3 ms·

There is no "low end" , such a huge difference shows that both studies are not reliable.

• sarchertech 1mo 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...
  • pandaman 1mo ago
    Now, who is moving goalposts?
    • TylerE 1mo ago
      No 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 1mo ago
        Read 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 1mo ago
          I’m also confused.