Wow its almost like mean height is affected by poverty and nutrition or something
post
Now do weight ...
The Dutch are incredible. Once upon a time they were the shortest people in Europe. Now they are the tallest in the entire world.
Crazy! Did the small chinese hight come from malnourishment or hard labor? Otherwise that increase would be hard to describe right?
Better quality of nutrition - more protein and vegetables. Much more vegetables. An absurd amount more vegetables.
They also fixed their zinc deficiency, which has long been known to affect height.
But seriously, the vegetables.


Graphs pictured:
- Daily supply of calories that are available for consumption, Measured in kilocalories per person per day. 1985 to 2023
- Estimated share of the total population in each country with zinc intakes below physiological requirements, 1990–2005
- Average daily per capita protein supply, measured in grams of total protein per day, 1985 to 2023
- Average per capita vegetable consumption, measured in kilograms per person per year, 1985 to 2023
the US doesn’t use cm
they are 3 feet, 2 elbows and a thumb high.
It shows americans growing after a decline, this study from 2025 shows they're still getting smaller
I see you have fallen into the "taller male dominant" trap. the great equalizer is the testicle strike - and you have the advantage :-)
It's obviously the result of the Dutch living below the sea level and the short drowning, it's quite sad actually.
You should add a /s unless you are serious.
in this day and age, too many people think that way unironically, so if you want to act like a dumbass you must accept to be treated like a dumbass.
What a weird set of countries.
Where's the rest of Europe, where's Africa, and where's the Middle East ???
likely china and india are chosen as they are in the progress of uplifting poor populations, and the effect can be reflected here (with china already done much more progress).
The chart would be useless with too many, as you would not be able to identify it even see the lines.
My guess - the biggest factors in height are genetics and childhood nutrition.
Children born in China and India in the 70s would have a decent chance of experiencing malnutrition, stunting their growth. This created the space to explain the increase in heights seen in these countries over time, as they benefitted from technological advancements, more liberal governments, and the increased wealth from integrating into global supply chains.
Germany, the UK, and the US had already mostly solved their food insecurity problems by 1970, and so saw little increase in height in that period. The differences in height between these nations is probably due to greater genetic diversity in the latter two populations. Northern Europeans tend to be taller than global average, but the US has a significant Latino minority, and the UK has populations from its former colonies. I'm guessing the dip/flattening in the US's line around 2000 was mostly due to the surge in Mexican migrants around that time.
I don't know what tf happened in the Netherlands.
how to manipulate graphs 101
I mean everything is very clearly labeled and only 1 axis is cut, because without the cut you wouldn't see many differences in the top part.
wouldn’t see many differences in the top part.
you would see them, they just wouldn't look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about.
Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero.
Stop making sense!
Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades.
this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself.
It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
It’s not speed, it’s the height over time
yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed.
The derivative of this is the speed
and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis.
it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
"where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative?
well thank you for your input 😂
Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math.
If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time.
I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb.
Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this?
If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time.
there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb.
because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is.
So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?!
Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don't start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well?
Not a particularly beautiful graph, but it seems legit? What do you mean by manipulate?

top 34 comments