Wacky news Why are the Dutch so tall?

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,325
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
We've discussed this before, but there doesn't seem to be a good answer. Undoubtedly, they must have some genes for height, but this distance from the rest of Europe is really recent, so it can't be attributed just to good nutrition in the Modern Era. The "growth spurt" really began in the 50's and accelerated in the 80's.

I know they consume a lot of dairy, but so do the Irish and they're not at all as tall. Was some additive put into the milk around that time, perhaps growth hormones in the feed given to the cattle? Or perhaps that's when they started adding calcium supplement to the milk. So many people believe incorrectly that milk naturally contains a lot of calcium. Or are the cattle a different breed perhaps?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall_b_5544085?guccounter=2

2014-06-30-111historicalmedianmaleheight.png


I never gave my children milk to drink. That wasn't only a cultural decision, although that was a big part of it. I also knew they put a lot of hormones in food for cows, and it was speculated that's why menarche began so early, among other reasons. They ate enough cheese that they weren't "deprived" of dairy. I didn't see any need to add to it.
 
My mother's side is Dutch and most of all my maternal relatives are tall (tallest relative is 6'8"). I'm not entirely sure what caused the increase in height, but there is likely a combination of genetic factors, environmental/epigenetic and just higher quality nutrition post-WWII.
 
Better nutrition as in more animal protein in the diet could explain the upward height growth of the Dutch. Plenty of cheese and meat in the Dutch diet.
 
- Has the Dutch diet changed so much these last years?
- The graphic shows curious changes in USA and Sweden, that cannot be due uniquely to chnages in diet or selection
- How are made these states? By medical services: they don't distinguish between "autochtones" and post-migrants, maybe?: the origin of migrants has changed in the USA since last war. Sweden has begun to knew new influx of foreigners too, rather of 'europoid' origin spite not homogenous for provenance; Dutch people show also some degree of crossings, sometimes with 'east-asian'like people but more often with SSA people (by origin at least): crossings could play some role?
All this comes to complicate things and to mask the lone effects of diet and lifestyle, without speaking of genes.
 
- Has the Dutch diet changed so much these last years?
- The graphic shows curious changes in USA and Sweden, that cannot be due uniquely to chnages in diet or selection
- How are made these states? By medical services: they don't distinguish between "autochtones" and post-migrants, maybe?: the origin of migrants has changed in the USA since last war. Sweden has begun to knew new influx of foreigners too, rather of 'europoid' origin spite not homogenous for provenance; Dutch people show also some degree of crossings, sometimes with 'east-asian'like people but more often with SSA people (by origin at least): crossings could play some role?
All this comes to complicate things and to mask the lone effects of diet and lifestyle, without speaking of genes.

The point is that it really only climbed starting around 1980, so it's not just good nutrition. I doubt it changed all that much from, say, the 50s to the 80s. That's why I asked if, around that time, hormones or other supplements were added to the cattle feed or to the dairy products themselves.

For the U.S. the influx of Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, has definitely lowered the average height. Statistics for the U.S. should always be done by ethnicity.
 
It's true I suspect heavily these new ways to produce cattle and meat as a whole (hormones and Co...).
It could be interesting knowing if physical activity has changed a lot there since the 80's too... Just a track... maybe a no-exit way here, just a try.
 
perhaps our belief that certain populations were small is just a snapshot during that period. infact i suspect the reason the dutch are so tall largely goes back to ancient clan leaders taking all the women, sort of like eugenics.

the belgae that the romans faced were a dutch like ethnic group. it was mentioned they were large by caesar.

on one of these anthroboards i did read a post by a greek woman who claimed that the reason why greeks are quite tall is because of the importation of dutch cattle because prior they were quite short.

i suspect haplogroup G and E are the reason why some ethnic groups are quite short.


Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
sardinians (G) are small and albanians who exhibit more E are also small. for example youtube "hellbanianz".

spain might paternally be R1B but maternally they are G and E hence short.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
good mix of approximations, isn't it?
Belgae were a bit higher statured than Gauls, not so much, as the whole it seems they were shorter than Germanics.
Albanians are not small at all, Ghegs evenless, these last ones rather tall!!!
In ancient times, it was clear that Southern Dutch people were smaller than Northern Dutch people.
I read so much and so often wrong statements about people aspect(s), at means or at individual levels: it become tiring.
It would be good to certain people to read more and over everything to open their own eyes. No offense to anybody.
concerning Y-haplo's, it would ne necessary to know the original pop (if any) where these haplos appeared first, before the numerous partial or complete mixings that human pops underwent. Not easy I think. As often said here by sensitive people, it's long ago that Y-haplo's are disconnected from total auDNA in the most of cases.
 
i suspect haplogroup G and E are the reason why some ethnic groups are quite short.
sardinians (G) are small and albanians who exhibit more E are also small. for example youtube "hellbanianz".
spain might paternally be R1B but maternally they are G and E hence short.
Well, apart the fact people tend to be a bit shorter in more isolated islands, G frequency in Sardinia is not that high: less than 15%. Most of Sardinians belong actually to I2a1. Ironically, I2a1 is also the most frequent haplogroup among the tallest people in the world. The same way, the women in the related places are short and tall, respectivelly, and as you know they don't have a Y chromosome.
Indeed, NE Italy has a similar G-M201 frequency according to 23andMe, possibly based on its own data: 12%. And, oppositely, NE Italians would be among the tallest in Italy, so...
Now, if you're referring to Autosomal, particularly I don't see a great correlation between EEF % and height in Europe as a whole.
 
Well, apart the fact people tend to be a bit shorter in more isolated islands, G frequency in Sardinia is not that high: less than 15%. Most of Sardinians belong actually to I2a1. Ironically, I2a1 is also the most frequent haplogroup among the tallest people in the world. The same way, the women in the related places are short and tall, respectivelly, and as you know they don't have a Y chromosome.
Indeed, NE Italy has a similar G-M201 frequency according to 23andMe, possibly based on its own data: 12%. And, oppositely, NE Italians would be among the tallest in Italy, so...
Now, if you're referring to Autosomal, particularly I don't see a great correlation between EEF % and height in Europe as a whole.

you are correct. somewhere i must of read sardinia was majority G. the L in taller regions might not be paired up with E. for example croatians are L and R1A yet is the female side all L or is it R1B, J2 and L. whats the female lineage in sardinia.

North East italians have higher frequencies of R1B and J2..the female line is J2 whereas the female line further south might have a higher frequency of E, hence shorter.






Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
Because the Netherlands is so low, there is less Earth mass underneath it, resulting in a small but measurable reduction in gravity compared to other parts of the world. Over generations, this has caused the Dutch to be taller than the average human. This is the same reason why the Himalayan Pygmies who live at the foothills of Mt Everest are so short **


** none of this is true, I just made it all up.
 
The point is that it really only climbed starting around 1980, so it's not just good nutrition. I doubt it changed all that much from, say, the 50s to the 80s. That's why I asked if, around that time, hormones or other supplements were added to the cattle feed or to the dairy products themselves.

For the U.S. the influx of Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, has definitely lowered the average height. Statistics for the U.S. should always be done by ethnicity.

It's highly unlikely that the Dutch grew in height because of hormones in milk. The Netherlands (and even Canada) do not add growth hormones to their dairy cattle. It's more likely that the Dutch increase in height is a result of wealth being evenly distributed at a period of time that allowed for better nutrition across all levels of society which resulted in taller people in general.
 
lol... The Maasai population in Africa is mostly of haplogroup E1b, and is probably the tallest on earth with an average height of 190 cm. There is also a survey on the forum regarding height/Y-DNA haplogroups, that also shows that those with the haplogroup G are very well with their height of over 183 cm, being the number 2 place after R1b, although in the general population the G is on the last places as the number of carriers with only 3-4% of the population. I am G and I am 192 cm tall, but I am only of average height on my paternal line. The well-known great basketball player Larry Bird (206 cm) is from the haplogroup G. :) So... the reality contradicts your assumptions!

Maasai are a mixture of Nilotic A1b-M13, Bantu E-M2 and Kusjite E-M35 (Levantine).
The Bantu E-M2 split from Levantine E-M35 41,5 ka.
In general the Nilotic are taller than the Bantu or the Kusjite tribes.
 
Yeah it's clearly not just nutrition. At this point the vast majority of Europeans (at least in the west) grow to be as tall as is genetically possible. This could be some crazy runaway natural selection.
 
I wonder if the Dutch famine of 1944-45 had something to do with it. Perhaps the children of the famine responded by switching to "emergency mode", using every scrap of protein as efficiently as they could. When food supplies were restored after the war, this generation was still super-efficient at converting protein into growth. By the mid-1950s they were starting to reach adult height. Between about 1955 and 1980 the Dutch overtook Denmark, Germany, Sweden and USA in height according to the graph. The gap continued to widen until about 1995, but since then the gap between the Netherlands and the others has narrowed somewhat, so perhaps the famine effect is wearing off. That's just my speculation.
 
I wonder if the Dutch famine of 1944-45 had something to do with it. Perhaps the children of the famine responded by switching to "emergency mode", using every scrap of protein as efficiently as they could. When food supplies were restored after the war, this generation was still super-efficient at converting protein into growth. By the mid-1950s they were starting to reach adult height. Between about 1955 and 1980 the Dutch overtook Denmark, Germany, Sweden and USA in height according to the graph. The gap continued to widen until about 1995, but since then the gap between the Netherlands and the others has narrowed somewhat, so perhaps the famine effect is wearing off. That's just my speculation.

Only thing, Tamakore, is that there was famine in other European countries as well, and they're not as tall as the Dutch.

Of course, height is highly heritable, but why are they taller than the Northern Germans or the Danes, for example? How much difference could there be in their genes?

It's a puzzle, isn't it?

I speculated above that perhaps it was growth hormones in cattle feed and milk, but was told it's not allowed there. Still, I'm with you, there has to be some sort of nutritional component. Maybe something in their diet in combination with dairy products?
 
Only thing, Tamakore, is that there was famine in other European countries as well, and they're not as tall as the Dutch.

Of course, height is highly heritable, but why are they taller than the Northern Germans or the Danes, for example? How much difference could there be in their genes?

It's a puzzle, isn't it?

I speculated above that perhaps it was growth hormones in cattle feed and milk, but was told it's not allowed there. Still, I'm with you, there has to be some sort of nutritional component. Maybe something in their diet in combination with dairy products?

I honestly believe that one major component is which types of men women prefer to have children with.
 
Well, I know and knew women who went by a list, i.e. Irish, Catholic, professional, athletic, reasonably good looking, is one list I remember very well bkz it was so specific. Tall was probably in there, but she had to compromise there.

It struck me then and now as so cold...

For me, it was, as we say in Italy, like "un colpo di fulmine", like getting hit by lightning. We had a tempestuous relationship, broke up, got back together, and ultimately got married. That's my only experience of "falling in love" and I never had a checklist or anything like it, so, I'm no help on this matter.

Oh, I'm 5'6 and he's 6' tall, tall enough for a perfect dance partner even if I'm wearing heels, as I always was, so that worked out, but I doubt it would have mattered if he were 5'9 or whatever. Above a certain height it always seemed to me that most men got a little uncoordinated. Not good dancers, anyway, which I was happy to find was not an issue.
 
I honestly believe that one major component is which types of men women prefer to have children with.

[FONT=&quot]So did Dutch women increase their preference for taller men after 1950 compared with Danish, Swedish, German and American women?

Gert Stulp, a scientist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, published a study in Biology Letters (2012) that suggests that the relationship between height and reproductive success is complicated.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In modern western societies, studies have found that women who are on the short side tend to have more children. In contrast, average-height men do the best, reproductively speaking, outpacing short and tall men in number of children fathered, Stulp said.

The findings support the idea that the sexes are locked in a push-and-pull battle over height. Here's how it works: Say a woman is shorter than average. This makes it more likely she'll have children and pass on her genes. If she has a daughter and a son, they're likely to be short, thanks to their mother's genes. That's good for the daughter — evolution is pushing her toward her ideal height to pass on her genes — but bad for her son, as he would be more likely to reproduce if he had a few more inches.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This pattern happens over an entire population, not just a single family. What that means is that as the population as a whole gets shorter because of short women reproducing more, everyone is moving away from the ideal height for men. That increases the evolutionary pressure for men, so that taller guys reproduce more than their shorter brethren, pushing the heights of the next generation back into the average range. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Because selection in this generation is then likely to be stronger on average-height men, the next generation will again be slightly taller," Stulp said. "This is, of course, to the detriment of women, so that the selection pressure on female height will get stronger to push it back to shorter height again."

This back-and-forth loop between slightly shorter and slightly taller generations will continue as long as evolutionary pressures for men and women remain different, Stulp said.

[/FONT]
 

This thread has been viewed 21585 times.

Back
Top