(OFFTOPIC about body size)

Templar

Templar

Regular Member
Messages
590
Reaction score
49
Points
0
Ethnic group
Paleolithic European
Y-DNA haplogroup
G-L42
mtDNA haplogroup
H2a1
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
ebAmerican said:
Sorry to disappoint you, but haplogroups have nothing to do with tallness.
Click to expand...

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.
 
An indirect correlation only due to environment, nutrition and time.
 
What's interesting most of their length came in their legs.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ebAmerican said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Templar said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
ebAmerican said:
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.
Click to expand...
How does this explain Dutch height? They eat a western diet not unlike Americans, high in sugar, dairy and meat products.
 
ebAmerican said:
Americans during the civil war were taller on average than modern Americans. .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
From reaserch of Harvard profesors Alfred Conrad and John Meyer.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/13-evolution-full-tilt#.UUph6xyG0pk
 
nordicfoyer said:
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
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
Eldritch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Templar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Finland is Uralian,
not even Sweden is Nordic.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Eldritch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Don't be fooled, Templar, he is Albanian.


Anlef said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Templar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 12627 times.

Back
Top