SMRs and AMRs

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Technology Advances; Humans Supersize

By PATRICIA COHEN
NYT

For nearly three decades, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert W. Fogel and a small clutch of colleagues have assiduously researched what the size and shape of the human body say about economic and social changes throughout history, and vice versa. Their research has spawned not only a new branch of historical study but also a provocative theory that technology has sped human evolution in an unprecedented way during the past century.

Next month Cambridge University Press will publish the capstone of this inquiry, “The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition, and Human Development in the Western World Since 1700,” just a few weeks shy of Mr. Fogel’s 85th birthday. The book, which sums up the work of dozens of researchers on one of the most ambitious projects undertaken in economic history, is sure to renew debates over Mr. Fogel’s groundbreaking theories about what some regard as the most significant development in humanity’s long history.

Mr. Fogel and his co-authors, Roderick Floud, Bernard Harris and Sok Chul Hong, maintain that “in most if not quite all parts of the world, the size, shape and longevity of the human body have changed more substantially, and much more rapidly, during the past three centuries than over many previous millennia.” What’s more, they write, this alteration has come about within a time frame that is “minutely short by the standards of Darwinian evolution.”

“The rate of technological and human physiological change in the 20th century has been remarkable,” Mr. Fogel said in an telephone interview from Chicago, where he is the director of the Center for Population Economics at the University of Chicago’s business school. “Beyond that, a synergy between the improved technology and physiology is more than the simple addition of the two.”

(More here.)

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Supersizing Humans: a bad idea for many reasons

I have researched height and longevity for 35 years. I have worked with researchers Elrick, MD, and Lowell Storms, PhD and we have published over 36 papers or in medical and scientific journals, including the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and Acta Paediatrica. Our findings differ sharply from those of Floud, Fogel, etc. in terms of height and longevity. In addition, a world population of larger humans needs much more food, water, energy, and resources/ This increased consumption damages the environment and the economy.

My findings are primarily focused on evaluating height-longevity trends based on relatively homogeneous populations of deceased people. For example, veterans, baseball players, football players, and famous people were found to lose about .5 year per centimeter of height. A loss of .5 yr/centimeter is the same as the difference in life expectancy between US white males and females based on their height differences. Powerful support for our findings comes from animal studies; e.g., small dogs live longer than big dogs. So do small mice and rats compared to bigger ones. Caloric restriction provides the most proven method for extending longevity and this results in smaller bodies.

I don't know of any studies showing tall people live longer based on a million or more deaths. However, a California study of 1 million men and women found that shorter Asians had substantially lower mortality compared to taller Whites and Blacks. Latinos and East Indians had mortalities between Asians and  Whites/Blacks and their heights were also in between these two groups.  These findings are corroborated by US Government data involving over 10 million deaths. In addition, Holzenberger et al. tracked 1.3 million men over a 70-year period and found they lost .7 year per centimeter of increased height.

While our life expectancy has increased greatly improved sanitation and enormous developments in medical science and technology-not to better health since John Hopkins University reports that about half the 65 year olds now take 5 or more medications
per day and ~25 % take 10 to 20 medications daily. In addition, almost 70% of US adults are overweight or obese. How can this be a sign of good health?


If tall people live longer, why is that the six top populations in terms of life expectancy are relatively short compared to Scandinavians? The CIA World Factbook (2007) indicates that Andorra, Macau, Japan, San Marino, Singapore and Hong Kong have the longest life expectancies.

I am not aware of any studies that found centenarians to be tall (> 6 feet). In fact, they are usually short and range from 4'10 to 5'7.

I think your readers should be given an opportunity to read both sides of this issue and make up their own minds. In 2007, I edited a book with Dr. Bartke and Dr. Rollo: Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling: Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications, Nova Science Publishers, NY. The book was described by a Professor of Gerontology as "Herculian task accomplished." Another reviewer found the book presented a fair view of both sides of the arguments on height, body size and longevity.

Links to a my March commentary published in World Nutrition (World Public Health Nutrition Association) are available from my website. You can also go to my website for a list of my publications: www.humanbodysize.com

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Tom Samaras, Reventropy Associates, San Diego, Ca

6:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home