Height and Heat

When I perform LSJL on a synovial joint of a limb I do feel an increase in height in that area and that is more than I usual feel due to changes in body heat.

Unilateral Heat Acelerates Bone Elongation and Lengthens Extremities of Growing Mice

warm ambient temperature increases bone blood supply and bone length in young mice

“Local heat could be an alternative to surgery and a supplement to systemic bone -lengthening drugs to noninvasively achieve limb length equalization.”

“3-week old female C57BL/6 mice (N=20 total) were treated once daily to a 40-minute unilateral heating regimen for 14 days post-weaning”

“5-week old mice (N=14) were euthanized for tissue harvest 1 day after the last heat-treatment. OTC was visualized in unfixed proximal tibial slab sections on a fluorescence stereoscope.
Growth rate was estimated from digital images following published methods. 12-week old mice were euthanized 49 days post-heating to evaluate persistent limb length differences at skeletal maturity. Cartilaginous ears were harvested to document a treatment effect, since ear size changes with ambient temperature”

“Skin temperatures of heat-treated limbs and ears averaged 40C as measured by infrared thermometry during the heat treatments. Temperatures of the non-treated side averaged 30C during treatments. Core temperature and respiration were 36C and 60 breaths/min, respectively, under anesthesia. Tibial elongation rate was >12% greater on the heat-treated side of 5-week old mice. The average growth acceleration was nearly 15 µm/day”<-Growth rate does not always mean an increase in adult height forever.

“Ear area and hindfoot length on the heat-treated side were increased 8.8% and 3.5%, respectively, compared to the non-treated contralateral side at 5-weeks. Femoral and tibial lengths were increased 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively. To test whether left-right differences were evident at skeletal maturity, mice were examined 49 days after the last treatment at 12-weeks age.  Importantly, ear area and tibial length were still significantly increased on the heat-treated side of adults”<-in this case it looks like like heat had an impact on height at skeletal maturity.

“unilateral exposure of 40C heat for only 40 min/day increased ear area and hindlimb length on the heat-treated side of young mice.”

Another heat study:

Temperature, heat shock proteins and growth regulation of the bone tissue

Ambient heat modulates the elongation of bones in mammals, and the mechanism of such a plasticity has not been studied completely. The influence of heat on growth and development of bone depends on its values. Five zones of temperature influence on the bone tissue with different biological effects have been distinguished : a) under-threshold thermal zone < 36.6 ºС, insufficient amount of heat is a limiting factor for osteogenesis; b) normal temperature zone 36.6‒37.5 ºС, the processes of breakdown and development of bone in this temperature range is balanced; b) zone of mild thermal shock 39‒41 ºС, the processes of functioning of osteoblasts, osteocytes and formation of the bone tissue intensify; d) the zone of sublethal thermal shock > 42 ºС, growth of bone slows; e) zone of non-critical shock > 50 ºС, bone tissue cells die. We propose a model of the mechanism of influence of heat shock on bone growth. Mild heat shock is a type of stress to which membrane enzymes adenylyl cyclase and cAMP-protein kinase react. Protein kinase A phosphorylates the gene factors of thermal shock proteins, stress proteins and enzymes of energy-generating processes – glycolysis and lipolysis. Heat shock protein HSP70 activates alkaline phosphatase and promotes the process of mineralization of the bone tissue. In the cells, there is intensification in syntheses of insulin-like growth factor-I, factors of mitogenic action, signals of intensification of blood circulation (NO) and synthesis of somatotropin. The affinity between insulin-like growth factor I and its acid-labile subunit decreases, leading to increased free and active insulin-like growth factor I. Against the background of acceleration of the capillarization process, energy generation and the level of stimulators of growth of bone tissue, mitotic and functional activities of producer cells of the bone – osteoblasts and osteocytes – activate. The generally known Allen’s rule has been developed and expanded: “Warm-blooded animals of different species have longer distal body parts (tails) if after birth the young have developed in the conditions of higher temperature”. The indicated tendency is realized through increased biosynthesis of heat shock proteins and other stimulators of growth processes in the bone tissue.”

Heat and prolonged physical loads promote bone elongation. These factors contribute to increase in the delivery of soluble substances needed for growth of the epiphysial plate”

“cold increased the apoptosis of osteocytes and decreased the length of the canals.”

exercises alleviated the effect of low temperatures on the process of elongation of the limbs after 11 days of physical load. Regardless of the temperature, all runner mice had elongated limbs, and individuals that had performed no exercises had shorter limbs.”<-so both exercise and temperature could both be different ways of delivering nutrients to growth plates.

Even one session of heating for ~ 2 hours may increase the activity of protein kinase and the process of phosphorylation.  Heat influence induces HSP expression. They stabilize proteins that strengthen the transmission of the signals of nitrogen oxide (NO), decrease oxidative stress and inflammation of the vessels and improve their function”

“Vessel network is of essential value for transportation of regulators that support processes of endochondral ossification. Bone has a dense capillary network, and the signal molecules that participate in its growth must overcome the cartilage.  The cartilage is included in the epiphyseal plate, but it has no penetrating blood supply”

“The cartilage has no blood vessels and its nutrition is performed by diffusion of substances. The semi penetrable “barrier at the border of vessel -cartilage  surface” obstructs the molecular transport. To study the peculiarities of overcoming this obstacle, a model of heating the hind legs was used for manipulating the blood circulation in bones in 5-week-old female mice. In the experiment, dextrans were used weighing 10, 40 and 70 kDa, which are close in size to physiological regulators. Increase in the temperature in hind legs from 22 to 34 °C led to increase in vascular access of the abovementioned molecules.”

The Connection Between The Short Stature Of The Vietnamese and Their Diet

I might be stepping out of line with this post but a recent video I saw on Youtube made me wonder whether a certain tribe or ethnic group’s diet and eating habits might have a much larger influence to the height of a certain ethnicity.

I refer to the trip Gordon Ramsey takes to Vietnam in one of his Great Escape episodes. In the last month, I have started to enjoy many cooking channels, and Gordon is a very colorful, interesting character to follow. I don’t have a TV so I don’t know what is really popular on TV these days. It seems that this series of food traveling show has been around since 2010, and only now have I heard of it.

What really struck me was that in the episode where Gordon visits the country of Vietnam, two different people both talk about the lack of calcium in their diet. First, it was Mrs. Vi Ching and 2nd was the guy who Gordon was eating snake hearts with.

It is interesting that this Mrs. Vi Ching, who supposedly owns 4 of the most famous and well touted restaurants in all of Ho Chi Minh City and goes shopping twice a day for freshness made the offhanded comment that “We have no dairy, so we eat the bone for calcium”. Then when Gordon is out with a couple of the vietnamese men, the restaurant chef would fry up the backbone of the snake they ordered which was made into at least 4-5 different dishes. It was supposed to give them more calcium.

Refer to the video below…

So it seems that for the people in Vietnam who really focus on the food, they have a unique concern with Calcium and getting enough of it. Do they somehow realize that their diet intrinsically lacks the calcium (as well as the Vitamin D, K2, Iron, Amino Acids) that is needed to grow “normal”? Or maybe at least by American standards

In my personal life and my history of going to the various Vietnamese Restaurants, I do sort of see the connection. The Vietnamese do eat a lot of strange animals and delicacies, like frogs and snakes, which had a lot of lean, dark, and flavorful meat. The Vietnamese really care about Flavor and Texture, since the 2nd guy also made the comment that the Vietnamese prefer to eat food that has a little bit of chew to them. They focus on taste, but not utility and function. They eat what tastes good, but forget to eat what might be actually good for them and their bodies. They don’t seem to have that critical factor of dairy. Dairy is missing in their diet.

They might be eating cow and beef, but those are used sparingly. They eat shrimp, but there is little excess meat in their diet. The Vietnamese seem to traditionally like to eat out a lot, at the local Hole In the Wall, which are very cheap. That means that the food might not have the neccesary composition (vitamins & minerals) to give them to grow to their maximum potential. I mean, how nutritious can a Flying Bat or Snake be in terms of real nutrition?

So then, why is it that the Vietnamese are not consuming much dairy products? 

I don’t know. Maybe the forests of Vietnams have not been cleared out to make room for cows to graze in, unlike say the USA or Canada, which has a lot of available land. I don’t know what is the average native vietnamese person’s diet, and how much milk they were drinking when they were children who were still growing.

So some might ask me, does that mean that eating a lot of dairy like milk and cheese with higher than average calcium levels would make themselves taller? My previous research into this suggested that there is a positive correlation but the correlation is very weak. Even the 1-2 studies which support that positive correlation didn’t explicitly state out right that there was a positive correlation, but implied it.

Of course, I could , playing my own Devil’s Advocate, show that the Mongolians, who have no source of seafood, vegetables, or fruits, and live off of a diet of just meat (mainly sheep and goat) and dozens of derivatives of dairy products don’t seem to be shooting up like redwoods. I don’t hear about too many 7 foot tall Mongolians that are trying to get into the NBA.

Most people who analyze the factors which make up an individual’s height says that genetics has around a 60-80% effect on a person’s height. Traditionally, the idea proposed by geneticists is that if you are born to short parents or into what has been considered a short “ethnicity”, then there is nothing you can do about it especially in terms with changing one’s diet.

However, there has been multiple times in the last half decade where I have seen cultural trends which suggest that maybe diet and environment may play a much bigger role than believed.

I remember one time in a shopping center and two super tall females walked by me. Both of them were carrying 1 gallons of milk in each of their hands. When I commented them on their purchases of so much milk, one of the girls commented that where she is from, their diet strongly emphasizes dairy problems. I would found out after asking where she was from that she and the other girl were from an unknown city in Germany. Of course, I know from experience that not all full blooded German ethnic girls are above average in height or consume a lot of milk. It might have been just one unique case.

What I can’t write off is this phenomena seen in Denmark, the Netherlands and other Northern European nations where the standard of living is so good. We know from observation that it seems that “Asian” people are stereotupically shorter than say the “Average White American”. However, many sociologists point out that the difference in height is due to them being usually 1st generational immigrants. When these immigrants have children in their new country, with a better diet and healthcare system, the 2nd generational kids turn out to be much taller than them.

That is the phenomena seen in the Netherlands and Denmark, when babies are born of immigrant parents from say Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, etc end up MUCH taller than what was expected of them by their parents, who might be a little over 5 feet tall. The change in stature by just 1 single generation is staggering! . I don’t disagree that compared to the 100% in blood Ethnic Dutch, the Turkish Immigrants or say a Filipino immigrant might be much shorter on average. What happens almost always is that the immigrant’s kids turn out to be much taller. The height difference is reduced dramatically.

Sure, there is probably not going to be a way to test this out, with a set of identical twins, one raised in native Turkey or Iran, and the other twin living in Amsterdam, thus a control and the subject. However, I believe that most sociologist would agree with me that it SEEMS LIKE that if you grow up in a different country, your expected adult height changes, often by a lot, and even by a few standard deviations.

That would mean that one’s environment and most definitely the local food has a major influence on the kids’s development.

In fact, there is a phenomena seen in the East Asian community where immigrants who came to the Western countries (USA, Canada, Australia) later in life, say in their 20s almost could not get fat or overweight even if they wanted to and ate a lot, but their 2nd generation Asian Canadian (or Asian American) counterpart found themselves struggling with their weight their whole adult lives. At some point in the phase where the teenager turns into an adult, the body’s metabolism changes and the two groups of people who have the same ethnicity starts to diverge in their body shape, both in height and weight.

It seems like the diet that one eats when one is very young and in development dictates one’s adult metabolism level. I suspect that it has to do with the raising of the IGF-1 level in one’s system, and how well one’s body can produce and use insulin.

On average, I would say that above average in height adults in the USA are more likely to be overweight than average in height people and short people. That means that height and weight are positively correlated, pushing one’s BMI steadily higher over time, (since the factor of height is squared and divided over in the BMI Calculation)

What does this all mean?

It seems that the old stereotype of Asians being short may be explained much more by their traditional diet than previously believed. Based on this old World Health Organization report (Click Here for the PDF), it was shown that the growth pattern was almost exactly the same for all tribes and ethnic groups from around the world. That would suggest that if all ethnic tribes were places in the same environment with the same level of healthcare and had the same diet and eating habits, on average, they would have all the same adult height, accounting for the initial length and weight of the person when they were first born. (Multiple studies showed that people who are born big, grow to be bigger, since they start out initially with much more mass, aka many more chondrocytes which had condensated in their embryological development.)

Maybe the Vietnamese are shorter than average because of the lack of dairy products in their diet. I do believe that diet plays a much bigger role than I had thought a year ago. I did show once that eating the shells from a lot of Shellfish, or Shrimp, or Crayfish (Mini Lobsters), or any type of sea life based creature with a keratin/nail like exoskeleton might help in one’s growth pattern. It turns out that Glucosamine Sulphate, which was one of the biggest discoveries and posts on this website (Refer to that viral post here), is derived from the shells of shrimp and shellfish. Yes, technically Glucosamine Sulphate is a compound that is endogenously produced in the human body, but consuming it helps with making many joints in the body increase in thickness and volume, if ever so slightly.

If I was to say one thing about this point, it is that maybe a large factor for the differences in height in the various “races” and ethnic groups is due to their food choices, particularly the lack of dairy products when they were young.

LSJL Update 9-9-2014 Preliminary Measurements of Hand X-rays

Previously, I posted x-rays of my hands.   I loaded with LSJL clamping the three joints of the right index finger.  The two more distal joints I loaded laterally whereas the more proximal joint I loaded overhead ad the other fingers were in the way. I also loaded the two joints of the thumb.  Michael came to the conclusion that the proximal bone had grown but the two more distal bones had not.  My measurements support this conclusion and I’m going to talk about the ramifications of this as well.  If you can please look at the x-ray post and see if you can validate the measurements.

Previously, at times I was clamping twice a day.  I have since gone to once a day as that was not enough time for the soft tissues to recover and the second clamp tended to be effective.  It was nice having a second chance to clamp if I didn’t feel it was effective but the second daily clamp was always worse than the first.  I just try to make each clamp count and if I don’t feel the clamp is effective I start over.

To measure I used the GIMP software tool.  I used grid lines and made my own using the control key at the absolute top and bottom of each bone.   I used the control key to force a straight line.  Doing the lateral view was harder so there may be more measurement error there.

Even though measurements are in inches they are not representative of my actual hand as the x-ray images are not as big as my hand.
Overhead view:
Right distal phalanx-0.53in

Right middle phalanx 0.78in

Right proximal phalanx-1.36in

left distal phalanx-0.52 in

left middle phalanx-0.79 in

left proximal phalanx-1.34in

Lateral View

Right distal phalanx-0.67in

right middle phalanx-1.00in

right proximal phalanx-1.66in

Left distal phalanx-0.67in

left middle phalanx-1.00in

left proximal phalanx-1.61in

Since there is more measurement error with the lateral view.  We’ll rely only on the overhead view.  That’s an increase of 1.5% in finger length.  A commentator named Alex got a lot smaller percentage increase but was not available to follow up.  To give you an idea a 1.5% increase at 72 inches of height gives you an additional inch of height.    I believed that all three bones had grown.  But perhaps it was just the ganglion cysts giving the illusion of growth.

Thumb

Right distal-0.67in

Right proximal-1.06in

Left distal-0.66in

Left proximal-1.10in

Again, only the proximal bone had grown(I loaded the left thumb with LSJL and the right was unloaded).

Why this could be.  Well:

One possibility is that the the joint at the proximal end of the proximal phalanx is more mobile.  For example try pulling your finger like so:

pulling your fingerYou can create quite a lot of separation in the joint.  Same with the wrist which is a part of my arms which have also grown(from about 72.5-74.4″).  I’m not sure what the cause is for the wingspan increase but the mobility of that wrist joint may be a key.

We need to learn more about the properties of these joints and what other joints of the body are of this type.  This is just a theory but it would explain why only the proximal joint has grown.

Evidence that foot length may increase after epiphyseal fusion

If the feet bones can increase in length after epiphyseal fusion perhaps we can use the mechanisms which increase foot length on the long bones.

Gender and age related differences in foot morphology

“Anatomical parameters such as foot length, circumference and height and ankle length, circumference and height were assessed in a sample of males and females divided into three age groups. The groups included young-adult, aged between 20 and 25 years; adult, aged between 35 and 55 years; and old, aged between 65 and 70 years individuals.”

“Comparative analysis of morphometric data between young-adult and adult individuals revealed that the instep length was smaller in adults. The opposite was observed for the great toe and medial foot arch height. Length of ankle was higher in adult than in young-adult individuals, whereas ankle circumference and height were smaller.”<-I don’t know what conclusions to possibly draw from this but there could be something to gather here.

“From a topographic anatomy point of view, foot is in general divided into three parts, namely forefoot, midfoot and hindfoot. The forefoot includes the five toes (phalanges) and the five longer bones (metatarsals). The midfoot represents a pyramid-like association of bones (cuneiform, cuboid and navicular bones) forming the arches of the feet. The hindfoot includes the heel (calcaneus) and the ankle. The heel bone is the largest bone of the foot, whereas the talus bone supports the leg bones (tibia and fibula), forming the ankle”

The elderly is reported to have flatter, longer, and wider feet than younger adults“<-Taken from Age-related differences in foot structure and function.  Although I could not find the information that elderly feet tended to be longer from that study.  They state in regards to this study “Other investigations enlarging their analysis to old people aged 80.2 ± 5.7 years noticed in the elderly group compared with a younger one of the mean age of 20.6 ± 2.6 years flatter, longer, and wider feet than younger adults”

The other citation they use for this is: Foot Health and Shoewear for Women.  And I can’t find anything compelling here other than a statement that a woman’s foot grows larger with age.

“The foot length was measured between the extreme point of heel (foot end) and the extreme point of the longest toe (either first or second toe).”

“The ankle height was considered as the distance between the heel of foot and the line right above the medial malleolus.”

Average foot length of age 35-55 was 269.2 cm and 261.7cm for age 20-25 cm male group.  Foot length was similarly longer for the female middle age versus young adults group.  In males age 65-70 Foot Length was 264.4 cm which is a decrease for middle age but the female group continued to increase in foot length.

So we can’t really conclude that foot length continues to grow with age but this indicates that it may be possible that the feet do grow.

Update 17 – Cartilage Degeneration Disorders – September 1st, 2014

Update 17 – Cartilage Degeneration Disorders – September 1st, 2014

First Issue

In the last month or so I have found out that certain close friends and family members, who are still extremely young, have already started to suffer from severe articular cartilage degeneration. It seems that the phenomena of cartilage degeneration is a much, MUCH more prevalent medical condition than I would have thought.

That is why I am going to put much more focus, effort, and energy on also figuring out how to possibly repair articular cartilage damage than before. I am not saying that I am going to figure out the next best thing to treat osteo-arthritis or tissue inflammation but I understand that what I have been researching non-stop for the last 2 year can be very helpful in my own personal life, and to the people around me who I care about.

This desire to help people become taller and gain height even after skeletal maturity will always be there, with a focus on the scientific research. I also now understand that what I have uncovered can also be used to treat much more severe medical conditions.

If I have the chance to help someone out with a medical condition with the deep insight that I gained from thousands of hours of reading, then I would do that.

Second Issue

Most of the people who have regularly visited the website might have noticed that over time, it has slowly changed in form, and become more technical. Some of it might get harder to understand and read. That is something that I knew would happen. The level of medical understanding needs to improve over time (as well as the quality of writing).

With a much more sophisticated understanding of the overall human body, I would finally be able to understand the research that the world’s top experts are working on. If I can, I want to synthesize the results that they have found to discover something completely new.

A recent search on Google lead me to this question posed in the USMLE Step 1 Exam and it showed me that there is still much more I need to learn and understand before I can ever make a clear and logical argument on our theories before any professional orthopedic specialist.
Embryonic Chondrogenesis

It seems that my understanding of at least the process of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Condensation during embryogenesis to form the Chondrocytes is still lacking on how the protein signal pathways work.

I asked the question later whether the chemical compound Dibutyryl cAMP can be used as a way to get the MSCs in our own blood marrow to go directly into the chondrogenic lineage like they seem to do during the embryogenic process. It would turn out that I was wrong about this issue. Dibutyryl cAMP is a very unique compound which is only expressed/found in chondrocytes. It seems to be a type of chemical indicator used by researchers to check to make sure that what a cell differentiated into is indeed actually chondrocytes.

Do Shorter Men Or Taller Men Make Better Husbands?

Do Shorter Men Or Taller Men Make Better Husbands?

Shorter Men(Picture to the right is taken from here.)

This subject seems to have developed recently due to the fact that two article recently came out which referenced a study and they gave almost exactly the opposite, contradicting information and viewpoint.

The people at the reddit/r/short sub threads were upset that there didn’t seem to be a really clear answer. They referenced this problem Here. Well, it turns out the article “Short Men Make Better Boyfriends and Husbands” was WRONG. The writer of that article interpreted the discussion section incorrectly. The two articles which have gone viral seem to contradict their points, and one of them is indeed wrong.

Refer to the study available here. Note that it is not a hundred page Masters or Ph.D Thesis but just a 20 page working paper which is not fully finished.

Here is what the paper actually says, after I took a look at the discussion section. I will outline each point that the authors were trying to make, very clearly.

Point #1 – The qualities of short, average, and tall men’s spouses are not the same.

Point #2 – The taller men are more likely to mate with a women who finished high school than the shorter men. (Personally, this doesn’t say a lot). The author then takes this data and give her own interpretation of it, which she thinks means that the “better educated” females are willing to mate with the taller guys by sort of doing a type of value exchange. (Personally, I don’t think being able to graduate from high school should be considered “better educated”)

Point #3 – The the tallest men appear to be more likely to couple with older women, while shorter men most of the time couple with younger women. – (The author interprets this to suggest that a taller guy would look older relative to the shorter guy, so that older women thinks he is more to their age)

Point #4 – Since it was found that shorter men seem to couple with younger women more often than not, it causes and/or contributes to the fact that those relationships where there is a shorter guy, the relationship is more traditional, where the guy is the breadwinner.

As the author explains… ” This further underscores how height, and more generally men’s
attractiveness, affects other types of status exchange and indirectly contributes to the exchange of resources within a union

My Interpretation: It seems to mean that when the guy is lacking in height (which is a attribute most humans value) , he needs to use a another way to signify that he has value and he can give some type of value towards the relationship/union/coupling.

Point #5 – Shorter men are more likely to end up in relationships where they are shorter or at the same height as their partner (Duh!!! No shit sherlock). The relationships are rare, being only about 9% of the relationships.

Point #6 – By choosing a more traditional type of relationship where the man makes much more money than the women and does less housework, “…it allows short men to enact traditional gender ideals,  thereby performing their masculinity in the absence of expected anthropomorphic differences

Point #7 – Shorter men tend to be in more stable relationships than average and tall men.

Point #8 – Shorter men marry at lower rates and get married later in life (aka get into the relationship later than their taller counterparts)

Point #9 – The reason why shorter men get married later is because “...is reflective of a selection process in which some women opt out of a marriage with short men before it begins” – (Aka they get rejected by women much more in the get go. It takes the shorter men much longer for them to find a women who accepts them as a suitable marriage partner.)

Conclusions

So is the taller or shorter men better husbands?

The shorter men do get married later in life, but the long term relationships (aka marriages) that they do get into are much more stable. That is because they seem to specifically look to get into relationships where they are the one who earns the main amount of money in the household, thus a sort of traditional type of relationship. However, that also means that taller men do more housework than shorter men. It might suggest that taller men don’t mind switching the roles, and take a more non-traditional role.

It just comes down to the word “better”. If a better husband is one who does more housework, then it would be the taller one. If being a better husband means taking a bigger role in making the money for the household, then it would be the shorter ones. What I am certain is that the shorter men probably more often than not put much more commitment, energy and effort into a relationship than the taller counterparts. Even if they are NOT as likely be willing to help out around the house as their taller counterparts, they are putting their energy into making money for the house.

The fact is that as long as you make enough money, you can afford to hire a maid & nanny to do all that house work for you. You just have to focus on making money for cash flow.

So it is just a sort of insecurity issue, where taller men don’t feel particularly insecure about their position in the relationship or being thought of as being too feminine for being willing to do more housework and take care of the kids?

I don’t know. However, That would definitely explain why in the Northern European aka Scandanavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway , which are very egalitarian, the men are now becoming more like stay-at-home-dads. That phenomena has been well documented and even shown on an episode of the TV Show Welcome to Sweden, which was talked about on the reddit/r/tall sub threads, which is quite interesting. 

So here is everything wrapped up…

Main Thesis: Relatively speaking, when comparing the overall percentages of couplings/relationships, the taller men actually do more housework at home than the shorter men, because shorter men tend to choose women who are younger than them (than the taller men) and look to get into the more traditional/non-egalitarian type of relationship, as a way to compensate for their lack of anthropometric value, which sort of suggests that the short guy’s way of expressing his masculinity is by being the breadwinner and giving financial value.

That is what the study actually says. It is NOT my personal thoughts, but the exact meaning of what the author says.

Epilogue

I don’t know for sure whether it is absolutely true that shorter men at some unconscious level is trying to compensate for their lack of value from body size by looking for women who are younger and want to get into that traditional relationship to maybe prove their masculinity by making more money relatively than the women.

The truth is that we could flip the entire thesis around and still be able to come with a half-assed reasonable explanation (aka justification and rationalization) why taller men get into more stable relationships and shorter men do more household work.

That PDF that someone else linked to is for the Sociology Department at NYU. Sociology maybe be categorized as a type of social science, but it is not true “hard” science, where everything is measured and there is a true logic to everything.

The social sciences (which I call the “soft” sciences) are looking at human behavior and how cultures behave, and as we all know, the study of human behavior is not an exact science. Humans are not completely logical computer programs or robots. We are irrational, and no economist or economical theory will ever be able to explain the dozens, maybe even hundreds of psychological factors, desires, needs, beliefs, and values that we have. Traditionally the entire study of economics was based on one fundamental principal, which is that humans will always act accordingly and rationally based on their individual selfish needs and desires. That was proven wrong, since sometimes we do things that go against that principle. We are irrational, and our actions can not be predicted 100% of the time, although some theories developed can predict what the majority of the people will do for the majority of the time.

We are a truly very complex species, with often contradictory emotions and thoughts going on in our heads. We will say one thing and do another thing. We can be the most kind of people but also turn into savages with a simple nudge.

(Side Thoughts: It is said that India is supposed to be the land of contradictions, but people also say that about China too. Then there are people who say that Japan is a land of contradictions. Others say that about Dubai of the UAE. So which country is not a country of contradictions? – When economists describe these two billion plus countries, both of the countries are described the same way, by saying that the nation is one of contradictions. They want to push towards the future and make progress and growth, but you also want to preserve the old traditions and values. If one writer says that “India is a land of contradictions” and another writer says that  “China is a land of contradictions” and another writer says that “Japan is a nation of contradictions“, and another says that “Dubai is a city of contradictions” then you realize that there is not going to be some simple and easy rule to label any group of people, especially the countries with over a billion people. We are all living in the gray area, where we can’t be defined through the prism of black and white, 1s and 0s.)

There is too much room for interpretation and re-interpretation, even when there is hard numbers and data analysis using trend lines and monte carlo statistical simulations. When we try to make our interpretation of data gathers from polls, surveys, anecdotal stories, individual personal experiences, unique references, etc. aka the entire gammit of human behavior, we often are not completely objective and throw our own biases into it.

For almost the exact same conclusion I just reached, refer to the Huffington Post article “New Study Reveals Interesting Link Between Men’s Height And Divorce