PDA

View Full Version : (OFFTOPIC about body size)



Templar
20-03-13, 20:31
My cousin is I1a, i'm i2b1 (he is 6'5 and i'm 6'2) Is hg I correlated with tallness?
What really got me thinking was this Germanic reputation for engineering, creativity and thinking "outside the box", so to speak. Not just limited to germany, but the entire germanosphere.

I think there is a pretty clear correlation between haplogroup I frequency and tallness. The two regions of Europe most known for having a lot of tall people are both the ones with the highest rates of haplogroup I: Scandinavia and the Dinaric Alps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world

ebAmerican
20-03-13, 21:37
Sorry to disappoint you, but haplogroups have nothing to do with tallness. Americans during the civil war were taller on average than modern Americans. Modern Americans and their crappy diet are actually becoming shorter. Diet and environment has a huge impact on the height of people. The subsistence of northern climate populations are different compared to the subsistence of southern populations. Nutrition and disease control has been the influencing factor in overall size. It just so happens that those ancient societies living in the north had nutritional and environmental advantages for height. I would guess a diet consisting of mostly protein encouraged height, where a diet in starch reduced height. I read a study that showed Chinese and Japanese immigrants to America were producing offspring that were 2-3in taller than offspring in their original countries. What's interesting most of their length came in their legs.

nordicfoyer
20-03-13, 21:54
Sorry to disappoint you, but haplogroups have nothing to do with tallness.

Making such absolutist statements especially when it comes to a field like genetics is never a great idea. The new buzz word in gene study is interconnectedness-- we are only beginning to see how little we know about the inner workings of DNA.

Simply put, there is a correlation between haplogroup and height.

ebAmerican
20-03-13, 23:17
An indirect correlation only due to environment, nutrition and time.

oriental
20-03-13, 23:18
What's interesting most of their length came in their legs.

Sometimes seemingly rather insignificant things makes large changes. The lengthening of the limbs would probably be due to sitting on chairs. In Chinese and Japanese homes people used to squat thus restricting blood flow to the legs. If you look at old films of Chinese and Japanese, you notice a lot of squatting on floors. Japanese especially have shorts legs on account of this squatting. Kurosawa movies are a good start as his movies high quality.

nordicfoyer
21-03-13, 00:04
An indirect correlation only due to environment, nutrition and time.

"... and genes." You left one out.

Templar
21-03-13, 00:27
Sorry to disappoint you, but haplogroups have nothing to do with tallness. Americans during the civil war were taller on average than modern Americans. Modern Americans and their crappy diet are actually becoming shorter. Diet and environment has a huge impact on the height of people. The subsistence of northern climate populations are different compared to the subsistence of southern populations. Nutrition and disease control has been the influencing factor in overall size. It just so happens that those ancient societies living in the north had nutritional and environmental advantages for height. I would guess a diet consisting of mostly protein encouraged height, where a diet in starch reduced height. I read a study that showed Chinese and Japanese immigrants to America were producing offspring that were 2-3in taller than offspring in their original countries. What's interesting most of their length came in their legs.

I am aware of the effects of diet and environmental influences, you are just too quick to dismiss a genetic link. The Paleolithic European skeletons were huge, and since the Paleolithic Y-haplogroup is I, it makes sense that societies which have the highest frequencies of it retained their features the most. Keep in mind that people in the Balkans are relatively poor compared to Scandinavians, yet still roughly the same height (and taller in the case of Dalmatians, Herzegovians, and Montenegrins). You might argue that the autosomal genes of the two societies are really different, but there hasn't been enough autosomal testing of Western Balkan populations to truly confirm that. There is also the issue of autosomal groupings including markers which skew the data (such as including Mongoloid ancestry in the Northern Europe grouping).

Eldritch
21-03-13, 02:55
I am aware of the effects of diet and environmental influences, you are just too quick to dismiss a genetic link. The Paleolithic European skeletons were huge, and since the Paleolithic Y-haplogroup is I, it makes sense that societies which have the highest frequencies of it retained their features the most. Keep in mind that people in the Balkans are relatively poor compared to Scandinavians, yet still roughly the same height (and taller in the case of Dalmatians, Herzegovians, and Montenegrins). You might argue that the autosomal genes of the two societies are really different, but there hasn't been enough autosomal testing of Western Balkan populations to truly confirm that. There is also the issue of autosomal groupings including markers which skew the data (such as including Mongoloid ancestry in the Northern Europe grouping).
Your theory doesn't work really, Sardinians are high in I too and yet among the shortest European, and no, people from Balkans aren't as as tall as Nordic people on average, at least what i've seen here.

Barrister
21-03-13, 03:12
Sorry to disappoint you, but haplogroups have nothing to do with tallness. Americans during the civil war were taller on average than modern Americans. Modern Americans and their crappy diet are actually becoming shorter. Diet and environment has a huge impact on the height of people. The subsistence of northern climate populations are different compared to the subsistence of southern populations. Nutrition and disease control has been the influencing factor in overall size. It just so happens that those ancient societies living in the north had nutritional and environmental advantages for height. I would guess a diet consisting of mostly protein encouraged height, where a diet in starch reduced height. I read a study that showed Chinese and Japanese immigrants to America were producing offspring that were 2-3in taller than offspring in their original countries. What's interesting most of their length came in their legs.How does this explain Dutch height? They eat a western diet not unlike Americans, high in sugar, dairy and meat products.

LeBrok
21-03-13, 03:33
Americans during the civil war were taller on average than modern Americans. .
This statement is totally wrong! Please check your sources again.


In 1850, for example, the average American male stood 5 feet 7 inches and weighed 146 pounds. By 1980 those numbers had jumped to 5 feet 10 and 174 pounds. And it was not just Americans. A team of economists expanded this inquiry internationally, and discovered that the trends were global. From reaserch of Harvard profesors Alfred Conrad and John Meyer.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/13-evolution-full-tilt#.UUph6xyG0pk

LeBrok
21-03-13, 03:40
Revolutionary-- I can live with that.

I like to think back to my younger school days, when teachers taught that hundreds of years ago brave men risked travelling by wooden boats over unknown seas facing possibly hostile peoples for the supposed goal of finding spice. Spice?

Even when I was a kid I knew that explanation was bogus. Think about it... are you going to risk it all for some curry
Spices are cheap today due to technology and cheap transportation. Way back spices where as expensive as gold pound for pound, heck even salt was very pricey.
Of course there is nothing wrong with Swedish ladies either. :)

Templar
21-03-13, 03:50
Your theory doesn't work really, Sardinians are high in I too and yet among the shortest European, and no, people from Balkans aren't as as tall as Nordic people on average, at least what i've seen here.

U count Finnish people as Nordic?

And by Balkans I specifically mean Western Balkans and in particular the regions of Herzegovina, Dalmatia, and Western Montenegro.

Eldritch
21-03-13, 05:17
U count Finnish people as Nordic?

And by Balkans I specifically mean Western Balkans and in particular the regions of Herzegovina, Dalmatia, and Western Montenegro.
The tallest people in the Balkan from the studies i've read are Montenegrins with an average of 183 cm, i don't know about Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia both average around 180 cm in peer reviews. Look at Dutch distribution of Y-DNA, also Danes and Swedes are both taller or as tall at least with Montenegrins, taller for sure than Croats and Serbs, not sure for Norwegians and Finns but we're around Serb and Croat average at least.


And Finland is Nordic by every definition.

Yetos
21-03-13, 06:23
Finland is Uralian,
not even Sweden is Nordic.

james stock
21-03-13, 08:00
When Templar stated that the tallest people in Europe are found in Dalmatia, Hercegovina and Montenegro he was correct in making the claim. From the previous thread, about Croatian Y-DNA, if you read Eldrich, or more appropriately, understood, then it should be evident that there is a North South clade in Croatia, with Dalmatia showing the highest frequencies of I2a. The study did not address Hercegovina, which previous studies showed having the highest frequency of I2a, specifically in Croatians. This is undoubtedly due to the geographic barrier known as the Dinaric Alps. In evolutionary biology geographic barriers play a significant role in gene flow and speciation.

Thus to use the average height of Croatia as evidence against Templar's statement is fallacious because it does not address the populations he claimed were tallest, which would more appropriately be classified as Dinaric(solely per geography, not ethnicity), and it proves that you are either ignorant of Balkan geography or intentionally deceitful. The following study measured over 5500 people from Dalmatia and Hercegovina.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16168365/
Average height of adolescents in the Dinaric Alps

This study contributes to an update of average heights among European populations. Our investigation covering 2705 boys and 2842 girls aged 17 years, shows that, contrary to the general belief, adolescents of the Dinaric Alps are, on average, the tallest in Europe. With an average height of 185,6 cm, they are taller than Dutch adolescents(184 cm on average). Above all, the density of very tall subjects appears to be characteristic of the Dinaric Alps, since 28% measure 190 cm or more in height, as opposed to only 20% in Holland and 1.5% in France. Althoughour information is not complete, adolescent girls in the Dinaric Alps, with an average height of 171 cm come a close second to girls in Holland.

Templar
21-03-13, 13:28
The tallest people in the Balkan from the studies i've read are Montenegrins with an average of 183 cm, i don't know about Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia both average around 180 cm in peer reviews. Look at Dutch distribution of Y-DNA, also Danes and Swedes are both taller or as tall at least with Montenegrins, taller for sure than Croats and Serbs, not sure for Norwegians and Finns but we're around Serb and Croat average at least.


And Finland is Nordic by every definition.

I think your Nordic superiority complex makes you oblivious to the facts and data. Do your research brah.

And Fins aren't generally considered Scandinavian and Nordic, maybe a part of Western Finland (but that is where a lot of Swedes settled in the past), but the majority seem like a Indo-European + Uralic Mix.

Anlef
21-03-13, 13:58
Men from the Dinaric Alps may be taller than Dutchmen on average, but in the Netherlands themselves there are regional height differences, with Northerners being taller than Southerners.

So before men from the Dinaric Alps be proclaimed as tallest, they should be compared to Northern Dutchmen. If "Northern Dutchmen" would be too vague a category, you could take the men of a single province.

james stock
21-03-13, 14:13
Don't be fooled, Templar, he is Albanian.



Men from the Dinaric Alps may be taller than Dutchmen on average, but in the Netherlands themselves there are regional height differences, with Northerners being taller than Southerners.

So before men from the Dinaric Alps be proclaimed as tallest, they should be compared to Northern Dutchmen. If "Northern Dutchmen" would be too vague a category, you could take the men of a single province.

I'm sure that there are isolated populations that diverge from the mean in northern Netherlands. The study I posted is a sample of roughly 5500 people from various locations in Dalmatia and Hercegovina. The study also states that 28% of the population Dalmatia/Hercegovina measured above 190cm, as opposed to 20% in Holland. If you have evidence to support your hypothesis of taller northern Dutchmen, please post it.

Templar
21-03-13, 15:53
Don't be fooled, Templar, he is Albanian.



That explains so much...

Eldritch
21-03-13, 16:04
I think your Nordic superiority complex makes you oblivious to the facts and data. Do your research brah.

And Fins aren't generally considered Scandinavian and Nordic, maybe a part of Western Finland (but that is where a lot of Swedes settled in the past), but the majority seem like a Indo-European + Uralic Mix.

Montenegrins (183.21 Males)
http://www.drustvo-antropologov.si/AN/PDF/2012_2/Anthropological_Notebooks_XVIII_2_Bjelica.pdf

Croats (180,5 cm)
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/112310

Serbs (180,9 cm)
J. Grozdanov, personal communication, 1 December 2011


And Finns are Nordic by every definition and it's not up to you to decide.

And i know about Dinaric Alps study but can't access it, maybe if they studied Friesland in Holland the results would be that they're taller than Dinaric Alps people.
Who knows? Again we're talking of well defined countries

Malsori
21-03-13, 16:27
Montenegrins (183.21 Males)
http://www.drustvo-antropologov.si/AN/PDF/2012_2/Anthropological_Notebooks_XVIII_2_Bjelica.pdf

Croats (180,5 cm)
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/112310

Serbs (180,9 cm)
J. Grozdanov, personal communication, 1 December 2011


And Finns are Nordic by every definition and it's not up to you to decide.

And i know about Dinaric Alps study but can't access it, maybe if they studied Friesland in Holland the results would be that they're taller than Dinaric Alps people.
Who knows? Again we're talking of well defined countries

I don't know why do you argue with borderline insane yugoslav nationalists. This guys think are the tallest people in the world with an average of 190 cm for their nation, Schwarzenegger-like muscular bodies. I have read how they link Y-DNA I with their tallness, how they think Y-DNA I is Paleolithic and Venedian remains had I2a2-D and similar unproven pseudo scientific obsessions.

If you don't agree with them then you are a t r o ll, hater or have superiority complexes which ironically these attributes fits them well.

nordicwarbler
21-03-13, 16:45
There is a correlation between y-haplogroup I and height.

To deny this obvious fact takes me back to the older debate of sprinting speed and race in the United States. The politically correct crowd back in the day insisted the poor economic conditions and culture explained why African Americans dominated contests involving running (especially shorter distances).

We now know about fast twitch muscle fibers and how this impacts foot speed. The correlation between I and height is fact. The reason for it science has yet to determine.

nordicwarbler
21-03-13, 16:51
By the way, I am indeed nordicwarrior/foyer. I'm not a big fan of royalty so I reset when approaching the title of Baron. And yes I know that this sounds nuts.

nordicwarbler
21-03-13, 17:12
Also, it might make sense to delineate the terms Nordic and Scandinavian (which have slightly different associations).

Scandinavia= Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and usually Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

Nordic= Norway, Sweden, Finland, and usually Denmark.

This could probably take up it's own thread...

Jackson
21-03-13, 18:19
There is a correlation between y-haplogroup I and height.

To deny this obvious fact takes me back to the older debate of sprinting speed and race in the United States. The politically correct crowd back in the day insisted the poor economic conditions and culture explained why African Americans dominated contests involving running (especially shorter distances).

We now know about fast twitch muscle fibers and how this impacts foot speed. The correlation between I and height is fact. The reason for it science has yet to determine.

True in my family at least. My father is about 6"5', his father about 6"2', his father about 6"5', and i look like i'll end up probably 6"1' or 6"2'. Interesting how there is like a tall generation and a short generation. :P

Malsori
21-03-13, 18:49
The Bell Beakers who were Middle Eastern invaders were taller than any native European. From tested remains they were R1b carriers and possesed Dinaricized traits. Also, the Sardinians are noted for short height and they possess quite high percentages of Y-DNA I. There isn't any correlation between Y-DNA and height, it all depends on lifestyle, nutrition etc etc and can change within generations.

nordicwarbler
21-03-13, 19:08
Of course nutrition plays a role-- both nature and nurture are of import. But if you feed different groups the same diet and eliminate nutritional factors, height will vary according to DNA. Autosomal is a major factor, and y-DNA correlates as well. If it makes you feel better to have the last word... it's yours.

Anthro-inclined
21-03-13, 19:21
Also, it might make sense to delineate the terms Nordic and Scandinavian (which have slightly different associations).

Scandinavia= Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and usually Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

Nordic= Norway, Sweden, Finland, and usually Denmark.

This could probably take up it's own thread...
Im not sure, if HG I can explain taller stature, the netherlands has the highest average height next to the Dinaric Alps. The netherlands only has a frequency of 25% I, a smaller percentage than all the Scandinavian Countries.

ebAmerican
21-03-13, 20:39
"Americans were the tallest people in the world during the colonial times and the Industrial Revolution. However, over time, their physical stature has gradually diminished, and now they are one of the shortest populations among all the advanced nations."

http://research.duke.edu/blog/2010/10/getting-shorter-and-fatter

It does say that genetics does play a hug role in determining height, but don't take it out of context. It doesn't specify haplogroups. I would say that all humans from Haplogroup A and it's descendants has the genetic ability to be tall, and that it is dependent on environment, nutrition, and time to nurture for height.

I bet if you were to take males from India who are on average 5'3" and introduced them to sexual selection, improved nutrition, and time we would see an average size equivalent to modern males from the Netherlands. My point is they have the genetic ability to be tall without mixing with Nordic populations.

ebAmerican
21-03-13, 20:54
"How does this explain Dutch height? They eat a western diet not unlike Americans, high in sugar, dairy and meat products."

Their height increase is relatively recent. They have increased their height by almost 8in from the mid 19th century. Mostly because of economic and nutritional advantages. Ancient Nordic populations because of diet and disease control were favored for taller heights. Plus, lets keep things in perspective - a 6' ancient man would be looked at as a giant back then, where today a 6' man is considered a normal height.

kamani
21-03-13, 20:56
Mongoloids are on average shorter than the rest, no matter what factors considered. Some african countries are probably just as tall as the Dutch on average.

ebAmerican
21-03-13, 21:04
This statement is totally wrong! Please check your sources again.

From reaserch of Harvard profesors Alfred Conrad and John Meyer.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/13-evolution-full-tilt#.UUph6xyG0pk

True, the study I was reading compared American Revolution people to nations of the same time period (Americans were the tallest people), and modern Americans to other modern nations. We are getting taller as nutrition is more available, but compared to the rest of the world we are shorter in comparison. I was mixing up two ideas, sorry.

LeBrok
22-03-13, 02:26
True, the study I was reading compared American Revolution people to nations of the same time period (Americans were the tallest people), and modern Americans to other modern nations. We are getting taller as nutrition is more available, but compared to the rest of the world we are shorter in comparison. I was mixing up two ideas, sorry.

Keep in mind that European-Americans are even taller now, but today's everedge height is shortened by accounting Mexican-American citizens in surveys, which are usually shorter in stature.
Nutrients are very important, but they can't explain height discrepancies between Pygmies the shortest, and Sudanese the tallest in Africa. They don't even live too far away from each other. Would you say that Sudanese are always well fed and Pygmies always go hungry?

It would be great if there is Ydna project for these groups to see if there is any correlation or not between them?

MOESAN
22-03-13, 13:20
Malsori/ you forgot again to take your pills for nerves?
and being the tallest ones would mean being the best ones? I respect nationalism in its good aspects, but I hate chauvinism, from any part -let's keep on with facts:
stature evolved quickly these last years and not everyplace at the same speed, for economic and way of life reasons, I mean - today, Netherlanders (what colour?) have got higher than Scandinavians, or the same stature -
ofr Yougoslavia, the present days results show some continuity (even if they grew higher too) with ancient means surveys by regions: the higher were in S-E Hercegovina- N- Montenegro 1930/4+35: about 1m74-1m76),with still high means (more than 1m72) in Dalmatia, remnant of Montenegro) when Serbia showed 1m70-1m71, N-inland Croatia 1m70-1m69, Slovenia "only" 1m68) SO REGIONAL STUDIES ARE ALWAYS NEEDED -
at the same (old) time Norway and Sweden means was 1m72 (but according to regions 1m74 to 1m 68, without speaking of Saami)n the Netherlands were about 1m71 (but if I compare to older regional studies, the South would be about 1m68,

MOESAN
22-03-13, 13:26
I keep on: the Netherland then: 1m68 in N-Brabant (S) but surely 1m72 in Frisland - Britain at same time show stature from 1m74 (isolated corners in N England and S Scotland) to 1m69 (Wales, industrial zones of England with a lot of Welshes Scots and irishmen) - here again: regional samples AND social divided samples too: COON and others showed in Britain th esocial diferences!!!
the surveys in Sweden and in France showed too the same impact of social classes, way of life and health conditions (and conflicting effects very hard to understand!) -
I 'm 1m71 and my feet touch the ground, so I'm perfect!

MOESAN
22-03-13, 13:29
the today surveys are to be taken with caution: surely they don't separate the people by ethnic or geographic origin (politically correct olbliges!)

ebAmerican
22-03-13, 18:57
Keep in mind that European-Americans are even taller now, but today's everedge height is shortened by accounting Mexican-American citizens in surveys, which are usually shorter in stature.
Nutrients are very important, but they can't explain height discrepancies between Pygmies the shortest, and Sudanese the tallest in Africa. They don't even live too far away from each other. Would you say that Sudanese are always well fed and Pygmies always go hungry?

It would be great if there is Ydna project for these groups to see if there is any correlation or not between them?

I'm not discounting genetics. It plays an 80% role. What I want to stress is that it's not a certain haplogroup that is tall and the other short. They all have the potential to be tall or short.

"...pygmies of Western Central Africa descended from an ancestral population that survived intact until 2800 years ago when farmers invaded the pygmies' territory and split them apart.." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/02/05-03.html

We are taking about an ancient people isolated for a long time inbreeding. It does crazy things to your genetics. The tall Sudanese are migratory invaders in the area. Also, we have to look at the cultural subsistence of both populations and see what is different and what is the same.

nordicwarbler
24-03-13, 04:50
I'm not discounting genetics. It plays an 80% role. What I want to stress is that it's not a certain haplogroup that is tall and the other short. They all have the potential to be tall or short.

"...pygmies of Western Central Africa descended from an ancestral population that survived intact until 2800 years ago when farmers invaded the pygmies' territory and split them apart.." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/02/05-03.html

We are taking about an ancient people isolated for a long time inbreeding. It does crazy things to your genetics. The tall Sudanese are migratory invaders in the area. Also, we have to look at the cultural subsistence of both populations and see what is different and what is the same.

Nobody is saying that over an extended period of time genetics won't vary. If you give ANY group of humans enough time of course differences in height will occur. If you give primates enough time... they've been known to morph into humans.

We're not working with 'what ifs' here. We are talking about real height correlations that exist in the here and now. These are not hypotheticals. Actually, they've existed for some time. Ancient meta-myths (as readers of this site will note, meta-myth is one of my favorite words) talk repeatedly about size differences, giants, etc.

If you've read my words carefully, I never said y-DNA was responsibile for height differences. Only that there is a correlation. Science isn't to the point where it can explain this relationship, yet.

MOESAN
27-03-13, 15:56
I red here very naive posts, sometimes, no offense:
EVERY FACTOR has an importance in height, and GENETIC heritage is very IMPORTANT, but not the unique one -
no genetic impact: FALSE!!!
no environmental impact: FALSE!!!
very poor diet = low height: TRUE!!!
too rich diet = big height: FALSE!!!
I think the effects of diet upon height is not well known today yet and people forget very too often the weight of PHYSICAL ACTIVITY upon stature BUT ALSO upon BODY PROPORTIONS
IT IS EVEN NOT SURE SOME GENES DON'T PLAY A ROLE IN ATTENUATING THE DIET AND OTHER EFFECTS UPON BODY, genes not equally distributed among people or groups, giving way to different reactions in front of environment, diet and activity

SIMPLE GOOD SENSE: brethren grew up in the same social conditions have not the same bodies and sometimes are very different, more or less according to ethnies and history: only the different heritage of their different ancestors genes could explain that (as for brachycephally and other badly discussed physical traits...)

the high statures of Montenegrians and Bosniaks are confirmed through history, spite the diets and so... the same for Scandinavians (germanic) - in the challenge of body heights there are somme variations but in european countries where level of life differences are tiny enough compared to other lands of the world, the old results tend to take place again after some time, and never a very high statured men country become a very low statured men country - it's not to say that in archaical times when surviving was not soo easy some big changes in height had not occurred, but then not only by modificatrions during life but too by selection over generations -

we have the proofs of the two aspects: genetically herited and mesoligically herited body structures
you can throw your guns off and take a juicy taste of fermented grapes (I call that wine...)

Eldritch
27-03-13, 17:43
I red here very naive posts, sometimes, no offense:
EVERY FACTOR has an importance in height, and GENETIC heritage is very IMPORTANT, but not the unique one -
no genetic impact: FALSE!!!
no environmental impact: FALSE!!!
very poor diet = low height: TRUE!!!
too rich diet = big height: FALSE!!!
I think the effects of diet upon height is not well known today yet and people forget very too often the weight of PHYSICAL ACTIVITY upon stature BUT ALSO upon BODY PROPORTIONS
IT IS EVEN NOT SURE SOME GENES DON'T PLAY A ROLE IN ATTENUATING THE DIET AND OTHER EFFECTS UPON BODY, genes not equally distributed among people or groups, giving way to different reactions in front of environment, diet and activity

SIMPLE GOOD SENSE: brethren grew up in the same social conditions have not the same bodies and sometimes are very different, more or less according to ethnies and history: only the different heritage of their different ancestors genes could explain that (as for brachycephally and other badly discussed physical traits...)

the high statures of Montenegrians and Bosniaks are confirmed through history, spite the diets and so... the same for Scandinavians (germanic) - in the challenge of body heights there are somme variations but in european countries where level of life differences are tiny enough compared to other lands of the world, the old results tend to take place again after some time, and never a very high statured men country become a very low statured men country - it's not to say that in archaical times when surviving was not soo easy some big changes in height had not occurred, but then not only by modificatrions during life but too by selection over generations -

we have the proofs of the two aspects: genetically herited and mesoligically herited body structures
you can throw your guns off and take a juicy taste of fermented grapes (I call that wine...)
Very good post which i tend to agree.
Let's look at Dutch and UK, both have same living standards pretty much but the height disparity is huge.
Genetics play a role clearly.

MOESAN
30-03-13, 00:51
OK Eldritch
just some detail, in 1930 the 1m74 in Britain were in some restricted regions but as a whole the mean was a respectable 1m71 -not very different from the Netherland that had too some regionale differences...
there were social differences of stature (gentry about 1m72, convicts abourt 1m66 or 1m67, a lot of industrial regions: 1m69 (but more than 1m72 in N and E 'germanic' regions of England, industrial or not) -
sure a good example for sociologists putting all these differences on the count of social distinct ways of life - but segregation played a role too, because the worker classes in some regions were where we found more colonized Celts and pre-Celts, and the gentry was where we found the most of Saxons descendants mixed with a few "Normans" - always the same mixture of different categories of causes, asking for more serious and less political (sometimes pre-judged) studies

Jackson
30-03-13, 18:42
OK Eldritch
just some detail, in 1930 the 1m74 in Britain were in some restricted regions but as a whole the mean was a respectable 1m71 -not very different from the Netherland that had too some regionale differences...
there were social differences of stature (gentry about 1m72, convicts abourt 1m66 or 1m67, a lot of industrial regions: 1m69 (but more than 1m72 in N and E 'germanic' regions of England, industrial or not) -
sure a good example for sociologists putting all these differences on the count of social distinct ways of life - but segregation played a role too, because the worker classes in some regions were where we found more colonized Celts and pre-Celts, and the gentry was where we found the most of Saxons descendants mixed with a few "Normans" - always the same mixture of different categories of causes, asking for more serious and less political (sometimes pre-judged) studies

It's interesting that apparently during and after the migration era at least, the Romano Britons were on average shorter than the Saxons. I'll see if i can find more details on it too. Also the 'English feet' have much more steep toes (is in the front end of the foot is more steep along the line of the toes, while it is much more even in Welsh, Scottish, Irish people) and the smaller toes are often curled in to some degree, apparently due to the muscle attachments or something.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-03-13, 19:21
Fascinating stuff. I don't think the Romans had much genetic impact in Britain / Ire.