(OFFTOPIC about body size)

Eldritch said:
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
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
nordicwarbler said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
LeBrok said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ebAmerican said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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,
 
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!
 
the today surveys are to be taken with caution: surely they don't separate the people by ethnic or geographic origin (politically correct olbliges!)
 
LeBrok said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ebAmerican said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...)
 
MOESAN said:
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...)
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 12663 times.

Back
Top