For most of our history, humans have been short, a study has found. Until around 150 years ago, few people grew taller than 170 centimetres.
Christiane Scheffler at the University of Potsdam and Michael Hermanussen in Altenhof have spent several years studying the height of people from a wide range of populations. In their latest paper, they combined an existing data of more than 6000 prehistoric human skeletons with multiple studies of more recent historical populations from Europe and the US. They also included their own data on 1666 present-day school children from Indonesia.
In the prehistoric populations, the maximum height for men was 165 to 170 centimetres, while women topped out at 160cm. Today, men in England have an average height of around 175 cm, while for women it is about 162 cm.
But there is significant variation between modern countries. The Indonesian school children in the study were shorter than similarly aged children from the US, despite being well-nourished.
Scheffler and Hermanussen argue that height can be a signal of dominance(显赫地位), so in societies where it is possible to move up through the social classes, evolution favours individuals who reach a greater height.
Subramanian at Harvard University isn’t convinced by the pair’s interpretation. His team previously showed that the best predictor of a child’s height is the height of their parents. This suggests that the influence of other factors, such as social mobility, is limited.
After assessing nearly 163,000 children living in 55 low and middle-income countries, Subramanian’s team found that 42.9 percent had poor nutrition but’ no ‘sign of stunting(阻碍发育) or other physical indicators of this fact.
This implies there is a lot of hidden malnutrition that doesn’t reveal itself through stunting. A person’s nutritional condition should be assessed by looking at their diet not their height, says Subramanian.
12. How did Scheffler and Hermanussen conduct the research?
A.Studying the skeletons of prehistoric human. |
B.Combining existing data with recent research. |
C.Assessing children living in various income areas. |
D.Analyzing the results of other scientists’ researches. |
13. What’s Subramanian’s attitude towards the explanation of Scheffler and Hermanussen?
A.Worried. | B.Cautious. | C.Doubtful. | D.Supportive. |
14. What can we infer from Subramanian’s study?
A.Poor nutrition delays physical development. |
B.A balanced diet contributes to growing taller. |
C.High social classes can reach a greater height. |
D.A human’s height has little to do with nutrition. |
15. What is the text mainly about?
A.The significance that lies in nutrition. |
B.The factors that influence human’s height. |
C.The importance that humans attach to height. |
D.The reasons why prehistoric humans were short. |