Talk:Human height/Archive 4

Height distribution
I have added a table showing distribution of adult heights in the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about 6'7"? D@rk talk 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The 99.99th percentile i.e one in one thousand for the USA is 6ft 6 inch for men - anyone taller is outside the statistical norm - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Height Distribution (USA)
The Table below was removed by avandal from an IP address rather than a registered user, I am including in talk page

Table showing percentile smaller than stated height

- Source - This data is based on a sample of 12,867 people by the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1988 and 1994. Study is based on Adults between 18 and 65 (men) and 60 (women) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Real height
Sometimes I wonder what is the real human height. I mean, at night, I'm at least one inch (3 centimetres) shorter than in the morning, out of bed. D@rk talk 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it with or without shoes on? Lionheart1979 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is normal.
 * During the day, a healthy human being will lose fluid from his/her intervertebral discs because of the increased pressure from standing upright and moving. This is why humans are shorter in the evening than in the morning. This height difference can be up to several centimetres. The pressure is highest in the lower back. During the night (while lying down) the pressure is low enough for the fluid to flow back into the intervertebral discs. (Source: Translated from Auping, a Dutch bedding manufacturer)
 * ✌ Boudewijntalk 10:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-control vandalism and corrupt data
I think something needs to be done about the table of human heights near the beginning of this article. I can find errors in almost half the entries just by doing some source-checking:


 * Argentina: stated values dont match the source.
 * Australia: stated values dont match the source, and the metric and imperial units don't agree.
 * Belgium: source given is that of Australia.
 * Brazil: "168.99"? The source simply says 169. So this, too, doesnt match the source, although the difference is quite small.
 * Denmark: data for females reported in a source that lists only males.
 * Germany: stated values dont match the source (although again the difference is trivial).
 * India: this entry was vandalized by the same person who added it. Then the vandalized value was replaced with another incorrect value.  Now, the metric and imperial units don't agree and the imperial column suggests that men and women in India are the same height.
 * Spain: metric and imperial values dont agree with each other, and one of the entries disagrees with its source.
 * USA: some values dont match their sources.

This is not the accumulation of months worth of unwatched vandalism; vandalism revertion has been going on since the article began and yet these problems still exist. So I would recommend that the table be either protected, or removed from the article in order to prevent incorrect information from creeping in. I have placed a table on my website here that contains only values that I have verified to agree with their sources, and whose sources are accessible at the URLs given or were previously accessible at those URLs and have been reported by other studies (mostly kurabe.net). I am not going to bother copying the table over to Wikipedia because I know it wouldn't last long before being vandalized, and because I imagine that people would object to perfectly legitimate data contained within it, as they have done in the past. I do not want to see the table deleted, because that would discourage editors from adding new data, so I am just going to leave things as they are now and resign from the task of reverting vandalism on this article.Haplolology Talk/Contributions 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, we need to block this page for editing by IP, but I don't know how I do this. The table os average height is always vandalize.
 * Yea, and the people from the US are seen they don't know the height in cm. Actually the cm and ft of each county doesn't match. And the title says "Average". But of When? I think we should talk a policy (what year we should take and how many are allowed to each countries, etc)for the table fisrt then add the data. --221.191.22.252 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The convert template could be used to help keep the metric and imperial values consistent; for example,

172 cm 172.6 cm
 * reliably converts cm to feet and tenths of an inch, producing:
 * 172 cm
 * 172.6 cm
 * However, convert doesn't currently support the insertion of a  after the "cm", as is done in the current table.  A new template that invokes convert could be created to do that, I suppose.
 * Wdfarmer (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose table moved to separate article and then protected
Vandalism is indeed a serious, long term, and incessant problem. The vast majority of the vandalism and interest in the article is the table of stature by nationality. That table should be cleaned up, sources confirmed as reliable, and then the data in the table crosschecked. Then, I propose that the table be moved to its own article, and protected (which requires an admin). The majority of all activity in the article is in regards to the table as well, with comparatively little activity improving the explanation of growth and height and significance thereof. This would make it easier to check vandalism on the table and hopefully lead to improvement of the "meat" of the height article. The associations between groups and similar aspects would still have to be monitored for original research and outright vandalism. Evolauxia (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that idea myself earlier, but I wonder if you mean totally protected or just semi-. Because if it is totally protected, no one can add to it, and it hardly serves its purpose.  But semi-protection might be a good idea to keep away the more frivolous vandals.  Soap Talk/Contributions 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean semi-protected. That'll cut down on the anonymous edits and also make it easier to check on new edits from registered users that may or may not be good faith.  For aesthetic reasons, for many articles, large tables are moved to their own page, anyway.  Evolauxia (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Move the average height table to a separate article and put it in a total protetion is the best way to avoid vandals. And also the article doesn't become to long.italodal (talk) 01:24, 08 June 2008 (UTC)

Unused sources
I integrated the sources into footnotes in the table, but there were some left over that weren't used anywhere. These may be good for future research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources:
 * c = 'Fitting the Task to the Man'
 * ger = Official statistics ot the Federal Statistical Office of Germany
 * d = Netherlands Central Bureau for Statistics, 2000
 * e = Eurostats Statistical Yearbook 2004
 * f = Statistics Norway 2006
 * h = Leiden University Medical Centre 1997
 * l = Statistics Sweden
 * aa² = Empas news (website in Korean)

UK Female height in Imperial figures
The conversion from Metric to Imperial is incorrect, according to the Google calculator function (Prompted by my own knowledge of the rough answer). The Metric figure of 163.7 cm should be 5 feet, four inches, and 44/100ths of an inch. 64.44 inches. 5'4.44". The URL for the google conversion is: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=1637mm+in+inches&btnG=Search&meta= So, I am changing it, on the assumption that the metric figure is correct (the figures for males do match when converted from metric to imperial). Oliver 217.171.129.71 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice source for historical heights
There's a nice source for historical heights over here. Esn (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

why was the the table on height distribution removed?
I think the table on height distribution for Americans was a good addition. The poster said he added it, but who ever must have removed it did say why(at least as far as i could see). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TizzyFoe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont remember who removed it, but I can give two good reasons for not bringing it back: 1) it contradicted the data presented above (it said the US male height average was 5'8.5", which is way too small), and 2) it took up way too much space for the very small amount of data provided (it didnt even show females) ... a graph would be better.  Soap Talk/Contributions 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think either you are looking at the wrong table or misinterpreting the information in it.

1) it does contradict the data already on the page, but not by much. It says that 50th for males percentile falls somewhere between 5'8" and 5'9" (5'8.5" would be a good guess).  The average US 20+ male height is 5'9.3".  .8" off doesn't seem that bad to me.  Females fall between 5'3" and 5'4" on the which agrees with the table on the page.

2)It does show information for females (the right most column). I agree a graph would be better, but since no one as made one, I still think the table would be a good addition.

I came the the wikipedia because i wanted to know the % of people i was taller then. I couldn't find it so i did a bunch of google searches that turned up nothing. I ended up wandering to the talk page and was shocked to find the exact info i wanted (although i guess it might be off by .8")

(sorry if i'm not replying in the correct formate, i'm new to talk and couldn't find a reply button so i used the edit) TizzyFoe (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention: original research has found interesting results
Over the past few weeks, I have spent my idol hours on the net ascertaining my own statistical details. Naturally, I cannot measure individuals and write an article on that finding, however, using the net, I recently consulted a German soccer website which contains height details of players including their country of nationality/citizenship. The site being eufo.de, selecting "clubs", and bingo, select one and measure the heights given. Now personally, I'm not the biggest of football fans, but I know that it is one of the non-discriminatory sports unlike showjumping or basketball where-by short and tall people are drawn. In soccer, a 2-meter giant in central midfield and play against a 1,60cm midget in the same position. The exception is the tall goalkeeper whose stature cannot reflect national height. The players are also reasonably young. I recorded my own statistics which I won't bother to send a link for (as they are purely my own). But here is what I found:
 * Germany: Looking at the outfield players, and trying hard to leave out non-German ethnic players with German nationality, which is clear from a player's name as sometimes it is blatantly Turkish or from an Arabian country, and seeing that sometimes there is a mixture as the player has an Italiate or Spanish name followed by a German surname; I selected photos and sometimes established them as having dark non-German features and so I left them out. Of the pure Germans, having scoured every club and looked back through the earlier seasons, making sure not to record the same person twice, I estimated that from over a thousand footballers, the German average height is 189.6. A number of clubs do not have a single ethnic German shorter than 1,83cm which means six feet. It may seem tall, but the number of players 1,90-1,95 who pop up from nowhere, seeimg so random is remarkable. Reading 1,81 on the page appears so short.
 * Netherlands: It is common for Dutch nationals to have Dutch names and be of Surinamese or Indonesian origin, in addition to the thousands of ethnic Moroccans and Turks with Dutch passports. To find a fair number to apply to the Dutch, these had to be removed from the scoring. To do this, I searched their images on Google. As such, I found that the Dutch outfield football player average, from hundreds, was 190.2 by my own estimate. Again, many players above 1,90; virtually all above 1,83 (6 ft), and very few below that landmark.
 * Montenegro: Shocking results. It proved very difficult as well with its present situation. Many players are listed as "Serbian", presumably because they chose to keep that nationality after the split-up. But their club history often revealed that they only played for Montenegrin sides, so I included all Serbs & Montenegrins in Montenegro, followed by just those makred MNE across the rest of the countries. It will surely produce an accurate number if not exact. The average I found it to be was 179.1. Naturally there are many players whose heights are not listed, and whose you simply cannot find via the search engines, but when the only five listed are all below six feet tall, particularly when the Germans and Dutch barely have five so short across four clubs on average, you cannot expect too many to be tall. No recorded players are any higher than 1,94; low for the tallest and seemingly normal for the Germans and Dutch, and if anybody thinks that this is incorrect, then as I am writing, Montenegro is currently playing against Kazakhstan in a football match. The players clearly average the same height, and Kazakhstanis are profoundly short. Such a phenomenon is never the case when Holland or Germany play an eastern country. I believe that this can surely stand as a source to give the average heights listed above unless someone can produce a different estimate. Evlekis (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Was someone just pulling my leg, or are people different heights at different times of the day? When are they taller/smaller? By how much? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.75.10 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are estimates, that is why; each verdict is based on the results of a study where-by a finite number of individuals were measured. They were indeed taken at different times, and in various quantity; the heights listed also pertain to the information given with regards to the age group of the persons measured. People aged 20-30 will certainly average higher than the over-all average including pensioners etc. Evlekis (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to this study or whatever it is. I just wondered why people are taller in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.172.173 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is why original research is not allowed in Wiki. Well, I may be one of those few Western Europeans who has visited Montenegro. My personal opinion is just that, a subjective perception, but I am myself 1,93 cm (6,4) and have the impression that people from this area of Europe are indeed the tallest in Europe. They are very tall. But this is not big news, Anthropologists Coon had already realised that many years ago, and in any case, this very new study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168365?dopt=Abstract

verifies it. It confirms that they are the tallest in Europe. And it seems quite convincing because they have measured 2705 boys aged 17 and they are 1,85.6. And they have not stop growing. When these 17 year-olds stop growing at about 25, they may well be very close to 1.90 on average. It does not matter if their trainers prefer shorter players or not. By the way, do people know that these people, including former Yugoslavia and now Serbia and Montenegro, have the most world championships gold medals in basketball in the world? In fact 5. And basketball players are really the tallest people in the world. It seems that they have a lot of tall guys to choose from. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIBA_World_Championship

Jan.

More on height-variation during life?
Current entry at end of opening para of main article: "The maximal height that an individual attains in adulthood is not maintained throughout life if that life is a very long one. Again, depending on chromosomal (male v. female), genetic, and environmental factors, there is shrinkage of stature that may begin in middle age in some individuals but is universal in the extremely aged. This decrease in height is due to such factors as decreased height of inter-vertebral discs because of dessication, atrophy of soft tissues, and postural changes secondary to degenerative disease."

Can someone please go beyond the above, by supplying some general indication of how human height tends to vary with age?

I have been tracking my (quite variable) Body Mass Index for 7 years (due mainly to weight variation (lol)), and recently realised that I don't know how to distribute the corresponding portion of height-loss (measured on rising). By lopping off the lost height (from the data, not from the corpus), I find my BMI has exceeded 30 for a couple of periods in the last 7 years (and has been as low as a height-corrected 27.0).

Having lost about 1", between the ages of 18 and 60 (without trauma or disease), I expect that the majority of this height loss has occurred in the last 10-15 years. Can anyone improve on a rather simplistic assumption of a simple linear height-loss, over the last 15 years?

Is there any time-series data on human height changes, aggregated over some suitable sample?

To a first approximation, I would assume that the general shape of a height-loss graph is similar for most human populations, even if the end-points needed to be adjusted for groups with different life expectancies. Is it sigmoid (loss of soft tissue halted by bone contact) or a falling exponential (spinal bone-loss continues after soft tissue loss?)? How far through expected life does a height reduction tend to start becoming observable?

(I'm not a medic, but a PhD chemist turned management-science teacher) 163.119.186.204 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
With good exercise and a good diet, is it possible to increase one's height after age 21? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between height and obesity
Here you have an article:

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/salud/ninos/espanoles/han/crecido/media/centimetros/anos/elpsalpor/20020618elpepisal_4/Tes

Unfortunatley it is in Spanish. If you do not know the language here is a brief summary:

Over the last 16 years height has increased in Spain a staggering 10 centimeters: 21 year old males were 1.78 cm tall on average and females 1,65 (data from 1998-2000 study).

The interesting part is that it has come together with an enormous increase in obesity as well. There seems to be a very close correlation between gains in height and gains in obesity. It may be interesting to address this issue in the article, because I guess that this is the case in other countries where gains in height are taking place. Newcomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.81.57 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Finnish average height by Cavelaars
The Cavelaars study of average height of the Finns shows the result of 176.6 cm for males. Some one allways changes it to 174.7. My source is the table on http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/22817304. The authors of the study include mr. Cavelaars (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/03014460050044883). The original Cavelaars study seems to be hard to find in the net, and on the preferences section there is no link to it. [unsigned]

I have added new data for Spain
But do not know how to format well. Please someone do it well. Newcomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.90.103 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

88.58.4.130 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit on Leonid Stadnyk
I edited his height from the false 8 feet 5.5 inches to the true 7 feet 6 inches. There are many sites on the web that debunk that guiness error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.38.244 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On reliable data
I think the Nederlands' study is NOT reliable as a national average: it is based on 150 people (20-30 y.o.)!! Are we joking or what?
 * I don't mean to sound funny but just how many do you need to count? In my personal experiences, you can tell a lot about a nation's height from the first handful of individuals you see. In your opinion, would you say that the Dutch average is higher or lower than the one listed? Evlekis (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's because there is a lot of unbelieve from the Dutch side because the numbers sound incorrect. Though i have to give it too him other studies like the one in the Dinaric Alphs had over 3000 if i remember well. And this Dutch study has unluckely been done in Amsterdam wich isn't exactly the part known for their extreme tallness Shikoku (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

frisians
frisian people are known for their height. they are known for being tall, big boned people, rarely under 180 cm in height. this probably due to the healthy enviroment they have lived and are living in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, though without any proven studies it's nothing more than a mere claim Shikoku (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Height Updates
Doesn't the Dutch statistical agency update heights every year? If that is the case, why is the most recent data here from 2004? [unsigned]
 * Simply because there haven't been more recent study's been done in the Netherlands, if you find one please don't hesitate to contribute ;) Shikoku (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly take a look SamanthaG (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Check some of these statistics
Especially the ones claiming the average American white man is 5'7". I believe the correct figure is 5'10" and folks are misreporting the study. SamanthaG (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the person that changed them need to revert them back. I can't undue all of the edits, for some reason, but it was most definitely vandalized. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot SamanthaG (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The U.K.
I'm just wondering about the use of "U.K." in the table at the end of the article in "History of human height". Since Scotland is listed separately, is it excluded from "U.K."? In which case, "U.K." need to be changed to "England, Northern Ireland and Wales". 90.211.91.119 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken SamanthaG (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

India
What's with men and women both being the exact same height in India? Doesn't make sense. I look at the reference but the link is dead. SamanthaG (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

the data on india is completely wrong. the sources used dont make any sense. one of the links is not even national data. the other one is a news article linked to flawed data and is now dead link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surag198 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also please stop changing the data. I changed it 5'6 because of rounding...its really 5'5. anyone who bothers to look at the source provided will find at the bottom a graph that denotes the average heights of men and women. here it is listed as 5'5.5 inches or about 165.5 cm. stop changing data!!! it is not 5'4!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.68.208 (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

THIS STUPID DATA KEEP BEING CHANGED FOR MALE INDIAN HEIGHTS...I checked the SAME SOURCE LISTED and it states that male heights are 5'5.5 inches. STOP CHANGING IT.

Human height measurements
A human shrinks almost an inch during the day. That means, when he's awake, he is full stretched and after a hard working day in the or in the evening he stands at his lowest height. So what's his real height? Should he take his measured full stretched height or his height several hours after being awake? Big King (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ideally, take several measurements (at least 3) throughout the day, then the height is the arithmetic mean of these. Evolauxia (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with 3 measurements throughout the day? Can it also be one or two hours after being awake? Big King (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How much do people shrink in a day? And would someone who is just starting their day shift than be taller than someone just ending the night-shift, but by the time the day-shift person gets off work and the night shift person starts, the night shift person is now taller? SamanthaG (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is very complicated to verify what a human's true height is. The full stretched height out of bed and the height during a day, both sounds logical. Big King (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

China height sources
We have a "war" of editions about the China's height. I believe that the study of Alvanon is a good source, but this study is restricted only to measurements taken at shopping centers of 4 urban centers. Probably the height of 1.72m to Chinese men is only considered for the Chinese people of upper middle class. This isn't the height of the entire population. The other source "Study on weight and height of the Chinese people and the differences between 1992 and 2002" says that they measured over 200 000 people in all Chinese provinces. In this source, in 2002 the height of 17 years old urban male is about 1,70m and 1,66 for rural males. In China young people are taller than the older, so the total height of the Chinese can not be 1.72 m. I don't know that we should remove the Alvanon source,if we don't, we must put the information that this height is only of urban upper-middle class chinese. In developing countries like China, India and Brazil, there is a big difference in height between the classes, between rural and urban etc. (The boys of upper-middle class in Brazil have a height of 1.76m against 1.69m of the general population). Sorry for my bad English, I'm latin American and English isn't my primary language. --Italodal (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Alvanon study is for Urban Adults as clearly stated in the heights table, however it is not specifically upper-middle class ("various urban retail shopping centers" is not just upper-middle class in China). There should be no question in the accuracy of the study due to its large sample size of 28,000 people and 45 measurements per person. The study also states that the children alone have increased their average height by 1.5 inches (3.81 cm) between 1992 and 2002. This means the current adult height would be much higher with the younger generation growing rapidly and the older generation dying off. The other study of 17 year olds is not supposed to reflect adult height, as 17 year olds have not reached their maximum height potential.

This Alvanon study is very accurate:
 * 1) The study is far more up-to-date than the others being conducted in 2008. The difference between a 2008 study and a 2002 study is huge considering the children alone increased their average height by 1.5 inches (3.81 cm) between 1992 and 2002, so the current adult height will be much different with the younger generation growing up and the older generation dying off.
 * 2) The sample size is 28,000 people and there were 45 measurements per person, which is much more than the majority of the other studies of any country on here. If you want to accuse this study of being inaccurate, then you might as well take most of the other studies on the wiki as well.
 * 3) The study was performed by a well known international organization (Alvanon) located in New York City and with additional headquarters in the UK, Germany, Hong Kong, and Australia.


 * I agree with Itadol, how can the average height of Chinese adults be substantially taller than their 17 year old urban cohotrts (not to mention rural 17 year olds) when all sources seem to agree that Chinese height has increased?
 * Please read my previous post. The last study was performed in 2002 compared to 2008. The study says that among children alone (includes ages as low as 2), the average height has increased 1.5 inches (3.81 cm) from 1992 to 2002. This means the adult height from 2002 should be much different in 2008 due to the taller younger generation entering into the adult cohort, while the older (shorter) adult generation is dying off.


 * Class does play a substantial factor for heights in developing countries, as we can see in the difference between chinese rural and urban heights.
 * Class does play a substantial factor, but "Urban" does not mean high or low class, as there is a good number of both living in Chinese cities today.


 * To answer the objections of the reply above mine.
 * 17 year old males are almost finished growing, and will not grow much more on average. 17 year old females are almost definately finished growing. So how could all adults be 1.5 inches taller (5'4") than 17 year old urban females in 2002 (5'2.5")?
 * It doesn't make sense.
 * People generally keep growing until their early 20's. You have to also take into considering how rapidly the children are increasing their heights. A 17 year old in 2008 is likely to be much taller than a 17 year old in 2002. This is not true in every country, but children in China have increased their average height by twice as much as the US, so they are growing much faster than the rest of the world. Every year the adult population will become taller because the taller younger generation is entering the "adult" cohort while the shorter older generation is dying off.


 * 1) It's not far more up to date, it's slightly more up to date, I doubt chinese heights will increase by 3.81cm every decade. As for your argument that older chinese died off, the death rate in china is 7/1000 people - meaning over 6 years 0.42% of Chinese died, over 11 years 0.77% of Chinese die. Hardly enough to explain why all Chinese adults (who average in height about 164.8cm for men 30 - 65 in 1997 - most of whom would be alive 11 years later) could increase their average height to 172.7cm (taller than young urban Chinese).
 * Actually, Chinese heights will increase by MORE than 3.81cm every decade. Remember, the 3.81cm increase is only among children (as young as 2 years old). The death rate does not explain anything because the age demographics of China (and majority of other developing countries) show the majority of the population is young. Even if old people are not dying off fast enough, the young population is entering the "adult" cohort in much larger numbers.


 * 2)The sample size is impressive, if accurate, and is not the nature of the objection. Instead of a random representive sample we have customers in urban shopping centers. If the sample is not representive, the sample size won't increase the accuracy. Was their height measured with shoes on or shoes off? What was the average height for different age groups? etc
 * Considering they took 45 measurements per person (weight, chest, waist, and height statistics are all reported in the summary), it would be foolish to think they didn't require people to take off their shoes. The study was intented to provide information for clothing companies on the human size of a large market group, so there is very little chance of exaggeration. The age groups are not specific other than "adult", but if you were to break the data down by age, the results would be pretty obvious with the younger generation taller than the older generation.


 * That's the difference between a peer reviewed study we can read and a commercial study that is very expensive to read.
 * 3)I don't know how well known Alvanon is, but we haven't actually seen the study, just a media release sparse on information. The measurements are inconsistent with those of peer reviewed studies.
 * The media release tells you specific enough information on "averages". They provide their sample size, locations, types of measurements, and results. Any additional specific data would not change the overall results.
 * Extraordinary claims, such as the heights for Chinese adults (at all ages) being taller than 17 year olds in 2002, and vastly taller than 30 - 65 year olds in 1997, require extraordinary evidence - a peer reviewed study with data tables, standard deviations etc. A media release won't cut it.
 * Here is what I am thinking: The younger adult generation in 2008 is going to be taller than the 17 year olds in 2002. The younger adult generation includes those 17 year olds from 2002 PLUS the rapidly growing children a few years younger. The sample size likely includes more people in their 20's/30's than 40's/50's. Given these possibilities, I do not think the "claims" are extraordinary at all. The peer-reviewed studies were accurate in 2002, not in 2008, as data suggests that China is one of the fastest growing countries in terms of human height.

Can you guys sign when you write? It is very important we know who writes in order to have a better level of discussion. I realy don't know what we have to do with the China sources. Thank's --Italodal (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The study is fine. It definitely doesn't contradict other peer-reviewed sources b/c the other sources are from different years. The height of Chinese people, especially in urban areas, is growing fastest in the world. A 6 year difference is big in China. The people against it, especially 58.6.186.53, is just racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaofan15 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Height studies do tend to become obsolete quite rapidly. SamanthaG (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The news release does contradict other studies.
 * Let's take the argument seriously that Chinese youth are getting taller rapidly(they are taller than they were, but I think the growth will level off), even if they are, the average height of all adult Chinese cannot increase by several inches in a decade because most people who were alive 10 years ago are still alive now so they will continue to drag the average down, especially in a country that now has low population growth due to 1 child policy.
 * As for an IP being racist ... that's ad hom and appeal to bias, in either way it makes no sesne.Talloma (talk)

I do not know exactly about all those sources, but the Chinese are growing taller and taller as their living standards improve That is happening in many nations. Spain is another good example, before with rather short people, now with rather tall young people. Look at this article:

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12501087

From there I cut and pasted this:

"The improvement in Spaniards’ lives is instantly visible. Many elderly people are short, stunted by the hunger they suffered as children in the hard years of fascist autarky after Franco won the civil war of 1936-39. Young Spaniards are strikingly taller than their grandparents, exemplified by Pau Gasol, who measures seven feet (2.13 metres) and was voted the most valuable player when Spain won the latest world basketball championship."

In fact the same can be said of the Chinese. As their level standards increase, so will be their height. Human height has much more to do with nutrition and health care than with anything else. Before it was believed to be related to race, but now it is clear that virtually all populations reach about the same height if under similar diets and living conditions (fro example, the introduction of dairy products in the diet increases height in populations, etc). Another clear example is the Koreans. Young South Koreans are much taller than young North Koreans. Another example the Dutch, who were very short over a century ago, among the shortest people in Europe, and now are among the tallest. The Chinese will continue to grow as long as their diet and living conditions improve. In the meantime there will be very important differences between generations and groups (rural, urban, areas, etc.)Jan.

We have a lot of heights from China and we need to refine this. What do you guys think? --Italodal (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Incase you guys are unconvinced about how fast children in China are growing, take a look at this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-08-chinese-obesity_x.htm

"New figures from the Health Ministry show that urban Chinese boys age 6 are 2.5 inches taller and 6.6 pounds heavier on average than Chinese city boys 30 years ago."

"The average 6-year-old in Beijing or Shanghai weighs nearly 47 pounds and is 3 feet, 10.5 inches tall, ministry figures show. The average American of the same age weighs just over 50 pounds and also is 3 feet 10.5 inches tall, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

An 2.5 inch (6.35 cm) increase in average height at the just the age 6. Imagine how much more they will increase their average height when they actually start growing.--Mausoleatardy (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Poland Height
I see someone added heights for Poland, but they didn't give a source. All heights posted in the chart must have a reference, period. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Average Height
I think there should be a graph showing average human height by age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.149.134 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Height by Region Changes
I thought we frowned up on adding specific regions of a country, and especially so many? If we are to allow this superfluous information, than why was my adding of South Africa's heights by ethnicity reverted? We need some kind of standard. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A country with 1.3 billion people, 56 ethnic groups, and a land mass of 9.6 million square km should be divided into regions. --Mausoleatardy (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 90% of them are Han Chinese. It's actually one of the more racially homogenous countries in the world.  All that I'm saying is that it's a bit much.  If you're going to do it by region, than someone needs to take out the urban/rural split.  It's cluttering the page.  If people want more info, they can click on the source to see other divisions.  But, it doesn't make since to have regional and urban/rural splits.  We want the list to be as consistent as possible. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Han is most definitely not homogenous. The name derives from the Han Dynasty, which composes of several ethno-linguistic entities and former states. Since that time, Chinese borders have vastly expanded, and disparate peoples who have become sinicized now identify themselves as Han. There is a genetic difference that roughly divides China into north and south. Southern groups are adapted for tropical/subtropical climates, and are in general shorter. Northern groups, especially in the Siberia/Manchuria region, are relatively taller. I think north and south heights should be sufficient. Ajiang1011 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions on the multiple American height sources
I've been doing quite a bit of research, and there are at least three different recent sources to choose from for the heights.


 * The mysterious trend in American heights in the 20th century
 * Underperformance in Affluence: The Remarkable Relative Decline in U.S. Heights in the Second Half of the 20th Century
 * Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960–2002

Most use the same set of data, but use it in different ways. I'd like everyone interested to take a look at each three, though, and decide which we want to use. For me, the first one seems to be the most impressive and detailed at least for the heights of blacks and whites, and the last one which deals with obesity adds in Mexican Americans. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The ones that are currently listed are the ones OFFICIALLY used by the government. They revise them every five to ten years. There is no need for new heights. The US government will list the updated heights next year when they do the census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssk7 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then you also have to delete the multiple heights listed for "all Americans". If you want consistency, there is no need for the 5'9.6". --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it does come from the same source, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssk7 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have some average height figures I was able to obtain that actually splits it up by race and state. It's really interesting.  I'm simply waiting to see if I can get the information released.  Just an excerpt, but it seems that the tallest among whites seem to be white Kentuckians (measured between 80 and 84) average a whopping 180.8 cm, and the tallest blacks for the same period seem to live Utah and New Hampshire averaging whopping 184.9 cm.  In fact, blacks top 180 cm in quite a number of states, while whites only top the number in Kentucky.  --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing this data too. Though this article is getting quite long, so you might want to put it as a graph which can be clicked on to expand, that way it won't bother those people who aren't interested.  Also, I have to wonder what the sample sizes were here ... when the two states with the tallest blacks are also among the states with the fewest blacks I worry that the sample size might have muddled the data.  I'm especially surprised because in my experience blacks in New Hampshire are disproportionately short people from East Africa.  Soap Talk/Contributions 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the separate graph idea. It would be nice to see data from multiple sources, but I don't think it should be included on the main chart, because we already have the official data, and any more would just make it cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssk7 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting this here as well since my post went all the way to the end of the page... Someone just vandalized a handful of the men's heights, yet it's not listed in the history. So, whoever has time to look over all of those sources, please fix it, or better yet, whoever did this needs to fix it.--Ssk7 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the user, and corrected all of the heights. Somehow, he/she snuck in before a few previou edits.--Ssk7 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note- the current average female height for all Americans 20+ is currently listed as eleven foot nine. I'm guessing this was vandalized too? 76.171.209.83 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The metric measurements don't match the imperial measurements for any of the average US male heights either. 124.187.183.192 (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Swampy

I am posting here specifically because I changed the heights of the USA heights(i am not vandalizing) 10/16/09. Specifically, the heights were listed as 5'12 5'12 and 6 feet for americans, american caucasians and blacks. first. no one should ever write 5'12...it makes no sense(and made me suspicious)and second when i did check the source(which is reputable-CDC) it stated that the average height of men regardless of age was around 5'8. how it was inflated to 5'12 or 6 feet for either blacks or whites makes no sense. again, even with a specific break down blacks and whites have similar heights. if someone wants to recheck the heights and post a more accurate(i rounded) value then go ahead. otherwise stop making stuff up!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surag198 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone just vandalized a handful of the men's heights, yet it's not listed in the history. So, whoever has time to look over all of those sources, please fix it, or better yet, whoever did this needs to fix it.--Ssk7 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the user, and corrected all of the heights. Somehow, he/she snuck in before a few previou edits.--Ssk7 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Uh oh, I hope that wasn't accidentally me? I was double checking some of the citations, and I discovered some missing info (I think it was age and date info for Ivory Coast), so I edited the table to add it; If I inadvertently messed up something, sorry! By the way, if someone knows how to properly edit the citations, I believe (?) that reference 57 refers to this: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/apl/tahb/2000/00000027/00000004/art00007 Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.181.62 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it happened again with what looks like a British, since they used meters, person added it's own knowledge of height around the world. I've nevere heard of a "4'12" height around the world which is what is on Vietnam. also he corrected other heights. Can you undo what the user corrected? I know for a fact the average for a White American girl is not 5'5. It's at least 5'4.6. Please undo.

Chinese Heights
For just about every other country, we substitute updated heights for the outdated, and keep the board relatively clean. If you think about it, there is no reason to have old heights once you get new information. But, that is not what's going on with the Chinese heights. America, a country with an extremely high degree of diversity, has managed to show substantial data in just five numbers. China on the other hand has eight listings, some outdated and contradicting the new data. Sure, there are a lot of people in that country, but it is a very homogeneous nation. A simple breakdown of region would be suffice. So, who agees that we can let some of these older listings go?--Ssk7 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should remove data from the 90' and leave only the 2008 and 2002 data. The 2008 data is good because it shows the height of urban adults. The 2002 data is also good, but in this case,because it shows the diference in height from urban and rural chinese teens. --Italodal (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Heights
These new data of mexican heights may be wrong. I can't find the original study, the newspapper says that the data is from "Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia" but I can't find anything. The male height is too short and it has almost the same value of female heighs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go read the source. As I'm not proficient in Spanish, the female heights may not be exactly correct, at least for the north and south, but the numbers for Mexico as a whole are correct. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Italodal that this is unlikely to be true. Reasons:
 * 1) Mexicans north of the US border are much taller, around 5'8" for males, despite the fact that they pretty much eat the same kind of diet; it's not like Mexico is a bottom-tier Third World country that has chronic famine problems. Plus the Mexican-American data was taken at a time when many if not most Mexicans in the US were born and raised in Mexico anyway.
 * 2) The difference between male and female heights is too small.
 * As for the source, I don't see any source provided, unless you mean the article itself. I can read Spanish and they attribute their data to the INAH as Italodal says but don't provide any sort of link to the original data.  I don't think we should take an online newspaper as a reliable source for something like this.  It's quite possible they misinterpreted the data they used to write the report or used wrong data altogether.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 03:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me, using data of elderly people to make up a national average, not only are elderly people 2 inches under their prime, but they were born in a time when people was shorter. You should find another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.92.90 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Heights
Is anyone able to access the Canadian Community Health Survey? I've done all kind of searching, but I've been unable to come up with recent average heights for the country. The current source is dubious, at best, but it stands because it's all we have. I know those numbers are wrong or include the entire population. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Father -> daughter, Mother -> Son height relationship
"Genetically speaking, the heights of mother and son and of father and daughter correlate, suggesting that a short mother will more likely bear a shorter son, and tall fathers will have tall daughters."[65]

Reference #65 links to another news article(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2667) which really only has 1 reference which is this: http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/da16pgjp1392m9mf/fulltext.pdf

Having read the whole journal, I do not believe the point still stands.

It only mentioned that a tall mother is correlated with a tall son (0.43) but did not mention the relationship between a tall father and a tall daughter. As well, throughout the article, sexual dimorphism is attributed to men's preference of below average height women and women's preference of above average men. If tall men led to tall daughter and short women led to shorter men then what you would end up with after many generation are tall women and short men meaning sexual dimorphism would not be maintained, although most scientists believe that sexual dimorphism are here to stay. Given the differing mating preferences for men and women, the only way sexual dimorphism can be maintained is if a tall father led to a tall son and a short women led to a short daughter.

So I believe the quoted part needs revising or at least another reference which supports the mentioned relationships. --Sakraycore (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard that you can determine a person's height when they're 2 years old. Apparently, a 2-year old boy is half the height he will be when he is fully grown. Same for girls, but to add an inch or two. Is this true? --21 April 2009


 * I agree with User:Sakraycore|Sakraycore. The referenced article from New Scientist in turn cites the Proceedings of the Royal Society -Biology (rcvd May 2002) (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/269/1503/1919.full.pdf+html).

It indeed mentions daughter height correlates with father height, but in no way infers that daughter height does not also correlate with mothers height. The resulting Wiki/ New Scientist quote may have resulted in at least one misleading quote in an online published article concerning height heredity here (http://www.divinecaroline.com/22362/77695-which-countries-tallest-shortest-people-) if either wiki or new scientist was used as a reference for that author. "My brothers inherited their height from my mom, who claims to be 5' 11" ... For the most part, I am on solid scientific ground when I blame my dad—daughters tend to get their height from their fathers." This is an incorrect conclusion, and I cannot find any other source from which the author would have come to such a conclusion. Neither the new scientist article nor the wiki article is wrong, but the quote from New Scientist is incomplete. Suggest Wiki paragraph should properly read 'Genetically speaking, the heights of mother and her offspring and of father and his offspring correlate, suggesting that a short parent will more likely bear a shorter son or daughter, and tall parent will have tall son or daughter.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.169.172 (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ireland
this is stupid.taken from the table

Ireland male av hg: 200.0 cm (6' 11") female av hg 100.4 cm (3' 3.5") 99+ Measured 1876 [34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.48.151 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! That would be quite the height difference in Ireland SamanthaG (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sumo, "silicon"
"Some aspiring sumo athletes have silicon implants added to the tops of their heads to reach the necessary height. " -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Links appears to no longer be working
 * (2) Should presumably be "silicone" rather than "silicon" (although I don't have a cite for either.)

Chile Heights
A IP user(190.209.44.39) always put wrong information of Chile Heights. The source doesn't have any information about average height from Chile population. I and others wikipedians always undo his vandalism, but he come back over and over again to vandalism this page. I already ask to the administration to block him from editing wikipedia. I also sugest to all the wikipedians to contact the administration for block this page from editing by IP. We should avoid many vandalism. --Italodal (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, here is the reference>> ''Actualmente los chilenos, gracias a los avances en salud y la mejor alimentación, han crecido aproximadamente 5 centímetros más en los últimos 50 años. El promedio del hombre chileno hoy es de 1 metro 73. En tanto, que el de la mujer, es de un metro 65.'' Diagnostico crecimiento de los chilenos.Which belongs to the laboratory of the University of Chile, which issues in a science program on television. Diagnostico.

It would be good to revise the reference in Argentina because nowhere says that the average height is + 1.74 + 1.61 in males and females.

It also suggests that more moderate Italodal, in charge to users of vandalism and threats like these ...Bye--190.209.44.39 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You used the talk page before change the page. That's good, but please for better discussion, create a account in wikipedia. We have a long probleman with IP number users in this page. The problem is not the value of the height.I realy belive that the height of Chile man is around 173 cm maybe highter.The problem is with your source, its lack of veracity. See the others sources, they are much more detailed, with statistics, quotes and great support in the literature. I will not undo your edits anymore, but I don't agree with this source. I will wait the opinion of others wikipedians.--Italodal (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For a Standard Height Table
I think we should standardize the table of heights. In my opinion, when we have data for the entire adult population and not to a specific age group, the whole population data should appear against the specific age group. In some cases we don't have the heights of the entire population, we have only for certain ages, in this case we can leave the table as it is. In the table there are some sources that show the height of the whole population, but only a particular age group appears, as Australia or Iran. In other hand there are some countries that are show all the population. I think the order of priority should be(if we don't have the data for the first condition, we will for the second and so on):
 * 1- Entire country (all regions) with all age groups.
 * 2- Entire country (all regions) with a specific age group.
 * 3- Some regions of the country (provincies, states, cities) with all age groups.
 * 4-Some regions of the country with no specific age group.

If you agree I will correct it to a more "standard" table.--Italodal (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph Removed
Removed the following paragraph:

There has been debate over the influence a person's height has on status and wellbeing. An examination of the heights of US Presidential Candidates over the years has found that the taller candidate will win the race about 83% of the time. However, correlation does not imply causation and there have been notable exceptions to this. In the 2004 US Presidential Election, John Kerry stood at 6 ft 4 inches, 5 inches taller than incumbent George W. Bush who stood at 5 ft 11 inches. However, George W. Bush ultimately won the race and a second term in office.

Unverified information, opinion, no examination of height and its 'wellbeing' as stated in the opening sentence. Conflicts with Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. Possible re-write and link?

--<font color="#007700">DM Bradbury  21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Many many sections without reference. Clean-up?
Many of the sections within this article have been added without reference to other sources. The introductory 6 paragraphs have no citation at all, and many of the sub-sections (sports especially) have many claims where their accuracy could be disputed (Such as taller people necessarily having taller legs, which I have recently edited). Would anybody working on this page be against this page being put up for a clean-up?

I was personally looking at Template:Original_research and/or Template:Refimprove. Other ideas or suggestions would be great!

--<font color="#007700">DM Bradbury  05:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, Would anyone be against me adding the current talk page to the archives?

--<font color="#007700">DM Bradbury  05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article does seem to need a lot more references. SamanthaG (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey – İzmir
Can someone check the "Turkey – İzmir" entry in the height table and translate it to see if the number given is correct? The whole thing looks odd, to be honest. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and more, this source doesn't see to be reliable. In my opinion if we have the data of the entire country we don't need to put all provinces. Turkey has more than 80 provinces, if we put all of them the table will be to much long. I think we shoud remove the data from Izmir and Edirne.--Italodal (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the data from Turkey, and it isn't from the entire country. The data is from only Ankara. About the Ízmir entry, I can't read Turkish so I use the google translator and the entry doesn't look like reliable. In my opinion this is the only entry we should remove from the list because we DON'T have a data from the entire country, and both Edirne and Ankara entries must stay.--Italodal (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable and up-to-date to anyone who understands Turkish. Izmir is relevant because it's the city where the men are the tallest in Turkey. -- Mttll (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point. These are 44 year old men. Can you imagine anywhere in Turkey where 40+ men are taller on average than Danes? And just how tall might the 20-30yr olds be? 1.84cm on average? I have actually been to Izmir and there was nothing strikingly tall about the population. It seemed like the rest of Western Turkey. Evlekis (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Measured versus self reported heights.
Self reported heights have a lot of problems and are not very reliable. This article here, interesting as it is, is based on self reported heights:

http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1002.pdf

It itself concedes in page 4 that self reported height has many caveats and should be used only if measured data are not available. I have cut and pasted this:

It is a well known fact that self-reported height is subject not only to random error, but more importantly, systematic reporting bias (Boström and Diderichsen, 1997). The bias depends on several factors: age, sex, education, and mode of interview. Without having another source on measured height, it is not obvious how we should proceed to deal with such an issue. Empirical evidence in Thomas and Frankenberg (2002) and in Ezzati et al. (2006) shows that for the US, men over-report their height more than women of the same age and the bias tends to increase with age for older people (above 60 years old), although the bias for both men and women is more or less constant for the age group between 20 and 50.

In other words, self reported height should only be used in this article if measured data are not available. If measured data are indeed available for any specific country then these data should the ones to be used here exclusively. Bambo.


 * When we put references, it's preferred those references with a large scientific base, in contrast of newspapers reports, so I preferred the other source. But the measured heights are more reliable than self reported heighs. So in this point I agree with you, because your argument about the other source is valid. I will put both sources. I already said in another topic above that is better to choose measured height to self reported height. I also said that we should prefer heights from all regions and from all age groups of a country, and not from an especific region or age group. Best Regards.--Italodal (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my article carefully, it was done taking thousands of samples, and it is considered the best study carried out in Spain to the degree that it has been taken by the Spanish pediatricians as a new reference in their medical practice. Anyway, the study that you present is also of interest, the only caveat, as said, is that it is based only on a few hundred samples per country and it is self reported. In any case I agree that leaving the two of them is OK. As said, there are also other countries with two or even more references. Best regards.Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.193 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Time for height measurements
There is a little problem. In the main article it is not mentioned on what time the humans should get measured. Big Kingy (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Standard Deviation Request
I would really like it if someone included a chart or section for standard deviations of height. The article says what the average height is, but not what the average standard dev is. I have been looking all over the internet and found very little info on this subject. Perhaps I am bad at the google. Like it would say what percent of the population is taller than 6'5, what percent is taller than 6'6, ect. It should look like a bell curve, but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.84.200 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)