than 185cm and I do see them. My girlfriends brother is 189cm and her youngest brother peaked out at 179cm but they are not good examples for Beijingnese because they live in Taiwan, but asian none-the-less. Their grandfatther is 183cm and so I guess they have a tall bloodline although their generations condtions of upbringing are much better. I agree with the person who said asians are about 1 standard deviation below caucasians and negroids in genetic potential for height. There are tall asian people but there is no race of Asian people in any sample population in the world you can find that come close to being tall let alone being superior to other asians. I don't know why you are blaming the lower stature of asian people on rice and soy product consumption, let alone whitening products. How can this affect men? How does destroy growth plates in the femur on a measurable scale? There is too many far-out explanantions with no reliable data and cries of racism to those who agree with reasonable data. P.S Do you live in Beijing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

"I agree with the person who said asians are about 1 standard deviation below caucasians and negroids in genetic potential for height."

That's untrue see #Criticisms on race and height —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unfreeride (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I don't care for that nonsense. I am in right now Beijing although will go to Taiwan on Thursday till 24th July but gotta go via HK first because of political reasons. People here are just plain short compared to anywhere else I've been.Your fighting an unwinable war to convince people that the stereotype of asian people being shorter is untrue. Not just that but also superior. You even bring brain size and IQ into the equation. Doesn't height also correlate positively with IQ? Answer is yes. Don't eskimoes have the largest brain of all the asians? According to wikipedia yes and there IQ are much lower than other asians. Haven't every university given a corrrelation of IQ to brain size and end up about 0.2.Answer is also yes. The best correlation for working memory was not brain volume brain but height. If you want to believe asians are a superior race go ahead. Germans did the same. Ironically the inferior askenazi jews they tried to irradicate are the most intelligent people in the world according to IQ testing from the book "The Bell Curve".An unlikely german person supported you above in the chinese super race statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Please sign your posts WP:SIG.

"I don't care for that nonsense. I am in right now Beijing although will go to Taiwan on Thursday till 24th July but gotta go via HK first because of political reasons."

Because these are older people. If you see Chinese people at the age of 18, they will be much taller.

Eskimos have higher skull capacity due to their rounder skulls. Their rounder skulls are adapted to colder conditions due to their small surface area. But eskimos do not have large brains.

Ironically the inferior askenazi jews they tried to irradicate are the most intelligent people in the world according to IQ testing from the book "The Bell Curve".

Sure, Ashkenazi Jews do have better overall IQs than whites and Asians, but Ashkenazi Jews have slightly lower spatial IQs than whites and MUCH lower spatial IQ than Asians. Asians are better than whites in verbal IQ and MUCH better than whites at spatial IQ. Ashkenazi Jews only excel at verbal IQ. It's their verbal IQ that brings up their IQ scores.

Do you believe that the height of Asians and whites are identical given the same environmental conditions?

Unfreeride 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Still shorter. I am currently at Beijing Institute of Technology where there is only young people and there is no noticable difference. There probably is one though as the latin American mentioned but it's not great. Like 1-2 inches in the past 20 years. This will probably increase but mmost of the western world is increasing too. There are racial differences and height is no doubt one of them, but to say a race of people who are obviously shortest race in the world at present is potentially the tallest is irrelevant. Maybe I would have been 10cm taller if idrank less soda? I am not taking sides of my race since no intelligent person should ever make these judgements on any given race or risk being a racist. IQ is again irrelevant since unlike height it isn't reliably measured. Asian people are possibly on average more intelligent than caucasians and blacks but this is the wrong area of wikipeida for that discussion.

P.S ashkenazi Jews are caucasian, thus smaller brain, right

I am certain that Asians are not as tall or as smart as you think. You have taken up a lot of space in this discussion and have not enlighten many people. This forum is in english so the readers and writers are predominantly causcasian and I don't think they think too much of a person trying to tell them that asian people are a super race when in there own country and people like me living abroad see them as a much shorter race of people which can be partly due to poverty, genetics and maybe other reasons. Asians aren't seen as inferior. Intelligent asians wouldn't see themselves as superior either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Ashkenazi Jews are middle eastern people. Yes, asians are currently shorter on average. But it is caused by environmental factors, not genetic. Do you think that Asians are genetically shorter than whites?'

Unfreeride 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi literally mean german. Middle eastern are caucasian aswell as Indians. Please check anthropology before dismissing. I have said that I believe asians are genetically shorter than caucasians because there is no sample of any asian people even those who have been in 1st world conditions for generations who have shown to compare. At the same time not many poorer western countries have heights as short as the tallest asian samples. Perhaps it is your wish for the asian race to be the tallest and the smartest. I hope unfreeride, you are a person of sound intelligence and some education and are here in interest of differences in height of races and not for promotion of your own agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

In the U.S., Caucasian is used interchangeably with with white American.

"I have said that I believe asians are genetically shorter than caucasians because there is no sample of any asian people even those who have been in 1st world conditions for generations who have shown to compare."

So give a recent study from a primary source that suggests the height of lactose persistent Asian people. YOU STILL CENSOR THE CULTURAL REASONS, YOU AUSTRALIAN WHITE SUPREMACIST.

Unfreeride 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In anthropology caucasian refers to the race of people based on the type of skull. There are 4 groups, mongoloids negroids, Caucasians and Australoids(australian aboriginal). Askenazi jews are caucsaian. These are facts. Asians being measured as shorter than other races is also a fact. Saying they have a tallest genetic potential is rubbish. What are the genetic potentials of other races for height? The dutch are still growing. I'm assuming your very young and have been discriminated against because you take analysing data as racism. What is wrong about believing asians are genetically shorter? It's my opinion like yours is asians are. A latin american who studies height presented data convincing me of a likely average and you called him a racist. I am not a supremacist, I am a caucasian living amongst asian people like you are probably an asian living amongst caucasians. Do all asian people feel this strongly about there shorter height? I saw a clip on youtube of a 5'9 blackman rejcting Yao Ming and someone commented :black man can jump but no brain", is this you or just another asian with a small brain. Stop calling white supremacism all the time. The majority of people who use this are white. I don't cry "asian supramists" in Beijing. I don't tell everyone here I believe white people are taller and smarter and call them a racist if they disagree. I believe in differences amongst races. I myself have it good. I am reasonably tall,intelligent(I go to one of China's best universities), good-looking and have a reaonably luxurious lifestyle. I don't care about other white people or asian people but I think you have an identity problem and won't rest until you are satisfied that you are of a genetically superior race. Then I wish you luck in your NBA career and achieving your 3rd Nobel prize to beat Linus Pauling's record of the only person who has won 2 alone(he isn't jewish or asian)guarantee an asian will never do it in your lifetime and until one does or China lands on the moon hold back your claims of asian super intelligence aswell, let alone your trust of IQ testing as a "proven" way of measuring brain capacity. Well I guess the west did a another good job of pioneering these tests. Fulfilling your grandiose prophecy of telling the western world.... 我就告訴你們了啊 !!! LOL...白癡 won't happen. Get over asians being shorter than caucasians and negroids and your inferiority complex and accept any embarrassing cry for asian supremacy won't be heard amongst the bigger people of the world who claim the same and shouldn't be listened to either.

P.S supremacist is a person who feels their race is superior to others not one who thinks other races apart from theirs are equal. Get a dictionary. Or maybe leave english behind and move to China to be with the super race. I'm sure they are all dying to take your place in the US. Like those in Hong Kong too now it isn't under the British. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Bao Xishun

Why should the article on human height not mention the tallest man. Without an upper limit we could assume humans can grow to as high as 5 or 10 meters tall. We need to mention the range of human height that is possible. He is also necessary because he demonstrates that concepts such as height are not fixed quantities about a group of people. Finally what is this eurocentrism of comparing east asians to western europeans when the earth is inhabited by several billion people who are not western European. East asians should be compared with the rest of the world not western europeans. Are they the standard human being for which everyone should be measured. In actuality it is the Dinka who have the honour of being the tallest. Muntuwandi 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This statement is unencyclopedic-

"East Asian culture values white skin. Asians try to do anything as possible to stay white. They will avoid exercising outdoors, which causes exercise deficiency and decreases growth velocity. Skin whiteners, which are unusually popular amongst Asians, contain toxic chemicals such as mercury or hydroquinone as the active ingredient, stunts growth of Asians including fetuses in pregnant women." Muntuwandi 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The upper limit mentioned in the "race and height" section does not make sense. It is obvious that it is the average height, not a fixed height.

Unfreeride 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The China problem

I agree with the person who said the chineses have a probleman with they height. In China be almost tall than the west people it is a very important thing. The Height im China increase in last years like in another developing countries, but that increase is abaut 1 or 2 inches is last 20 years. They need stop to post wrong dates, and post the dates from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS), who measured million of chineses.The mean height in China today is abaut 5 feet 5 inches in the countryside and 5 feet 7 inches in the towns. Sorry for my english,isn's my first language, I'm latin american. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.207.80.200 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

I basically agree with what you are saying, the maximum that heights would be in the cities for young wealthy chinese is an average of 5'7", and shorter in the countryside and any less affluent areas. The chinese have increased in height, but that doesn't mean the average height is extremely high it's just not as low as it previously was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.160.124 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

You racist white Australian supremacist, STOP CLAIMING THAT ASIANS ARE SHORT, IT IS PROVED TO BE NOT TRUE AND STOP MAKING UP STATISTICS.

"that increase is abaut 1 or 2 inches is last 20 years" CHINA INCREASED MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

WHY SHOULD A LATIN AMERICAN PREJUDGE CHINA'S HEIGHT

5'7"????? THAT'S THE MOST HORRIBLY RIDICULOUS STATISTIC THAT ONE HAS MADE UP.

See #Criticisms on race and height of environmental factors that make Asians short.

Unfreeride 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm latin american but I'm study abaut human height.The increase in Height is slow, and don't foget the height is a nutricional factor too. China today still in poverty. 2/3 of chinese people lives in rural area, and China's HDI is below half of Latin american countries like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguai, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela etc. This is a important study abaut height in teens of China and Netherlands:

The median adult height for Dutch and Chinese adolescents was 182 cm (Netherlands) and 167 cm (China) in boys and 168 cm (Netherlands) and 157 cm (China) in girls. The difference in height between Dutch and Chinese boys and girls was 14.5 and 11.5 cm, respectively. [[22]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.207.80.200 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Please sign your posts with fur tides. WP:SIG.

The data was from: The US NHANES III data from 1991. 1991 China was MUCH poorer. It is a 16 year old study!!!

Between 1979 and 1985 the average stature is DECREASING due to government problems. [23] Therefore, it is unreasonable to survey 1991 Chinese people.

what's going on with these outdated studies?

What's going on with the incomprehension of the white supremacists?

Just read the whole section: #Criticisms on race and height and then analyze it extensively.

Unfreeride 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't read the study,do you? Or you don't adimite this?The mean height of Chinese young boys are 1,67 m(5 feet 6 inches).Here we go again with a UN study:

"The median adult height for Dutch and Chinese adolescents was 182 cm (Netherlands) and 167 cm (China) in boys and 168 cm (Netherlands) and 157 cm (China) in girls. The difference in height between Dutch and Chinese boys and girls was 14.5 and 11.5 cm, respectively." [24]

Wikipedia is not a personal opinion, we need to acept and write the true, we need to post information based in serious studies like this.

We need too clean the mess in that page too!

Again sorry for my bad English,I'm latin american. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Again, that study is OUTDATED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unfreeride (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Dinaric Alps height

I think the data for Dinaric Alps and Montenegro is ridicilous. I'm 5'9" a Macedonian, who goes on holiday in MOntenegro every summer and I don't find any difference between montenegrins and macedonians. I would say that 5'9" is the average in Montenegro as well as Macedonia and all of ex-Yuigoslavia. except for some ethnic groups like gypsies, turks and albanians who are evidently shorter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.205.34.99 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

I hear you man, I originally added the Dinaric Alps data after people told me the balkans had a lot of tall people. I was sceptical but found a decent source so put it up, people seem to want to increase that height past what it was originally listed at without finding a new reference. As we are all aware the Balkans are a hotbed of nationalism and this statistic has since been seized upon by those with that agenda (my speculation there). The actual average height found by the study of young men in the Dinaric Alps is 185.6cm and not 186cm, and 171cm for the young women. The English blurb for the study does say the data is not complete. It says 28% of the men are over 190cm and that's tall enough to notice. Some people earlier on this page did think people in that the people really are tall in this region (even more so than the Duthch)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16168365&dopt=Abstract - here's the abstract information (in English the rest of the article is in French).

This source seems good enough for the table, so until a better source is found I think it's relevant, though one point is that this is a region and not a country. It's interesting to speculate WHY the people of this area are so tall, if this is indeed the case.

203.33.161.65 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)r0m

Czech Heights

Czech heights are consistently added onto this table at heights of over 180cm, citing Blaha as a source.

Blaha is a real researcher of auxology, however, this paper has not been actually shown to us as a source. The closest I've come to finding a source for Czech Heights is a citation in a paper about Portugese heights, listing the average height of Czechs at 178.84cm citing Blaha and Vignerova from 1998 (I've also read a source saying Czech heights haven't increased since '91 so I'm unhappy with a height of over 180cm listed without having the source shown). This paper also lists a number of other nations average heights, but doesn't tell us if they are measured or self reported, and the age group measured (the inference however was that it was youth) since the Dutch height given was 184cm etc.

Here is the pdf i read http://www.uc.pt/cia/researchers/AHB_ST_2003.pdf

It would be useful for us to track down the papers listed here and then put them on this table since a number of nations are listed who are aren't already on the table, and the sources seem scholarly. I wouldn't want them on the table straight from this list without the original papers being found and cited because we can't answer important questions such as what age group was measured, if heights were measured or self reported etc just from this list.

203.33.161.65 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)r0m

NORTHERN CHINESE ARE GENETICALLY TALLER THAN WHITES. SOUTHERN CHINESE ARE SHORTER THAN WHITES BECAUSE THEY TRAVELED ACROSS THE HIMALAYAS. SOUTHERN CHINESE ARE SHORTER THAN NORTHERN CHINESE AND SOUTHERN CHINESE HAVE LIGHTER SKIN AND FLATTER NOSES BECAUSE THEY ADAPTED TO THE COLD STARVATION, AND CLOUDY CONDITIONS OF THE HIMALAYAS. SOUTHERN CHINESE ARE NOT AS INTELLIGENT AS NORTHERN CHINESE BECAUSE THEY WERE ADAPTED TO STARVATION WHICH USES LESS CALORIES AND THEIR BRAINS ARE NOT AS POWERFUL BECAUSE THEY WERE ADAPTED TO CONSUME LESS CALORIES. NORTHERN CHINESE ARE GENETICALLY TALLER AND MORE INTELLIGENT THAN WHITES AND SOUTHERN CHINESE.

NORTHERN CHINESE DO NOT GET ENOUGH CALORIES.

YES, ASIANS ARE SHORTER, IF YOU MEANT SOUTHERN CHINESE. SOUTHER CHINESE ARE ALSO NOT AS INTELLIGENT. HOWEVER, THE GENETICALLY TALLER AND HIGHLY INTELLIGENT NORTHERN CHINESE ARE TALLER THAN WHITES.

NORTHERN CHINESE ARE GENETICALLY TALLER THAN SOUTH KOREANS, WHICH ARE TALLER THAN JAPANESE. NORTHERN CHINESE ARE THE SUPERIOR RACE SINCE THEY ARE THE SMARTEST AND THE TALLEST POTENTIAL.

WHY DO YOU CLAIM THAT ASIANS ARE *GENETICALLY* SHORTER WHEN THERE ARE NO SOURCES????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

SOUTHERN ASIANS CAN ALSO BE TALLER THAN WHITES.

Unfreeride

Why do you claim they are taller when there are no sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.4.230 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

This is posted in the wrong section Unfreeride, and while it's my opinion that East Asians are on average shorter than other groups due to genetic and environmental facts, I haven't made un-sourced statements in article like you have.

If you want to do any actual contributions here, you could track down some reliable sources. Also I don't have a sock puppet, and you have the pseudo-scientific racist POV. ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Unfreeride's contribs

I've been having some problems with a user called Unfreeride, who is making a lot of unverified posts using original research pertaining to race and height. Recently a moderator has stepped in and deleted even more of his contributions than I did but I would like some help dealing with this.

Unfreeride has contributed using original research attributing shorter stature of East Asians to, among other things, vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight and darker skin than whites, lack of exercise (saying Asian culture devalues sports), Soy products, and white rice causing hormonal imbalances. These factors haven't been verified as a reason for the the stature of East Asians, and are original research. Also, in fairness, he has mentioned famines and low HDI but these are relevant only for some East Asians. We debated this (with me believing east Asian stature was partly explained by genetics, for which he has called me racist).

However, I haven't included my theory that Asians are genetically shorter than other groups in the article, for the simple reason that I haven't seen a good source saying this.

Unfreeride seems to have a strongly biased point of view and believes that Northern Chinese are the superior race. "Yes, the Chinese are the superior race. The Chinese are the tallest and the most intelligent. Unfreeride 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)"

This user has made many other statements and if you care to read through them you'll find Unfreeride thinks Northern Chinese are the superior people, over the entire world including other Asians and other Chinese. This seems to be very strongly the POV. ie "SOUTHER CHINESE ARE ALSO NOT AS INTELLIGENT. HOWEVER, THE GENETICALLY TALLER AND HIGHLY INTELLIGENT NORTHERN CHINESE ARE TALLER THAN WHITES.

NORTHERN CHINESE ARE GENETICALLY TALLER THAN SOUTH KOREANS, WHICH ARE TALLER THAN JAPANESE. NORTHERN CHINESE ARE THE SUPERIOR RACE SINCE THEY ARE THE SMARTEST AND THE TALLEST POTENTIAL." Unfreeride - see above for expanded diatribe

Unfreeride adds a source to the table that is in simplified Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English We do have sources in English for Chinese height, and I remain skeptical about the data provided by this source. If I find a peer reviewed paper with information on how the measurements were taken and the sample of people taken I will have no objections to it being added.

Unfreeride has also attacked me saying that I'm a white supremacist and that I have a sock puppet. Neither is true, all I'm asking from other contributers on this page is that we demand to see reliable sources (in English when possible, this is the English Wiki), and don't allow original research.

Remember no original research and make sure the edits have Verifiability, I'd also like Unfreeride to show more Civility on the page and stop insulting other contributers.

Thanks ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Now you are pretending to be the nice guy.

All that I am assaulting is YOU. You have two IP addresses 203.33.160.124 and 124.168.39.104, 203.33.161.65 and an account Special:Contributions/Gooogen. You are a troll. You are pretending that you have a girlfriend, pretend that you are in China, pretend that you speak traditional Chinese and lied about their height at BIT. I only assault your only three accounts.

You are the one that's doing original research.

Unfreeride 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am gooogen or maybe rOm flew to Taiwan to fake a third IP address. I do speak chinese and write in traditional chinese characters. The contribution last night was that of my girlfriend's brother. I showed him this page and let him say whatever. He isn't my sock puppet either. Stop attacking the argumenter and back up your points rather than reffering sceptics to your previous rubbish. It is rubbish. Chinese people are not as genetically sd tall as white people nor has this been proven. C'mon give me some proof. Your a wikipedian not an intellect although some reside here. You are using wikipeidia in different areas to make chinese people as though they should cause the next holocaust. Northern chinese are shorter and poorer than the western world and I won't write off poverty to lack of superiority or intelligence but I won't give their superiority or intelligence credit for this poverty either or lack of stature. Yes, China is progressing but it ain't close to equal to western culture and to call chinese people superior genetically is an insult to chinese people and something I won't back up cause I've been there so many times and there is nothing superior about northern China. That is why I attack your claims, but mostly because of the reatarded intuition not data factor including unscholarly data. Did your parents brig you up telling you you are surrounded by stupid white people who are just smart enough to make up the majority of the worlds wealth despite being vastly outnumbered? Your making me say nasty things, but your grossly unfounded supremacy brings this out in any race of people you eho see your crazy rants(ONES IN CAPITALS). These include that asian people are shorter than white people due to skin lighteners, soy products , white rice or have small penises due to prenatal conditions( I saw that forum you wrote that in too...LOL. Asian fetish or stereotypes of SE asians, don't remember exactly). You have as much chance of proving your statements as a chinese man making the NBA because he is athletic. Lastly I don't know rOm and I ain't a sock puppet. Get some analytical skills first before making unlikely accusations like someone having two IP addresses to argue with you( does nutrition affect asian analytical potential too?) and also before you use your intuition for your next reason of why asians are shorter than caucasians(whites, middle easetrn, indian), which you might be able to deduce is irrelevant to this discussion. Just logged ot so you can check my address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooogen (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

You're wrong, I don't have a Chinese girlfriend, am not in China (though I have been there) and I don't have User:Gooogen. I have IP address address 203.33.160.124 but the other IP addresses is NOT mine. I don't need a sock puppet. I've suspected you of having a sock puppet but I have no proof.

I'm not "pretending" to be the nice guy either, what original research have I put in the article? - I have argued with you in Race and Height, but not on the main page. I've resisted insulting you like you insult me. Also I only speak English, and have never claimed otherwise. Isn't traditional chinese a writing system and not a language?

You are now calling me a troll, remember that you should assume good faith. I'm trying to do that with you.

I'm simply trying to get the community to help resolve this dispute. ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Many Beijing men do this. I am a Tawianese man and have friend who feel inadequate to the west. In parts of China which are developing and since they have little contact with westerners and are aware of their shorter stature. They know Chinese environment is improving and there are people who try to prophecise a supreme chinese future. No doubt you are dealing wih one now. Just let him be, he is mot likely short angry chinaman. Also many of these men resent western males as girls in those areas idolse them despite isolation further adding to there feelings of anger and inadequacy. I am asian myself but don't feel inadequate to westerners nor supererior, especially in height. In Beijing though do feel taller. I can probably scavenge up material to how the taiwanese are taller than Beijinegnese. Stay tuned. (Weiyuan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.13.37 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

YES, YOU DID DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. YOU MENTIONED THAT ASIANS ARE SHORTER IN THE TALK PAGE TO EVERYONE ELSE SO THEY CAN ADD IT IN THE ARTICLE.

"I am asian myself" YOU CLAIMED THAT whites are better at analytical intelligence and most other things you liar. Just because I am "asian", it does not mean that I lack "verbal" skills, so you cannot fool me.

you did original research and think that the source for chinese height is inaccurate compared to these OUTDATED sources.

YOU ARE A TROLL. YOU ARE PRETENDING TO BE THE "NICE GUY" AND WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME WITH THESE NONSENSE POSTS YOU WISE GUY.

Unfreeride 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I (r0m) the main opponent of Unfreerides original research, have not claimed to be Asian, or to live in China, or indeed to have a Chinese girlfriend. You are attributing other peoples statements to me. I have NO sock puppets.

Putting an opinion in the talk page, isn't adding original research to the article. If I have added original research to the article it should be removed.

I never said whites were better than Asians at "most other things", and don't think that! You said Northern Chinese are the superior race! In any case this isn't the place for it. Get over it, this isn't an excuse to attack me, or anyone else you might mistake for me. Discussions about race and intelligence should be in the race and intelligence page, another one of your favourite haunts.

In anycase I never said anything about whites being better at most things than Asians.

This is just a reminder of how you should and should not edit articles and contribute to discussions in wikipedia. ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

[25]

"Discussions about race and intelligence should be in the race and intelligence page, another one of your favourite haunts. " Well, you started it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unfreeride (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

No, I didn't - Unfreeride started it with opening post on the thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_height#Criticisms_on_race_and_height where Unfreeride said "East Asians, which have genetically larger and more powerful brains, needs to consume more calories for their brains. (see race and intelligence (test data))" ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Just so this page knows what is going on, admins have banned Unfreeride for 48 hours, this validates the need for this thread to discuss Unfreeride's bad faith editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Unfreeride here is the reason given (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Edit warring, POV-pushing, comments like "Northern Chinese are the superior race since they are the smartest", assumptions of bad faith, etc). I'd like some more help from people on this page to keep Unfreeride's POV pushing in line, since Unfreeride has not yet recieved a permanent ban.

Unfreeride appealed his ban, with an ad hom attack on myself and my supposed sock puppets but was declined with the following reason Decline reason: "Hmm - you removed my previous unblock - no doubt in the hope that it would be overlooked when you made the next request. This is not good faith editing and you are teetering on the edge of an indefinite block if you carry on. I'm protecting your page to prevent further abuse of the unblock — Spartaz"

Thanks, and help stop Unfreeride's bad faith editing by making sure his posts are not POV pushing, have verifiability etc. ---r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Yugoslavs are the tallest Europeans - Guinness has Rwandese as the tallest in the world

Ok, I have always been fascinated with human height, so I've done a lot of research, unlike many ignorant idiots around here. Dutch are tall, ok, that is true, but they're not taller than Yugoslavs. Depending on the area, I guess, Yugoslavs are very tall. I am glad that this article supports this, with Dinaric Alp being the tallest on this list. Dinaric Alp includes Croatia and Serbia. Yugoslavia is the greatest nation in basketball, they have some huge basketballers. The common Yugo is huge. Nikola Tesla 6'6, Novoselic 6'7, Eric Bana 6'3, Bana's brother 6'7. The list is long. Ethnic Yugos living abroad are huge too, Australian Eric Bogut, 7'0. Etc. In Tennis, the tallest player is Ivo Karlovic, 6'10. Other Croatian players, Ivanisevic, Ljubicic, Ancic, Cilic, all 6'4 and over. There are so many references. OK, people need to educate and inform themselves. 1 Croat in 40 is 6'7 or over. Guinness record has tho the tutsis or hutus, can't remember, from Rwanda, as the tallest people in the world. This could be true, I knew some Rwandese, and they were 6'3 6'3 6'1. A lot of Yugos tho that I know are well over 6'5. Yugoslavia is second, but that's only bcuz in some regions, people are shorter. Dutch are not the tallest, that is a lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cold water (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

I originally added the Dinaric Alps reference after hearing a lot of people talk about yugoslav height without references. I would like to find a good source about the average height of Croatia or any other balkan country.

If one in 40 Croatians are 6'7" plus that would be amazing. Though I would think that would mean there would be more croats in the NBA then currently are because that is the average height of the NBA (might even be taller because bball players are measured in shoes usually), have you got a source? ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Getting a list of celebrities heights isn't a reference. Anyone could find an endless list of people above 6'7 of any people in sport especially. The average height of a country is the average height of a sample population which is people from all walks of life within the nation, not a select few. For example russians aren't exactly tall but look at the height of their women in tennis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.4.230 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Overall Yugoslavs, generally speaking, are the tallest in the world, in my opinion, taller than the Tutsis. It depends on the region, tho. In the Croatian province of Dalmatia, 1 Croat in 40 is 6'7 or over. In some cities the average height is 6'2. But because of other parts of the country where people are maybe 5'11, it lowers the overall height down, but still are taller than the Dutch. Dutch being the tallest is a myth and misconception.

Kalac and Zigic, tallest soccerplayers. Karlovic, tallest tennisman ever. Slavko Vranes, tallest nba player. All coincidence? Right. All Yugos are huge, 1 in 40 is easily at least 6'6 or taller. All Yugos I know are huge. All of them. Go and search.

And of course Yugoslavia is probably the greatest sport's nation ever. Particurlay in team sports. They're the best in handball, waterpolo, volleyball and basketball. And all of their players are hugeeeeee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.181.75 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

So I guess you are proud of your heritage. Anyway do you believe that northern chinese are genetcally taller than Yugoslavs. Unfreeride makes a convincing argument above. Perhaps it goes Northern chinese people than Yugoslavians than the rest of the world. Also they are by far the most intelligent. Unfreeride has proven they are actually the super race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.161.8.130 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Kalac and Zigic, tallest soccerplayers. Karlovic, tallest tennisman ever. Slavko Vranes, tallest nba player. All coincidence? Right. All Yugos are huge, 1 in 40 is easily at least 6'6 or taller. All Yugos I know are huge. All of them. Go and search."

I know Yugos who aren't huge. I was hoping you had a little more than anecdotal evidence, but Balkan height remains something I'm interested in. ---rom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes Yugoslavs are taller than Dutch, get over it

It's funny how ignorant and stupid people are. Yugoslavs are obviously taller than Dutch. Yes Dutch are tall. Glad this article now states the truth, I like that third paragraph in the introduction. Yes Dutch are second to Yugoslavs (Dinaric Alp, Serbia, Croatia) in Europe, and yes some tribes in Africa might be as tall as Serbs. Guinness had Tutsis or Hutus from Rwanda, but this article states the Watusi tribe, fine with me. THANKS WIKIPEDIA. You other idiots can keep believing that Dutch or whoever else is taller. Too many references for Yugos being the tallest.

YUGOSLAVIA includes Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro Dinaric Alp Balkans etc.

Watusi actually includes the Tutsis, so now it all makes sense. And the article has it right. YAY. So Yugoslavs are first, Dutch second, and the Tutsis are possibly taller than Yugoslavs, and Guinness as Tutsis as the tallest. BRAVO. Let at least Encyclopedia have the facts straight, you other people feel free to delude urselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cold water (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Dutch are the tallest nation we have a good source for, the Dinaric Alps data is not for Yugoslavia itself but for people living in the Dinaric Alps. If you can get a good source for the average height of countries in the balkans that would be good.

There's only one reference that I've seen for Dinaric Alps being tallest, and I've never seen anything for Yugoslavia. So try and find something? ----r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Why do you say that it's funny how ignorant and stupid people are? A chinese man is telling me that at the moment because I don't believe him chinese people are have the tallest genetic potential in the world. Give reliable data to support your claims and I don't think people would argue with you. Remember people aren't ignorant if they ignore a person who calls them ignorant or stupid, just stupid if they accept what he says without justificaton.(gooogen) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.11.93 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

This article states in the introduction that the people from the Dinaric Alp are the tallest Europeans. And in the list Dinaric Alps is first. HAHA. Isn't that a good enough source for you. Dinaric Alps includes former Yugoslav republics. So there. Plus, like I said there are tons of evidence and reference that points to Yugos being the tallest. I think the average yugo is taller than the Tutsis or Watusi tribe, even tho Guinness and this article mentions them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.181.75 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

What do you mean "haha".My surname is Blazevic. I am not short but I am not here to declare who is the tallest. You're the first person I have heard claim that Yugoslavs are the tallest and one of many who visits this page to proclaim are race is(usually there own because of people they know and/or celebrities). How about we say black people are the tallest because of 80% of the NBA are black and they average 6'7. Understand the need for data and RELIABLE data now.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.105.120 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Like i said man, I put the dinaric alp source in and know where they are located, however, I'd like more examples about yugoslavia - where's these heaps of other example you're talking about? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just interested? Tell us whatever sources you have. ---rom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mister Blazevic, since you're so intelligent, can you please tell me what this article says? Who are the tallest people in the world according to this article? Yugoslavs? Oh ok. Right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cold water (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Dinaric Alps. Like rOm said where is the data for the heaps of examples. If the dinaric Alps means Yugoslavia then this height of 185.6cm should go under Yugoslavia, not dinaric alps. If you can get data for measured Yugos please add it hopefully it matches.I don't doubt they are taller then the dutch but "haha they are taller" just sucks. I mentioned the NBA to show that heaps of famous people who are tall are not an indication of a taller people. Dont question my intelligence or think I might be belittling your claim by asking for evidence. I did the same to a guy who claimed the chinese were the tallest "genetically" and he called me a white supremacist and was eventually blocked for his POV pushing and retarded original research. Add something reliable and add it to the article. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.13.97 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

What value is height in the modern world

Does height have any real value in the modern world apart from aesthetic value. I mean we are no longer chasing animals to eat so long strides beneficial then aren't much use now. Everyone is in cars and subways.

We no longer engage in hand to hand combat, wars are fought with guns so the extra reach is not of any use except in a boxing match. What evolutionary value has height?

Muntuwandi 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Cavelaars et al 2000

I propose that when we have better heights that we systematically begin to do away with source "a" for the height chart "Cavelaars et al 2000". It seems that these heights are outdated, and when we find better ones leaving this one just looks strange. Unless the Cavelaars et al 2000 is the only source for any particular country, I saw we begin to get rid of them. --Criticalthinker 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)