Why Dutchs are taller (theory)

[maxr]

we are masterrace

 

[Deleted member 26642]

im part dutch

 

[orangomango2003]

Ok, it's been some time but I've read into the literature a bit in the past. I generally trust scientists more than anyone here because their whole life revolves around their field of expertise.

But your argumentation is solid and I don't have the knowledge to disprove it, so my respect for that (and also for not immediately insulting like many other users here.)

If you could provide a source for the claim that average man in Netherlands indeed was wealthy from 15th or 16th century onwards to today I would be happy. I remember that the Dutch were the shortest country on average in Europe at some point in the last 100 years, read up on that because it could disprove what you say.

I would also love some proof that sexual selection is the reason for increase in height causality-wise.

Scientists try to answer why Dutch people are so tall

Average height of a male in the Netherlands has gained 20 cm (eight inches) in the last 150 years, according to military records

www.theguardian.com

there is no clear evidence as to why some countries have taller averages and it's hard to estimate wealth historically so all we have is theories and half-truths. it's up to yourself to conclude based on the available data. I think it's a combination of factors but in the end what really matters is what women choose, and right now women choose tall men.

It's true that the Dutch were one of the shortest during 1800-1900~ and this is also the time at which the VOC went bankrupt and the industrial revolution started (bad economic situation for the average person) my point about the Dutch being wealthy after the 15th and 16th century wasn't about the average today but about how the wealth a person has influences their choices. in that time the dutch were tall and had big dicks but this decreased when less men were wealthy. the US men were the tallest in the 1800s because of their economic success.

in this image you can see the decline in the average height of the US which can be correlated with the wealth of an average American. "Income inequality has increased in the U.S. since the 1970s, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported."

In this image you can that the Netherlands had the most GDP per capita of Europe for a long time. I don't think they grew so much because of their diet because it was the same as the english but the difference was their economic prosperity and wealth distribution.

 

[Deleted member 15468]

Scientists try to answer why Dutch people are so tall

Average height of a male in the Netherlands has gained 20 cm (eight inches) in the last 150 years, according to military records

www.theguardian.com

there is no clear evidence as to why some countries have taller averages and it's hard to estimate wealth historically so all we have is theories and half-truths. it's up to yourself to conclude based on the available data. I think it's a combination of factors but in the end what really matters is what women choose, and right now women choose tall men.

It's true that the Dutch were one of the shortest during 1800-1900~ and this is also the time at which the VOC went bankrupt and the industrial revolution started (bad economic situation for the average person) my point about the Dutch being wealthy after the 15th and 16th century wasn't about the average today but about how the wealth a person has influences their choices. in that time the dutch were tall and had big dicks but this decreased when less men were wealthy. the US men were the tallest in the 1800s because of their economic success.

View attachment 2190882
in this image you can see the decline in the average height of the US which can be correlated with the wealth of an average American. "Income inequality has increased in the U.S. since the 1970s, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported."


View attachment 2190903

In this image you can that the Netherlands had the most GDP per capita of Europe for a long time. I don't think they grew so much because of their diet because it was the same as the germans but the difference was their economic prosperity and wealth distribution.

Very interesting. Thanks for looking it up.

 

[Deleted member 23558]

I sabotaged my growth with accutane and a diet of sugary candies. I was 5'10 at 15/16 and I'm 5'11 at 22.

sugar increases height accutane fudcked you way more

 

[risque_dew]

The problem with the sexual selection theory is that it doesn't explain why the kids usually end up taller than the dad by some inches.

 

[dimorphism]

So we all know for the fact that Dutch people are the tallest people in the world. But why ? I mean every European country have good food and resources to grow their children to their max but why it's only Dutch.
Then I looked for a study fon on a kind of fish , I know you would say it's silly but it's not.
The fish that was chosen had sexual maturity in few months after they were born, so it was easy to observe changes throughout time.
1 First they took a sample of that fish ( I can't remember the name now but believe me it's truth ) and droped in its natural habitat of Trinidad which is in the fast currents of river just before a fall. Because there is lot of turbulence or disturbence in the water, the predatory fish that hunts these fishes stay away. That provides them hunter free zone and abundance of resources to thrive.
2. Now they placed a group of these fishes in environment filled with predatory fishes that hunt them.
Result - They found out that those fishes that were in free predatory zone and had abundance of resources, had fewer offsprings but they were bigger !
And in the second situation, the offsprings were more but they were smaller due to lack of enough resources.
Conclusion - They concluded that in order to ensure the survival of the species, it's encoded in our genes to produce as much as we can , that doesn't include quality but quantity. That's what second scenario showed that due to lack of resources but danger of survival caused them to reproduce more in numbers.

The same logic can be applied in the real world too.
Dutchs don't have lack of resources and they don't reproduce like rats , so in order to survive they got bigger.
But for the Asians like Indonesians and Chinese, they reproduced like crazy with same kind of resources (in terms of quality) so they instead grew large in numbers rather than in size.

genetics because they have more racially nordic people in their country who are taller because they are adapted to cold
>but muh food
if you take only the nordic component height doesn't differ much between european countries

 

[inceI]

r vs k selection

then why are dinka south sudanese 6"4 on avg? Sorry to say but differential K theory when it comes to race has already been debunked

 

[risque_dew]

For this thread I would like to mention, my step grandad (who is Dutch) was born in 1945 and is 5'5, his son is born in 1967 and is 6'4. To add, the mother was shorter than my step grandad (probs around 5'2).

 

[Orc]

the dutch likely have heavy gravettian admixture, which were lanky hunter gatherers that spread throughout much of western europe, all the known sites are not that far from it, and the country has been underwater periodically so those who currently inhabit it came from elsewhere.

gravettians were already 6'2 before agriculture.

Gravettian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

>The male height of the Gravettian culture ranged between 179 and 188 centimetres (5 ft 10 in and 6 ft 2 in) tall with an average of 183.5 centimetres (6 ft 0.2 in), which is exceptionally tall not only for that period of prehistory, but for all periods of history.

diet likely only made the dutch temporally shorter, rather than increase their height capacity, they were already tall to begin with, just crippled by centuries of famine and christians.

 

[Deleted member 27987]

So we all know for the fact that Dutch people are the tallest people in the world. But why ? I mean every European country have good food and resources to grow their children to their max but why it's only Dutch.
Then I looked for a study fon on a kind of fish , I know you would say it's silly but it's not.
The fish that was chosen had sexual maturity in few months after they were born, so it was easy to observe changes throughout time.
1 First they took a sample of that fish ( I can't remember the name now but believe me it's truth ) and droped in its natural habitat of Trinidad which is in the fast currents of river just before a fall. Because there is lot of turbulence or disturbence in the water, the predatory fish that hunts these fishes stay away. That provides them hunter free zone and abundance of resources to thrive.
2. Now they placed a group of these fishes in environment filled with predatory fishes that hunt them.
Result - They found out that those fishes that were in free predatory zone and had abundance of resources, had fewer offsprings but they were bigger !
And in the second situation, the offsprings were more but they were smaller due to lack of enough resources.
Conclusion - They concluded that in order to ensure the survival of the species, it's encoded in our genes to produce as much as we can , that doesn't include quality but quantity. That's what second scenario showed that due to lack of resources but danger of survival caused them to reproduce more in numbers.

The same logic can be applied in the real world too.
Dutchs don't have lack of resources and they don't reproduce like rats , so in order to survive they got bigger.
But for the Asians like Indonesians and Chinese, they reproduced like crazy with same kind of resources (in terms of quality) so they instead grew large in numbers rather than in size.

Serbian and Bosnian niggaz are tall too and we‘re poor af

 

[Gengar]

Dnr, fuck you

Let me guess- you’re not Dutch?

 

[190cm90kg]

then why are dinka south sudanese 6"4 on avg? Sorry to say but differential K theory when it comes to race has already been debunked

rushton poorly addresses the issue of why his shotgun approach to data (intraspecific-predation, genital size, etc) is related to r/K selection. he contradicts himself many times over and has no understanding of clines. despite this he was suppressed politically and deemed racist instead of being scholastically critiqued. this behavior intelligence race discussion will never go anywhere as long as the topdogs of jew backed research institutions suppress genuine debate

 

[Deleted member 24940]

It's diet, they were like 165cm average before the huge jump. They have ideal diet for growth. Milk consumption unironically substantially increases final height.

Based.

I drank a lot of cows milk during puberty and I'm 6'1 and my brothers are 6'3 and 6'4.

My dad is 5'10 and my mom is like 5'4, both Punjabis.

 

[Deleted member 24940]

some African tribes have the tallest height?

Tallest height in Africa is South Sudan where they are pastoralists that do not eat any wheat or other bullshit. Just pure animal products diet.

 

[Deleted member 25938]

As others here have said, genetic influences resulting from factors like sexual selection are the main component to height potential. However, that's only the baseline; I feel like people are negating the importance of epigenetic factors because of its malleability, which makes it a more uncertain aspect and thus less stable argument from which to take a stance upon. But really, everything matters. You could come from a short family that is also wealthy, but if your upbringing was deficient, then obviously it's gonna have ramifications on an individual's height. If such lifestyles can be reflected across a general population, then said population will experience similar effects on their height.

Also, with regards to the OP, it isn't only the quantity of resources that matter, but also the quality of them. Take South Korea as an example. Little people know this, but when Korea was among the poorest nations in the world, people's portions were actually larger than they are now. However, those portions largely consisted of a liter of rice per meal. While that's a ton of food and calories, obviously it wasn't very nutritionally well-endowed, so it didn't do much for their height. Only when Koreans started eating more protein did they start shooting up in height, not only compensating for their malnutrition, but also bringing them to their original height potential, determined by their genetics.

However, while this coincided with the rise of the Miracle on the Han River, it's still important to know (and this might be a jfl moment) that socioeconomic factors are an "indirect" cause, in the sense that it wasn't the money or the democratic policies they were putting in their mouths, but the better-quality food. The definitions under which people are prioritizing as the main theory for OP's question are inconsistent, and they will remain inconsistent due to varying perspectives and biases. But oh well.

Also keep in mind that the Korea case might not be applicable to other case studies that might have yielded different results under similar circumstances.

@Hoso @orangomango2003 @Arborist @BrahminBoss thoughts? Legit or cope?

 

[hirochan]

its selection pressure, pretty much they practiced eugenics and encouraged foids to exclusively mass produce with tallfags

 

[hirochan]

The problem with the sexual selection theory is that it doesn't explain why the kids usually end up taller than the dad by some inches.

its recursion, foids get taller -> wants taller fag, kids typically come out taller ---> repeat

 

[orangomango2003]

As others here have said, genetic influences resulting from factors like sexual selection are the main component to height potential. However, that's only the baseline; I feel like people are negating the importance of epigenetic factors because of its malleability, which makes it a more uncertain aspect and thus less stable argument from which to take a stance upon. But really, everything matters. You could come from a short family that is also wealthy, but if your upbringing was deficient, then obviously it's gonna have ramifications on an individual's height. If such lifestyles can be reflected across a general population, then said population will experience similar effects on their height.

Also, with regards to the OP, it isn't only the quantity of resources that matter, but also the quality of them. Take South Korea as an example. Little people know this, but when Korea was among the poorest nations in the world, people's portions were actually larger than they are now. However, those portions largely consisted of a liter of rice per meal. While that's a ton of food and calories, obviously it wasn't very nutritionally well-endowed, so it didn't do much for their height. Only when Koreans started eating more protein did they start shooting up in height, not only compensating for their malnutrition, but also bringing them to their original height potential, determined by their genetics.

However, while this coincided with the rise of the Miracle on the Han River, it's still important to know (and this might be a jfl moment) that socioeconomic factors are an "indirect" cause, in the sense that it wasn't the money or the democratic policies they were putting in their mouths, but the better-quality food. The definitions under which people are prioritizing as the main theory for OP's question are inconsistent, and they will remain inconsistent due to varying perspectives and biases. But oh well.

Also keep in mind that the Korea case might not be applicable to other case studies that might have yielded different results under similar circumstances.

@Hoso @orangomango2003 @Arborist @BrahminBoss thoughts? Legit or cope?

it doesn't really matter for most of us, because we either got lucky genetics or not. nutrition is most important when we can't control it (early childhood) so what can we really do about our height..

you really only lose height potential if you're malnourished which almost never happens if you live in the west. the thought that you will get 5cm or more if you eat more healthy/nutritional food instead of eating the minimum amount of it is not realistic. almost everyone already eats some amount of meat, vegetables, fruits, bread etc. if you only eat candy and nothing else you may lose height but no one does this.

only when you really starve yourself for a longer time period you will lose height and this can end up being 10cm in extreme cases. because when you don't eat for 1 day you will basically catch up the growth the next day so it's not that bad (just make sure this is incidental).

it's most important that you get the minimum amount of calories in and minimum amount of protein and vegetables and you don't need to worry much that you won't reach your height potential. height is a priority in a human during puberty so even if you don't eat a lot you will still grow but you may suffer in other areas. this is also why you see some tall guys that were living on coca cola and 1000 calories a day of mcdonalds (xqc) still end up tall even though they weren't healthy.

in the end it's always better to live healthy as possible even if it doesn't mean you will grow more it's always worth trying and you will live longer and be more attractive.

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

It's diet, they were like 165cm average before the huge jump. They have ideal diet for growth. Milk consumption unironically substantially increases final height.

Raw milk

 

[Ceo of cope]

theyre malnourished in other ways

what im saying is durch reach their potential because their diet mogs

if other western europeans copy their diet they will reach same height on avg

mate when i was growing up we ate varied diet + healthy aswell plus lots of it. Stop this cope. You are short cuz of sub-dalit genetics

 

[Ceo of cope]

The problem with the sexual selection theory is that it doesn't explain why the kids usually end up taller than the dad by some inches.

Selection bias. I know plenty that are shorter. With this logic if you would extrapolate this humans would have been 50 feet tall by now

 

[Deleted member 15468]

mate when i was growing up we ate varied diet + healthy aswell plus lots of it. Stop this cope. You are short cuz of sub-dalit genetics

pretty sure i mog you, know your place subhuman

 

[Ceo of cope]

pretty sure i mog you, know your place subhuman

You probably do i am just trying to dispell your height cope. Mogging me doesn't save you from being called out on blatant cope

 

[Deleted member 15468]

You probably do i am just trying to dispell your height cope. Mogging me doesn't save you from being called out on blatant cope

its nit because i want to cope its because i want people to spread truth here

but the other guy already disproved what i say so it doesnt matter anyway

 

[Ceo of cope]

It could be epigenetic aswell e.g the increase in height being initiated by a change in diet (more dairy) and that change being cemented genetically

 

[Ceo of cope]

But if you live in thr industrialised world (even if not the west) (except india cuz they have subhuman vegetarian diets) your shortness is prob genetic if you are manlet

 

[risque_dew]

Selection bias. I know plenty that are shorter. With this logic if you would extrapolate this humans would have been 50 feet tall by now

It was actually a pretty common thing for dutch born in the 50s, 60s, 70s... to be much taller than their parents, then it just stagnated. My grandad and his peers noticed this too and you can still see it today.

 

[Ceo of cope]

It was actually a pretty common thing for dutch born in the 50s, 60s, 70s... to be much taller than their parents, then it just stagnated. My grandad and his peers noticed this too and you can still see it today.

This is likely cuz of the famines at the end of ww2. In fact i think stuff like famines and wars are the reason why some generations seem to end up unusually short giving rise to the "zoomers/gen x are becomming so much taller bro" meme