2020
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.23552
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

One size does not fit all. How universal standards for normal height can hide deprivation and create false paradoxes

Abstract: Public health practitioners and social scientists frequently compare height against one‐size‐fits‐all standards of human growth to assess well‐being, deprivation, and disease risk. However, underlying differences in height can make some naturally tall populations appear well‐off by universal standards, even though they live in severe states of deprivation. In this article, I describe the worldwide extent of these population differences in height and illustrate how using a universal yardstick to compare populat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Taking the evidence collected in this study into account, it is necessary to reconsider whether using the same standards for all populations worldwide is accurate enough. If the growth velocities of children in different countries are not alike, as has been shown in several studies including our own, using the same international charts for all populations can easily lead to a misdiagnosis, overestimating or underestimating the rates of malnutrition (Hruschka, 2020; Natale & Rajagopalan, 2014). For example, if the height of children in one country is naturally below the mean of the WHO reference charts, we could be overestimating the rates of children with stunted growth (low H/A).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Taking the evidence collected in this study into account, it is necessary to reconsider whether using the same standards for all populations worldwide is accurate enough. If the growth velocities of children in different countries are not alike, as has been shown in several studies including our own, using the same international charts for all populations can easily lead to a misdiagnosis, overestimating or underestimating the rates of malnutrition (Hruschka, 2020; Natale & Rajagopalan, 2014). For example, if the height of children in one country is naturally below the mean of the WHO reference charts, we could be overestimating the rates of children with stunted growth (low H/A).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…However, there is no doubt that there is human variability at a genetic and phenotypic level among the different populations that inhabit the planet. In fact, according to different studies and systematic reviews, the global variability of anthropometric measures between countries is remarkable (Hruschka, 2020; Natale & Rajagopalan, 2014; NCD Risk Factor Collaboration, 2019; Subramanian et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contemporary height growth standards incorporate children from a greater range of geographic and socioeconomic contexts to encompass a wider range of ontogenetic variation [ 26 ]. However, bone-specific growth standards are available for a limited diversity of modern children [ 96–98 , 106 , 147 ] As predominantly middle- to upper-class Euro-American children and adolescents are represented in these reference datasets, comparisons to other global populations past or present are inherently limited, potentially skewing interpretations and results [ 148 ] Ideally, regional-specific standards would be developed [ 148 ]. Additionally, as both contemporary and past populations faced nutritional and other socioeconomic challenges, greater investigation of bone dimensions among groups facing socioeconomic challenges would clarify the amount of skeletal variation that may arise under these circumstances.…”
Section: Bridging Measurements Past and Presentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For analyses, we used population-specific cut points to define chronic disease outcomes, when such cut points have been recommended (for obesity and type 2 diabetes) [35]. Obesity was defined using the World Health Organization recommended body mass index (BMI) cut off of > 24.9 kg/m 2 for Asian populations [36]; high waist circumference was defined as > 35 in [37].…”
Section: Chronic Disease Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%