3 ms·
Even the low end of 3.6cm is 1.4 inches. Feels like you're being rather...goal post movey.
by 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 agoThere is no "low end" , such a huge difference shows that both studies are not reliable.
- sarchertech 2mo agoThe 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...
- pandaman 2mo agoNow, who is moving goalposts?
- TylerE 2mo agoNo one: Again, from your OP: "so unless people naturally shrink 2" with age" Are you denying basic science here, or what? Like, what is your deal?
- pandaman 2mo agoRead what I wrote, read what you wrote. If you still don't get it - ask a chatbot, though you obviously understand and are just trolling.
- sarchertech 2mo agoI’m also confused.