Women Are Evolving To Be Shorter, Fatter And Healthier
Posted by: Nikki Dowling
Filed in:
news
4:30PM, Thursday October 22nd 2009
Often when people find out how short I am, they say, “Only a few inches away from being a midget.” Hardy, har, har. Instead of thinking about mashing their face with a fork, I can take solace in the fact that we short girls are more evolutionarily advanced than our tall counterparts. Although tall women are fantabulous, a new study claims that human beings are continuing to evolve and that women of the future will be shorter and heavier, with lower cholesterol and blood pressure. But why?
Short, heavy, healthy women tend to have more babies. This is super interesting because it’s usually the tall, thin gals that we think of as being in demand. But that’s a story for another day. So, anyways, when these women have babies, they pass their short and stout genes on. Scientists think in the future the average woman will have kids five months earlier, go through menopause 10 months later and be two centimeters shorter.
While this doesn’t change the fact that it is nearly impossible for me to find jeans that fit, at least I have a good comeback for those height bullies. [Daily Mail UK]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Lynn
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 04:40 pm: [report]
Hmm interesting. But for the past thousand years haven’t people been growing taller?
AnitaBath
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]
Yeah, I don’t know how accurate this is. I’m pretty sure even just a couple hundred years ago the average woman was about five foot, which is about six inches shorter than today’s average. It doesn’t really sound like people are getting shorter to me…
Embalmerbee
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 07:52 pm: [report]
Well, at 5’ 4” and a size 16-18, I guess I’m an overachiever….
My work is done!
canadiancutie
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 07:57 pm: [report]
Lynn, I was thinking the same thing. Even in Asia, people have been getting taller in accordance with more nutrition (read: people get fatter, and grow upwards as well. That’s what food does to ya). Scientists already proved THAT a long time ago.
Taurwen
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 08:14 pm: [report]
You’d be surprised what “Scientists” have proven wrong in the past.
My understanding of these findings (although I could be wrong) is that it’s a) only the height of women that’s diminishing, and b) it’s more like, growth has slowed down than actually reversed. People aren’t getting taller at the rate we thought they would given what was “proven” in the past.
bumbler
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 08:40 pm: [report]
Boo I’m a dinosaur.
loveitlala
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 09:13 pm: [report]
I work in a labor and delivery floor and this is right on. Short fat women have babies… and I am also located near the Southern border if you catch my drift.
Kurkuma
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 12:40 am: [report]
Maybe this is more connected to the society we live in? I DO see more stout women carrying babies than tall, rank women. Maybe tall women tend to concentrate on carreer rather than on having babies. Maybe this is because a lot of tall women are treated a bit less like a mum to be even in childhood?
Secret Story Time
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:41 am: [report]
I don’t believe it, but I do believe men don’t care how tall we are, as long as they get to ride us!
Secretia
moonblossom
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:58 am: [report]
I’m tall - 5’9 and my sister is 5’10. And we cannot find pants ANYWHERE. So, rest assured, its not just you short ladies running around in ill-fitted pants. Its us too.
Tetrine
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 05:48 am: [report]
@moonblossom—I’m 5’9” and all legs, I feel your pain!!!! Try Victoria Secret for their awesome 36” inseam dress pants and jeans.
wild-ting
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 06:18 am: [report]
Hmmm. I’m a skeptic. The father’s genes will affect the outcome of the child too. So all those baby-making shorties may not make shorties.
Side note: The other night I went to a bar to hear a fave band and I was by far the tallest woman there. I am only 5’6.25”. It was kinda of freaky how short and/or petite the women were (age range 21 - 50). Not one was over 5’3”. The guys were vertically challenged as well (except To Tall Mike the bartender, and one band member). Most men were my height up to about 5’9”. I’ve never been surrounded by so many short people.
Now I know how Jenna Elfman feels in Hollywood *rolled eyes*
(I always wanted to be 5’10” or taller. I’m the shorty in my family.)
develange
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 06:37 am: [report]
I thought humans already went through the short, heavier phase. Not very original, evolution.
hlnbabe
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 07:45 am: [report]
this is an interesting study.
my grandmother is 6 foot and had 5 children. my mother is 6 foot and had three children (my sister beat the pill! so she’s seem pretty darn fertile). my sister and i are 5’10 and 6’1” respectively, both planning on lots of children.
people may “be getting shorter”, but definitely not from my family tree.
sirenis
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 08:34 am: [report]
I’m sorry to have to break this to you, but in primates where there is a large difference between the size of males and females it’s usually because the males are promiscuous and the females monogamous.
Perceptible
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 09:59 am: [report]
Wait. Nikki, what would your comeback be? That you’re more evolved? Because shorter women have more babies? Statistically speaking, Latino women have more babies than white women, so using that logic, Latino women are more evolved. This sounds like a very weak, poorly put-together study if you ask me.
aquamarine
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]
The daily mail article is ridiculous. It quotes ‘a study’, but doesn’t link to it or show any citations.
Having healthy babies has more to do with hip width than with height, and with proper nutrition rather than overall weight. Like all the women in my incredibly fertile family, I am tall and thin, with big hips.
Obviously women with more nutrient reserves (ie heavier women) are going to be able to better provide for developing babies than malnourished women; however, once a certain threshold of nutrition and body fat has been passed; when menstruation is regular, and when pelvic structure is sufficiently set up for pregnancy and delivery, I doubt there is much difference in fertility within a wide range of heights and weights. Just like being too thin can stop your periods, being too fat can stop periods too.
In today’s age of accessible birth control, having more children does NOT equal fertility. It just means you’re using birth control less.
Lynn
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 12:06 pm: [report]
@wild-ting - the same thing happened to me! I was at a bar, so I know/assume everyone was over 21, but at 5’6.5” I was the tallest girl there, and taller than most of the guys. I stood in back of the crowd and saw the band perfectly. I did have heels on but so did plenty of the other women so I don’t think that had anything to do with it…
bogart4017
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 12:16 pm: [report]
As long as they can still make love i’m all for it
canadiancutie
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 09:49 pm: [report]
aquamarine, you’re dead on. Studies show, again and again, that she with the widest hips wins, whether that be in terms of fertility, or intelligence: http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://worldfrontpage.com/waist-hip_ratio/waist-hip_xray.jpg&imgrefurl=http://worldfrontpage.com/waist-hip_ratio_and_IQ&usg=__pIpbScB2OFFF—SfZFwYSU2rNLs=&h=350&w=420&sz=44&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=0Ww0oXiMJbi5-M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=125&prev;=/images?q=hip+to+waist+ratio&hl=en&sa=N&um=1
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://worldfrontpage.com/waist-hip_ratio/waist-hip_ratio.jpg&imgrefurl=http://worldfrontpage.com/waist-hip_ratio/&usg=__j2GORlUVbiLBhaRXeAsmwn1CJzI=&h=350&w=420&sz=36&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=0LA5WOgQLCws1M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=125&prev;=/images?q=hip+to+waist+ratio&hl=en&sa=N&um=1
Women were meant to carry their weight in a pear-shaped fashion. Those who have narrow hips are, from a genetic standpoint, yeah… they’re built in an inferior way.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 10:02 pm: [report]
OK, that link didn’t work so here goes again: http://worldfrontpage.com/waist-hip_ratio/
Black Iris
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]
Well, speaking as a short, Rubenesque woman here. We’re all taller because we have enough to eat. That doesn’t mean our genes have changed. So maybe we’re at the limit of how tall we can get.
Maybe short women have more kids because we’re more likely to find a mate. Or maybe it’s easier for us to put on enough weight to be fertile. Or maybe we’re short because our hormones kicked in and we started our periods earlier and stopped growing.
The stout thing may be silly though. Women who have more kids put on more weight. It doesn’t all come off for most women. So I think they could have gotten that one backwards.
geekmother
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 03:24 pm: [report]
Total bullsh*t. I’m 6’0” tall and have three children. And although finding clothes is difficult, attracting men isn’t. And gaining enough weight for pregnancy wasn’t a problem (55 pounds), and neither was losing it. And not all tall women are sticks either. Some of us are tall and shapely, with wide hips, full bosoms, and smaller waists. The classic hourglass.
writergirl
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 03:57 pm: [report]
I am 5’6” with wide hips and a tiny waist. My doctor told me I was a “baby breeding machine.” It’s just too bad the internal equipment didn’t function correctly.
That being said…I don’t see women getting shorter and heavier. That doesn’t seem to make sense—it goes against all evolutionary theories, doesn’t it?
DancingGeek
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 04:04 pm: [report]
@ moonblossom, Limited and Victoria’s secret have long lengths, that’s where I get all my pants- look for sales, because they can be pricy- VS Christie fit- totally worth it- they make your bum look awesome.
retro chic
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 05:05 pm: [report]
It only makes sense that this yet one more in the evolution of these “theories,” or rather, the devolution of them.
sailor_girl
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 05:51 pm: [report]
I guess the getting shorter with each generation makes sense to me. My mother is 6’4” (My father 6’5”) I’m 6’3’’ and my little sister is only 5’10”. We’re both (well I am) still freakishly tall but shorter than our mom. I still hope that if I have daughters that they are tall. Btw American Eagle has X-long (around 38”) inseams now. I bought a few pairs online recently and they are very reasonably priced there is also a large selection. They even have long sweatpants.
NaomiK
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 11:23 pm: [report]
I can’t remember if it was NPR or some other news source, but statistically Americans are actually getting shorter. It has to do with how we eat… fast food, processed food etc. I have noticed that not many women are taller than me (I’m 5’3”). It always weirds me out because I’ve always felt really short in general. My mom is 5’7”, my brother is over 6’, my best (female) friend for the past 5 or so years is 5’9”. I always seem to friend tall people…
Read_Thru
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 08:55 am: [report]
Hi. I just registered so i can comment real quick. I think the author was referring to this research or another one that had arrived at a similar conclusion.
One of the quirks that would affect human evolution would be the fact that sexual attraction or even sex doesn’t necessarily lead to reproduction. This is interesting to know though.
River
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 09:22 am: [report]
Here’s some food for thought: here’s the link to the study which collected the data that the study in question utilized. Anyone from Massachusetts is probably aware of this study (it comes up every once in a while on the news, if your mom/grandma wasn’t already a part of it).
Framingham, MA is located around 20 miles outside of Boston. Much of the population around the area is solidly middle class, college educated, and professional (at least now it is, although I question what it was like in 1948 when the first generation was sampled). I would also guess that a fair amount of the participants were white Caucasians (there was a follow-up component to the original study that better represented the current racial diversity of the city). Just some things to think about for future postings.
http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/
BTW- If you’re having trouble finding affordable jeans for your height, check out Delia’s (if you don’t have one near you, look them up online). The jeans are actually really good quality and come in a 30”, 28”, and even 26” inseam—and for you tall girls out there, they carry 34” and 36” too.
NaomiK
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 06:38 pm: [report]
It’s not the inseam I have trouble with, I’m good with a 31” or so inseam it’s the rise. It doesn’t matter if the legs are short enough if the “low rise” waist comes up to your tits.
ariscari
wrote on October 27 2009 @ 10:35 am: [report]
This just seems like a good way to start the never ending feud about women’s body types. It will always be a sensitive subject for us women. I’m short and maybe not fat, but not thin. What matters is that I’m healthy and happy with myself. Why should I have to justify the way I look with some bogus research?
feinicstine
wrote on October 27 2009 @ 03:47 pm: [report]
I’m sorry but this is just totally wrong. We’re not “evolving” to be fatter and shorter (if you can even call 2 centimeters a change worth noting). Anyway, back to the point. We didn’t evolve to eat the stuff we do now. The “obesity epidemic” in America is only within the past 1 or 2 generations. That’s not even close to enough time for any sort of evolutionary shift to happen. Generally, people eat horrible, over processed, nutritionally worthless food. So, they get fat and they don’t grow as tall. Since there are more people in America willing to eat that diet and accept it as normal than there are people paying attention to what goes in their mouths, then there will logically be more short, heavy people in the country and therefore more short, heavy people having babies. Those parents will then pass those lifestyles on to their children. Sure, in the long run this could cause a real change in our make up, but for now it all happened too fast to be blamed on evolution. If you absolutely cannot get past the evolutionary stand point, then call it was it is: cultural evolution, not biological.
Shosanna
wrote on October 28 2009 @ 02:01 pm: [report]
FYI, the average height for women is 5’4” which is much shorter than I’m sure most people would guess. I don’t know what the average was hundreds of years ago, but that’s what it is now.
NaomiK
wrote on October 28 2009 @ 03:20 pm: [report]
It’s too bad clothing manufacturers seem to think that average height is somewhere around 5’7” and 5’4” is “petite”. I can’t remember which store it was, but I was looking at pants sizes and a size 14 was made for someone who was 5’8”. I’d have to get down to a 2 before I could by pants there that were made for someone my height (5’3”). I hate my genes :( I want a thyroid that functions properly.
AnitaBath
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 10:35 am: [report]
I thought that, for most stores (at least the one I work at), the standard inseam is about 31’. I’m about 5’8”, so I look kind of weird if I try to wear a 31’ inseam. Petite has a 28’ inseam, but at least we offer the option of being able to order many different inseams online
NaomiK
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:58 pm: [report]
It wasn’t just the inseam, but how the pants were constructed in general, like how high/long the rise of the pants was, where the knees hit, etc. I wish I could remember the store name… At the Gap the standard inseam is 33”. My problem is, is that I need a 30” inseam but pants with the rise constructed for a petite person.
AnitaBath
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 04:31 pm: [report]
Yeah, that does seem like it would be difficult to find. Where I work, our petite is about an inch or two shorter in the rise and you can order the inseam up to a 30’. It seems like you would have to do most of your pants shopping via the internet, which can be quite intimidating (I get so many customers that outright refuse to order anything, even if they’re able to try it on in the store and just want to order it in a different color).
stiffinp
wrote on October 30 2009 @ 06:57 pm: [report]
Short, heavy, healthy women tend to have more babies.
Well if Darwin is right, the tall, thin girls will be eventually breeded out of existence.
Than again CC is right that in Asia, the people are getting taller with better nutrition. Of course with a MickyD on every corner, their “better” nutrition is questionable.
So whos right???