Will humans on average be much taller in the future or will it remain the same as now?

[knight of meh]

Lets say 6'6" is the magic number before it starts to cause problems. Even though we might not get much taller than that, MORE of the population will approach it.

although a throw back to the OP if we are talking about getting much taller i suppose it depends on how tall you are now ; the places like Europe aren't going to keep getting bigger for much longer without a serious jump in evolution but other places with poorer diets yeah sure why not . although we will have to ask for a definition of much bigger now

[Euphoric]

Second, I thought MY generation was the apex on height but that has proven to be false. I'm short at 6" these days.

Psh, try being 5'7''. I have to crane my neck to make eye contact with the freakishly tall, gangly, disproportional 6'6'' 12 year olds. Have you seen those ing kids? Staring down at their parents and begging them for ice cream in a baritone voice? What is the world coming to...

[knight of meh]

Psh, try being 5'7''. I have to crane my neck to make eye contact with the freakishly tall, gangly, disproportional 6'6'' 12 year olds. Have you seen those ing kids? Staring down at their parents and begging them for ice cream in a baritone voice? What is the world coming to...

natural Halo..

[Caesar Germanico]

considering the average height in developed countries is six foot, where as in 1700s average man was around 5'9

Where are you getting this stats from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Male Human height is (close to) 6 foot only in a few countries; 5'9/10 seems the average in developed countries.As for the 1700s, I am pretty sure 5'7 was the average back then.

Here is an interesting piece about height:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-human-height/

[Alkaline Earth]

Using facts to make yourself feel better about yourself

6'3" @16 y/old and I dont even feel tall at my high school. I agree that over time the overall population will approach taller height through natural selection, but I dont think individuals will begin to come in heights taller than 6'6" any more frequently then they already do.

[trance]

There is some selection that favors shortness, however. Shorter individuals tend to live longer for a variety of reasons (less metabolism, less prone to accidents, there seems to be a genetic proclivity towards living longer among shorter people, etc), so in turn have more chances to reproduce, need less calories to survive in an emergency situation, and have a larger amount of time to gain wealth/resources to pass on to their offspring than do their taller peers. Many guys also prefer shorter, more petite women. And it's not like many people actively say they would never date a short girl/guy.

So it seems to me that genetically things favor the shorter individuals.

Not at all. The reproductive argument is completely faulty, since most would have time to pass on genes, and after 40-50 the chances of successful reproduction decrease. As does the quality of offspring. Question is however... has your source concerning longviety controlled for gender? Because since women are shorter than men, and live longer, that could constitute the cause.

In an emergency situation, your survival will depend on your ability to gain food, then again size is a marginal factor. Most of us will lose a lot of weight anyway if starved, and the caloric differences will not be as great as they are when we have a steady, good supply of food. Not to say tall people won't be affected quicker by caloric deficit, but there are factors to being tall that could help in acquiring food too.

In comparison, go pick a fight with someone around 10-20cm taller than you who have a smiliar physique/mental traits/experience/training as you. See what happens. Won't be very pretty though.

And yes, women are generally not attracted to short men. It's one of the few recurring "offputters". Now, I know a few casanovas who are short, so there's certainly a lot more to sexual selection than height - especially today. But being shorter than the woman you're trying to get is a disadvantage.

Also, with todays technology, there are a lot more avenues to meet potential partners, the increased "search range" allows for more matches which further could marginalize these traits. So I'd say it's not a very relevant topic. I believe we will slightly get taller, but at a much, much lower rate, eventually panning out a few centimeters from here on.

P.S.
So? I was 184cm tall when I was 13, 10 years later and I'm still 186. Anecdotal reports do not carry a lot of weight, there are a lot of factors that could contribute to people generally being taller at your school. Go somewhere else and there might be 10% over 6'. Go to another country and that number could be even lower.

[Euphoric]

Not at all. The reproductive argument is completely faulty, since most would have time to pass on genes, and after 40-50 the chances of successful reproduction decrease. As does the quality of offspring. Question is however... has your source concerning longviety controlled for gender? Because since women are shorter than men, and live longer, that could constitute the cause.

Why do you assume that one of the factors in women's longevity has to do with the fact that they are, on average, 9% shorter than are men?

Here's a study on the subject.

In an emergency situation, your survival will depend on your ability to gain food, then again size is a marginal factor. Most of us will lose a lot of weight anyway if starved, and the caloric differences will not be as great as they are when we have a steady, good supply of food. Not to say tall people won't be affected quicker by caloric deficit, but there are factors to being tall that could help in acquiring food too.

Actually, part of the aging process has to do with metabolics. Taller people, by default, have to consume and metabolize more calories simply because they have more biomass on average (this isn't taking fitness into account).

Here's another study.

In comparison, go pick a fight with someone around 10-20cm taller than you who have a smiliar physique/mental traits/experience/training as you. See what happens. Won't be very pretty though.

Actually, if you look at most martial artists, SpecOps, marines, and wrestlers, you will notice that they are overwhelmingly short. This is because there is less body, for lack of a better phrase, to hit. As someone who wrestled in high school, I can safely say that I feel very confident fighting a much taller person than I who had the same amount of training and was proportionally heavy.

Also, with todays technology, there are a lot more avenues to meet potential partners, the increased "search range" allows for more matches which further could marginalize these traits. So I'd say it's not a very relevant topic. I believe we will slightly get taller, but at a much, much lower rate, eventually panning out a few centimeters from here on.

I'd agree with this.

P.S.
So? I was 184cm tall when I was 13, 10 years later and I'm still 186. Anecdotal reports do not carry a lot of weight, there are a lot of factors that could contribute to people generally being taller at your school. Go somewhere else and there might be 10% over 6'. Go to another country and that number could be even lower.

Firstly, I'm going to a college in Southern California where people are generally shorter on average (we have a lot of Central Americans here). Secondly, are you insinuating that 5'7'' is tall for the developed world? In the United States, the average height for a male is 5'10''. Around the world, my height is just above the male average of 5'6'', but this is ultimately because individuals from third world countries don't have access to consistent nutrition.

[Phier]

Actually, if you look at most martial artists, SpecOps, marines, and wrestlers, you will notice that they are overwhelmingly short. This is because there is less body, for lack of a better phrase, to hit. As someone who wrestled in high school, I can safely say that I feel very confident fighting a much taller person than I who had the same amount of training and was proportionally heavy.

I agree with most of your points but this one I have to disagree with a bit. While I think you are correct about what you are saying with height and those professions, I think a part of it is due to short men often feel the need to "prove" themselves and go into such things because of it. As a general rule you always want to get pulled over by the cop who is 6'4" and full of muscle and NOT the short skinny one. The latter will need to prove his dominance, the big guy already knows. And while in modern warfare size is far less important than in the past, and in fact may be a negative in many situations, they have weight classes in wrestling, boxing, MMA, etc for a good reason.

I work out with weights myself 3-4 days a week, usually at the same time as a guy about 5 inches taller than me. My work out is his warm up, he could crush me like a bug. There isn't a single circumstance (that didn't involve ranged weapons) I can think of where we would have "equal" training where he just simply wouldn't beat me, period. Whats worse is that when you are bigger your muscles do "more work" to push a weight. One thing short guys in the weight room often don't get is that if they are lifting (just as an example) 300 lbs, and the much taller guy is lifting 270, the taller guy isn't necessarily weaker because the taller guy is doing more physical work.

[Euphoric]

I agree with most of your points but this one I have to disagree with a bit. While I think you are correct about what you are saying with height and those professions, I think a part of it is due to short men often feel the need to "prove" themselves and go into such things because of it. As a general rule you always want to get pulled over by the cop who is 6'4" and full of muscle and NOT the short skinny one. The latter will need to prove his dominance, the big guy already knows. And while in modern warfare size is far less important than in the past, and in fact may be a negative in many situations, they have weight classes in wrestling, boxing, MMA, etc for a good reason.

I would say that shorter people have better reflexes and motor coordination in general than do taller people, we all know clumsy, lanky people (there's also a study done on the topic but I'm having an issue pulling up PDFs at the moment). In general, you see astronauts and pilots at the lower spectrum for height, for example. Personally, I think this is why shorter people have historically more adept at warfare (though you are right, weapons are involved here): the stocky Romans vs. the towering Celts and the Mongols vs. everyone else. Gurkhas prove my point nicely in the modern era. Nobody wants to with the Gurkhas.

I work out with weights myself 3-4 days a week, usually at the same time as a guy about 5 inches taller than me. My work out is his warm up, he could crush me like a bug. There isn't a single circumstance (that didn't involve ranged weapons) I can think of where we would have "equal" training where he just simply wouldn't beat me, period. Whats worse is that when you are bigger your muscles do "more work" to push a weight. One thing short guys in the weight room often don't get is that if they are lifting (just as an example) 300 lbs, and the much taller guy is lifting 270, the taller guy isn't necessarily weaker because the taller guy is doing more physical work.

In terms of muscle mass, my guess would be that taller individuals have more room on their frame to pack on muscle. A shorter person could be just as strong, but his muscle mass would be packed on disproportionately and would hinder balance. The strongest men in the world hover somewhere in the 6'3'' range.

[Phier]

I would say that shorter people have better reflexes and motor coordination in general than do taller people, we all know clumsy, lanky people (there's also a study done on the topic but I'm having an issue pulling up PDFs at the moment). In general, you see astronauts and pilots at the lower spectrum for height, for example. Personally, I think this is why shorter people have historically more adept at warfare (though you are right, weapons are involved

They also FIT in the space craft and planes. They don't make fighters for guys 6'11" (and my neighbor is that height). You could say they are more "lumbering" because they have further to go, and I'm sure there is something to be said for that (not so much reflexes and reaction time, just that they can't move as fast).

here): the stocky Romans vs. the towering Celts and the Mongols vs. everyone else. Gurkhas prove my point nicely in the modern era. Nobody wants to with the Gurkhas.

Interestingly the romans were NOT that short, I forget but their minimum height for the army was surprising tall for the era, and I'd say its more fighting style and organization that matters in warfare than 1-1 combat.

In terms of muscle mass, my guess would be that taller individuals have more room on their frame to pack on muscle. A shorter person could be just as strong, but his muscle mass would be packed on disproportionately and would hinder balance. The strongest men in the world hover somewhere in the 6'3'' range.

They base the strongest man though on weight lifted, not over all effort. Most body builders are in the 6" range (not about strength but same type of issue) because taller than that its almost impossible not to look less developed. That being said I think we are still on the same page here.

[Sharpe]

They base the strongest man though on weight lifted, not over all effort. Most body builders are in the 6" range (not about strength but same type of issue) because taller than that its almost impossible not to look less developed. That being said I think we are still on the same page here.

That is the key distinction. Aesthetically a 5'6, 200 pound guy will look much denser and "more muscular" than a 6'6 270 pound guy.

In terms of power and strength - taller is better, provided you have the weight behind you. The denser, shorter guys on our rugby team are usually at a disadvantage when it comes to the power game as they are overcompensating for their height and have to work that much harder.

I train a lot. Manlet syndrome is rife.

The latter will need to prove his dominance, the big guy already knows

I wouldn't want to be this big - he is 3 inches taller than me and 100+ pounds heavier. But fuaaaa mirin' that alpha-ness.

[Alkaline Earth]

@trance I wasnt trying to gloat. I feel like if you have at least 2 close friends that are taller than you, this you wont think you are tall (this is my experienced). Of course I am taller than the average pleb at my HS.

In other news, the worlds strongest man is consistently elite-tall. The current holder is Brian Shaw 6'8"in (80 cm). I would agree, though, that shorter guys can look way more dense for much less effort.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Interestingly the romans were NOT that short, I forget but their minimum height for the army was surprising tall for the era, and I'd say its more fighting style and organization that matters in warfare than 1-1 combat.

The Average Roman soldier was about 5' 10. The Celts and Germanics and Greeks and everyone else weren't any different in terms of height, albeit you'd probably have more tall people in the latter cultures because they didn't have standardized equipment (the Romans did have height restrictions so their equipment would fit everyone.)

[Caesar Germanico]

The Average Roman soldier was about 5' 10.

Source?

[Col. Tartleton]

That is the key distinction. Aesthetically a 5'6, 200 pound guy will look much denser and "more muscular" than a 6'6 270 pound guy.

In terms of power and strength - taller is better, provided you have the weight behind you. The denser, shorter guys on our rugby team are usually at a disadvantage when it comes to the power game as they are overcompensating for their height and have to work that much harder.

I train a lot. Manlet syndrome is rife.





I wouldn't want to be this big - he is 3 inches taller than me and 100+ pounds heavier. But fuaaaa mirin' that alpha-ness.

He's 2.05m and weighs 190 kg. I'm 1.87m and weigh 95 kg. So presumably a hot 1.52m girl should weigh like 47 kg, which according to my extensive study of Asian girls on the internet seems to be accurate.

Yeah I ing went metric in this . Enjoy multinational community, you ing lazy decimal loving who can't comprehend that a gallon is 128 fluid ounces.

I think we should all aspire to that build if on a smaller human being. He looks like he can carry a lot of or headbutt someone to death (in self defense obviously), not flex so hard his skin rips open.

[Manco]

He's 170 kg IIRC , but regardless that's a hell of a lot of meat.
About same weight and height as you and I'm already considered fairly heavy, that guy is nearly twice that and probably has our weight in pure muscle mass.