Are the spanish tall?

[Odelia]

malnourished individuals living off of wheat and pastry doesnt count. i was specifically referring to the younger generation because most of them actually have adequate nutrition. pretty sure almost all the older generation southern europeans are malnourished

Who said they have to be on wheat and pastry? I'm not saying African-style bony malnourished. But I mean just people who haven't been on fucking growth hormones when they were fed milk as babies. That's why this generation is so tall. And why shouldn't the older generation NOT count? Their height is still average and normal for their age or time. It's not like they're dwarfs or like Danny DeVito (<150cm). And I mean the men, since the thread was about males.

But my gripe was with these exaggerated height maps, not your post.

[Mopi Licinius Crassus]

Most of these numbers are bullshit. How the fuck is 176cm+ average in most of Southern Europe? Italy and Spain 176cm!? Greeks 178cm!? They probably just measured the younger, taller generation in nourished areas. Most older guys (50+), and especially those in regional towns, in southern Europe average just around 170cm, especially Italians. And the 160-65cm range is not that uncommon in the Med islands. Seriously, the average everyday Greek or Italian will not be fucking 178cm! Fuck, even the average Dutchman is not 180cm! Lmao! Try 175cm at best if you don't want to count every ethnic Dutchman who is below 35! I think a Hitler complexed eurocentric weirdo made these "stats".

And besides...What's with the tallness fetish? Most guys I dated were on the short side. A man that's too tall comes across as awkward to me. Also most of the strongest men barely reach 6 feet. So much for "masculinity" and "tallness".

And this bullshit is extended in this map. Yeah, yeah, Med Islanders and Southern Europeans are definitely shorter than West Asians and North Africans on average because "muh Europeans"!


Southern European women are definitely taller on average than MENA ones, but SE men and MENA men share a similar height on average. Come here to Dearborn MI and see! Not sure why SE is in a darker shade of blue than Turkey and the Levant, but simply because "muh Europeans!"

And Lol Eastern Russians are as short as East Asians!

i agree in southern europe older guys probably average around 5ft 7
my dad is 5ft 7, and for a spaniard in his 70s is certainly not short compared to his peers

younger generation spaniards <30, are virtually as tall as northern euros.

i'd say the average height for a 20-30 year old spanish man now, is probably around 5ft 11

[Odelia]

i agree in southern europe older guys probably average around 5ft 7
my dad is 5ft 7, and for a spaniard in his 70s is certainly not short compared to his peers

younger generation spaniards <30, are virtually as tall as northern euros.

i'd say the average height for a 20-30 year old spanish man now, is probably around 5ft 11

Exactly my point.

My Italian father is also around 5'6 and his French father is 5'7. My mom's Dutch grandfather (born in 1918) was also around 5'6. His middle aged grandchildren are barely over 5'8.

[Grace O'Malley]

Who said they have to be on wheat and pastry? I'm not saying African-style bony malnourished. But I mean just people who haven't been on fucking growth hormones when they were fed milk as babies. That's why this generation is so tall. And why shouldn't the older generation NOT count? Their height is still average and normal for their age or time. It's not like they're dwarfs or like Danny DeVito (<150cm). And I mean the men, since the thread was about males.

But my gripe was with these exaggerated height maps, not your post.

You can only go on what information is available. This is for 18 - 25 year olds. People are getting taller because of better nutrition. Some people will always be taller though because of genetics.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php

[Odelia]

Some maps that are posted are suspect and it is easily researched but the height maps posted above are not. They come from studies like this one below.



https://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_height_trend

I've seen those maps quite a lot on the internet. I've always found them dubious. Think about it, if 180cm is average in the Netherlands, then 185cm males will be common there walking in the streets, when they're not. And if 177cm is average in Italy then you'll surely see a helluva lot of of 180cm dudes, when I did not when I was there. And I don't see a noticeable average male height difference between Turks and Greeks.

I think they mean the upper end of average or something. Or they made it from a eurocentric perspective.

[Grace O'Malley]

This is interesting as well about how farming changed Europeans. It lead to things like lighter skin for example. There is also this.

Northern Europeans inherited a larger amount of Yamnaya DNA, making them taller, too. But in southern Europe, people grew shorter after the advent of farming.

Dr. Reich said it wasn’t clear why natural selection favored short stature in the south and not in the north. Whatever the reason, this evolutionary history still shapes differences in height across the continent today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/s...nt-europe.html

Montenegrins though are one of the tallest people in Europe.

[E1b1b]

This is interesting as well about how farming changed Europeans. It lead to things like lighter skin for example. There is also this.



https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/s...nt-europe.html

Montenegrins though are one of the tallest people in Europe.

Cuz Montenegrins are Dinarid master race. Anyone not at least 1.91 cm is not really Montenegrin

[Creoda]

The Irish used to be one of the tallest in Europe pre-famine. The Dutch used to be one of the shortest in Europe. In 100 years they have grown with an average of 20 cms. I think the famine had a big affect on Irish height. Irish now are increasing height again. The Dutch height gain is amazing though.



https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...0039/h0039.pdf

I'm not sure. Why would a famine in the 1840s still be affecting Irish height generations later? It seems that Irish, along with British height had already been declining pre-famine, due to the negative dietary effects of Industrialisation/urbanisation/overpopulation and probably a less varied diet with over-reliance on potatoes.

There doesn't seem to have been any marked decline in Irish height due to the famine, due to a corresponding selection for better nourished people.

Table 3 reports the origin and measurement of the individuals in each sample used, and separate
city-born and rural-born individuals to enable a precise analysis of the effects of famine in this
historical setting.32 Regression coefficients reported indicate the magnitude of the famine effect
according to Formulas 1 and 2, the number of observations, and the coefficient of determination.33
In addition, we report famine-related mortality in the birth counties of the individuals in each
sample, and the total estimated change in height due to exposure to the Famine. These results
are shown on the bottom line of each table.
For males born in Dublin County, our results suggest a modest height decline throughout
the 30-year period under observation. Height declined by 0.3 cm during the Famine, and by an
additional 0.4 cm after the Famine (Model 1, Table 3A). We compare this Dublin-born, Dublinimprisoned group with another sample that consists of within-Ireland migrants. We run separate
tests for Leinster-born individuals and others born in more distant locations, to differentiate
between living conditions in urban and rural locations. For these groups, we do not find any
change in height between the pre-Famine cohort and the Famine-born cohort; regression
coefficients suggest hardly any difference from zero, and standard errors suggest these coefficients
are not statistically significant (Models 3, 6 and 7, Table 3A). These findings are inconsistent
with our working hypothesis in that the observed famine effect is relatively small and that
Leinster experienced a larger height decline than more heavily-affected rural locations. Instead,
our results are consistent with our alternative hypothesis: extreme selection, particularly due to
the selective mortality of the very young.
For the period after the Famine, we find that the height of those born in locations closer to
Dublin tended to decrease, while height in areas that were most heavily affected by the Famine
stagnated or even increased. Height in Leinster tends to stagnate, judging from the small
coefficients that are not statistically significant (Model 4, Table 3A). The height of individuals
born outside Dublin County stagnated during, and gained approximately 0.7 cm after, the
Famine (Model 6, Table 3A). When we use mortality in an individual’s county of birth to proxy
for famine severity, our results are generally confirmed (Models 3, 5 and 7, Table 3A). The
coefficients of the mortality variable are marginally insignificant; mortality has a negative effect
on height in Leinster and the Greater Dublin area, but a positive effect in rural Ireland (compare
Model 5 with 3 and 7).
We use another sample, inmates of Clonmel Gaol in County Tipperary, to gain insights into
height developments in rural Ireland (Table 3B). We separately assess the heights of those hailing
from the town of Clonmel and those born in the rest of the province of Munster, and those from
Ireland in general. As for Tipperary’s urban-born individuals, we find an increase of 0.7 cm for
the Famine-born cohort, and stagnation afterwards (Model 8, Table 3B). While mortality figures
imply a significant famine effect, there was no corresponding drop in height (Model 10, 12 and
14, Table 3B); indeed, combining the mortality and height coefficient implies a stagnation or
even an increase in height for the Famine-born generation. If the Famine left its mark on the
Irish population, we expect to find signs of stunting in this rural sample of Munster-born
prisoners. But here, results suggest a small increase of 0.5 to 0.6 cm in height during the Famine
(Models 11 and 12, Table 3B). Again, this finding is consistent with selection rather than
scarring.

We find a positive correlation between famine severity and the health of the populations most
exposed to famine-induced hunger and disease during infancy; low famine-related mortality is
associated with the most severe drops in average adult height. This is a surprising result. How
could it be that an incidence of famine has no long-run health consequences for survivors? Our
research, in which we use unique and extensive hand-collected anthropometric data on
populations most exposed to famine conditions in different geographic locations across one famine
episode, is consistent with the idea that the answer lies in the severity of the famine. We suggest
that those individuals that were most affected by Ireland’s nineteenth-century famine underwent
“extreme selection”; those most exposed did not themselves survive in Ireland long enough to
have their measurements taken; those that died, or migrated, do not, by definition, enter our
samples.
The Great Irish Famine has left an indelible mark on the Irish psyche. It remains the key
watershed in Irish economic and social history. It is still today invoked in political discourse.
And it has undoubtedly had a lasting effect on the island’s culture. But what apparently is far
less obvious was its impact on the health and wellbeing of Ireland’s residual population, those
that did not themselves succumb to starvation and disease, and who stayed on the island rather
than moving abroad. Indeed, we find that only famine survivors hailing from those parts of the
28
country that were least affected by famine experienced any detectable permanent health
consequences. From this we surmise that only those individuals born in heavily-affected areas
that were most resilient survived into adulthood. And in areas that were least-affected by famine,
mortality did not select the population as everyone survived into adulthood, including society’s
least healthy, i.e., those individuals who during infancy, and relative to their peers, did not have
access to enough nutrition. In short, we attribute the mechanism underpinning the selection and
scarring outcomes to the demographic features of the Famine (see Table 1): the regions with
extreme selection had higher excess mortality, greater decreases in birth rates and higher cohort
depletion rates. Also, using insights from our quantile regressions, the Famine likely
disproportionately affected the poorer elements of society, those at the low end of the height
distribution. If, as our estimates suggest, the poorest and those located in rural locations were
most affected, this would go a long way towards explaining our extreme selection effect. And
selective mortality was likely compounded by selective migration; anthropometric evidence on
Irish-born Americans who experienced the Famine before emigrating, in addition to
archaeological evidence of Famine-born Irish buried in London, suggests that Ireland exported
its bad health.
The Famine resulted in, or at the very least accelerated the process of, economic change
across Ireland. Post-Famine Ireland was in many respects a very different place than Ireland
before the potato became blighted. The elimination through death or migration of vast swathes
of society permanently changed the structure of Irish agriculture. The collective realisation that
the reliance on a single crop can have devastating consequences also changed the nation’s eating
habits. Land reforms precipitated by, and even instigated as a direct result of, the Famine
accelerated the process of urbanisation and helped to provide industrialising cities with cheap
labour inputs. But for those that grew up in the worst-affected areas and lived long enough to
tell the tale of the Great Irish Famine to the next generation, its effect on their physical health
was apparently relatively benign.

https://eh.net/eha/wp-content/upload.../06/Colvin.pdf

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm not sure. Why would a famine in the 1840s still be affecting Irish height generatiosn later? It seems that Irish, along with British height had already been declining pre-famine, due to the negative dietary effects of Industrialisation and probably a less varied diet with over-reliance on potatoes.

There doesn't seem to have been any marked decline in Irish height due to the famine, due to a corresponding selection for better nourished people.


https://eh.net/eha/wp-content/upload.../06/Colvin.pdf

I read something about the affects of the Irish famine having an impact on the later generations. It most probably takes a while for countries to bounce back from disasters like that. Also Ireland was pretty poor and only starting improving in the late 1960s. Like most countries now the Irish are getting taller.

[Odelia]

You can only go on what information is available. This is for 18 - 25 year olds. People are getting taller because of better nutrition. Some people will always be taller though because of genetics.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php

Aha! No wonder these averages seemed exaggerated to me. But focusing on an age group is a huge misrepresentation of the population. There's more to the iceberg than just its tip, right? They pinpointed the younger folks because they'll be taller and would make the ethnic group much taller than what's typical of their population. Why not just count all the age groups to be fair?