4 ms·

The mean height for men at 20-29 is 69.2" and 80+ is 67.1" (measured in 2015-2018, the last data I've found) [1], which could be interpreted as shorter people h

The mean height for men at 20-29 is 69.2" and 80+ is 67.1" (measured in 2015-2018, the last data I've found) [1], which could be interpreted as shorter people having lower risk of all mortality. One could say that people are just getting taller over time and 80+ y.o. were shorter at their 20-29, but we also have the median height for 20-29 fro 1970s, when 2018's 80+ were 20-29 - it's actually 69.7" [2], men in the US are getting shorter over time, so unless people naturally shrink 2" with age the data points to shorter people having lower risk of death. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf 2. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf

sarchertech 2mo ago
Short people have fewer incidences of cancer, so I don’t think you can say that lower overall risk of death implies lower risk of heart disease. As for 2, men in the US are getting shorter because of immigration which adds many confounders.
- pandaman 2mo ago
  I am not saying that. I am saying that the theory about absolute amount of fat being bad for health, as stated by the comment you responded, seems to be supported by data.
  - sarchertech 2mo ago
    That’s not the question I ask though. I asked about the specific claim that absolute fat was bad for your heart. But also short people living longer has so many more possible explanations than less overall fat.
    - pandaman 2mo ago
      > I asked about the specific claim that absolute fat was bad for your heart. There is no word "heart" or any to this effect in the message you replied to so I did not understand that was what you were doing. I took your question as an attempt to attack the theory on the basis of prevalence of some heart conditions in shorter people.
      - sarchertech 2mo ago
        No that’s not what I was getting at. The post was edited and originally mentioned absolute amount of fat being bad for your heart.
TylerE 2mo ago
People do tend to shrink in height quite a bit at advanced age. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003998.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003998.htm "People typically lose almost one-half inch (about 1 centimeter) every 10 years after age 40. Height loss is even more rapid after age 70. You may lose a total of 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 centimeters) in height as you age." So people DO in fact tend to lose about 2 inches at age 80 versus their younger selves.
- pandaman 2mo ago
  The actual studies [1],[2] that tried to measure this came to very different rates of height loss though: 3.6 cm and 6 cm from 40 to 80 in men. This does not look like a serious fact. 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547143/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547143/ 2. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/21/4694 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/21/4694 (referencing the FHS there, the numbers are hard to find on the study's website).
  - TylerE 2mo ago
    Even the low end of 3.6cm is 1.4 inches. Feels like you're being rather...goal post movey.
    - pandaman 2mo ago
      There is no "low end" , such a huge difference shows that both studies are not reliable.
      - sarchertech 2mo ago
        The difference was 3.6cm in the study that measured 10 more years 30-80. And 5cm in the study that measured 10 fewer years 40-80. The studies were conducted over different time periods when average nutrition changed, and demographics changed. And the study demographics just vary by location. Height loss with age is incredibly well documented. Here’s a few more studies. This is just basic medical textbook information. No one in the world is arguing that this phenomenon doesn’t exist. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32611342/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32611342/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24962157/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24962157/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10602346/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10602346/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667032125000058 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266703212...

sarchertech 2mo ago

Short people have fewer incidences of cancer, so I don’t think you can say that lower overall risk of death implies lower risk of heart disease. As for 2, men in the US are getting shorter because of immigration which adds many confounders.

pandaman 2mo ago
I am not saying that. I am saying that the theory about absolute amount of fat being bad for health, as stated by the comment you responded, seems to be supported by data.
- sarchertech 2mo ago
  That’s not the question I ask though. I asked about the specific claim that absolute fat was bad for your heart. But also short people living longer has so many more possible explanations than less overall fat.
  - pandaman 2mo ago
    > I asked about the specific claim that absolute fat was bad for your heart. There is no word "heart" or any to this effect in the message you replied to so I did not understand that was what you were doing. I took your question as an attempt to attack the theory on the basis of prevalence of some heart conditions in shorter people.
    - sarchertech 2mo ago
      No that’s not what I was getting at. The post was edited and originally mentioned absolute amount of fat being bad for your heart.

TylerE 2mo ago

People do tend to shrink in height quite a bit at advanced age. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003998.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003998.htm "People typically lose almost one-half inch (about 1 centimeter) every 10 years after age 40. Height loss is even more rapid after age 70. You may lose a total of 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 centimeters) in height as you age." So people DO in fact tend to lose about 2 inches at age 80 versus their younger selves.

pandaman 2mo ago
The actual studies [1],[2] that tried to measure this came to very different rates of height loss though: 3.6 cm and 6 cm from 40 to 80 in men. This does not look like a serious fact. 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547143/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547143/ 2. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/21/4694 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/21/4694 (referencing the FHS there, the numbers are hard to find on the study's website).
- TylerE 2mo ago
  Even the low end of 3.6cm is 1.4 inches. Feels like you're being rather...goal post movey.
  - pandaman 2mo ago
    There is no "low end" , such a huge difference shows that both studies are not reliable.
    - sarchertech 2mo ago
      The difference was 3.6cm in the study that measured 10 more years 30-80. And 5cm in the study that measured 10 fewer years 40-80. The studies were conducted over different time periods when average nutrition changed, and demographics changed. And the study demographics just vary by location. Height loss with age is incredibly well documented. Here’s a few more studies. This is just basic medical textbook information. No one in the world is arguing that this phenomenon doesn’t exist. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32611342/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32611342/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24962157/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24962157/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10602346/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10602346/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667032125000058 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266703212...