PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the Scottish are shorter than the English ?



Emilio Delfin Vang B
01-10-2019, 10:03 PM
i have seen a lot of Scottish and I think that they are shorter for example if you sort the British phenotypes for example ( Anglo-Saxon, Mediterranean and Scottish ) perhaps the Scottish is shorter

JerryS.
01-10-2019, 10:59 PM
i have seen a lot of Scottish and I think that they are shorter for example if you sort the British phenotypes for example ( Anglo-Saxon, Mediterranean and Scottish ) perhaps the Scottish is shorter

what? LOL!

jdean
01-10-2019, 11:36 PM
Depends on which ones you're talking about, are you referring to the short ones or the tall ones ?

Oh and they're generally referred to as Scots : )

morganman3
01-11-2019, 12:12 AM
How accurate is this map?
28275

JerryS.
01-11-2019, 12:18 AM
How accurate is this map?
28275

only when you use skull measurements for ethnicity and intelligence like they do in Siam and Prussia.

FionnSneachta
01-11-2019, 01:02 AM
According to Wikipedia, there's no difference between the average man in Scotland and England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

Garvan
01-11-2019, 01:56 AM
How accurate is this map?
28275

The map is 150 years old and is of historical relevance only in that it reflects the nutritional status of rural poor at that time. They have good data sets from British army recruits. It is interesting that the poorest areas of Ireland are the tallest in Ireland, but that was well known at the time. It is speculated that this is because they were drinking milk.

Nqp15hhu
01-11-2019, 02:35 AM
Only really noticed the Englishís darker skin colour.

Nqp15hhu
01-11-2019, 02:36 AM
According to Wikipedia, there's no difference between the average man in Scotland and England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

There is with skin colour. Native English can tan quite easily.

Only those with Irish heritage stay white.

FionnSneachta
01-11-2019, 01:34 PM
There is with skin colour. Native English can tan quite easily.

Only those with Irish heritage stay white.

I don't know about that. My mum and I don't tan but my brother and dad tan easily when there's sun. My brother and dad are as Irish as I am. My dad has a permanent tan from working outdoors. I know people who have black hair and a natural ever-present tan. I also know people who tan easily. Any time there's a bit of sunshine during the summer they'll be out sun bathing getting a tan but it would be a waste of time if I did it. They'll always return from their sun holidays with a tan. I remember in school, one of the girls who has always been tanned was approached by a Pakistani man who thought she was from Pakistan. As far as I know, she's as Irish as me with an Irish surname and both her parents are Irish. You can't really make assumptions with phenotype.

I think height, like a lot of things, is due to an interplay between genetics and environment. I have tall relatives and those that are average in height or a bit below it. My mum and I are about 5'4'' while my dad's about 5'8'' and my brother's 5'11''. Looking at old photographs on my dad's side, some relatives were tall including the women (a 2x great aunt was 5'9'' and her sister 5'7'') and I doubt that it's because they were more well fed. They were farmers so they would have had milk all right so that's possibly a reason for their height. My maternal grandmother was tall (about 5'10'' while her husband was about 5'6'') and there are lots of tall people on that side of the family. Cousins descended from her are a family of ten and they had enough to get by but not many luxuries so they weren't overfed anyway. They're all really tall including the girls who are about 5'8''. I have a cousin descended from my grandmother's sister and she's about 6'. She's getting married to a man who's 6'7'' so they're bound to have some really tall children!

Anyway, I don't think there's any significant difference between the average heights of people within Britain and Ireland.

Nqp15hhu
01-11-2019, 02:02 PM
Well iím basing it on personal experience and the reality of living in Southern England for 4 years.

They are definitely more of an olive skin complexion compared to the pale white Native Irish.

That is a well known fact.

You definitely can make assumptions based on life experience. The Irish donít tan that well and are for the most part, pale white.

You only have to look at the Irish Parliament to see that.

FionnSneachta
01-11-2019, 02:37 PM
Well i’m basing it on personal experience and the reality of living in Southern England for 4 years.

They are definitely more of an olive skin complexion compared to the pale white Native Irish.

That is a well known fact.

You definitely can make assumptions based on life experience. The Irish don’t tan that well and are for the most part, pale white.

You only have to look at the Irish Parliament to see that.

Yes, generally speaking Irish people are pale but it's hardly correct to say that 'only those with Irish heritage stay white'. To me, that sort of implies that any Irish person who tans, doesn't have Irish heritage. There is variation between everyone within every community. Colin Farrell would be an example of an Irish person that has a darker complexion and features than what's considered typical. If you look at the MPs in the Parliament of the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_2017_United_Kingdom_gen eral_election), unless they're known to have ancestry from somewhere else (such as Leo Varadkar in the case of Ireland), they look pretty pale to me too. This is a bit off topic though. The poster was asking about height differences between Scotland and England. There was no mention of skin colour or Ireland for that matter. The Irish are probably a bit lighter in skin tone than the English overall though.

Webb
01-11-2019, 03:30 PM
28282

This photo shows my grandfather, top row far left, and his siblings. As you can see the bottom three are redheads of varying type. The top four are brunettes. The two, my great uncle and great aunt, to the right on the top row are also very dark complexioned compared to even my grandfather and his other brother in the middle.

moesan
01-16-2019, 10:36 PM
Height maps are always a mess, because they rarely take comparable samples. (Some "scientists" of this old times made sometimes states based upon migrants people, not in their country of origin!
If I recall well, the 1m78 SW Scots before 1900's were recrues (soldiers), higher statured that the mean population they come from. It had been noticed. In the 1950's the supposed mean stature in UK was 1m71 or more for English people, 1m705 for Wales and Scotland - with regional and social differences as always; but stature depends not only on food, it depends too on physical activity with opposite effects according to excess or good equilibrium or lack, different ancient ethnic origins reinforcing social or professional classes. A very unsteady ground.

msmarjoribanks
01-17-2019, 04:20 AM
Well i’m basing it on personal experience and the reality of living in Southern England for 4 years.

They are definitely more of an olive skin complexion compared to the pale white Native Irish.

That is a well known fact.

You definitely can make assumptions based on life experience. The Irish don’t tan that well and are for the most part, pale white.

You only have to look at the Irish Parliament to see that.

Just depends.

In my family my dad has dark hair, light blue eyes, ruddy skin, and reacts poorly to sun. (Maybe his Welsh heritage, maybe not. He's more English, and not really Irish at all.)

My mom had brown hair, green eyes, more olive skin, tanned well, some Irish on paper, also English, Swedish, German.

My sister is blonde, blue-eyed, has always tanned easily. (yes, we hate her -- kidding.) ;-)

I have brown hair, green eyes, fair skin, and can't tan, burn easily.

morganman3
01-17-2019, 04:54 AM
Well i’m basing it on personal experience and the reality of living in Southern England for 4 years.

They are definitely more of an olive skin complexion compared to the pale white Native Irish.

That is a well known fact.

You definitely can make assumptions based on life experience. The Irish don’t tan that well and are for the most part, pale white.

You only have to look at the Irish Parliament to see that.

You speak as if it isn't nearly impossible to tell if someone is English or Irish without knowing.

Nqp15hhu
01-17-2019, 07:44 AM
It's fairly easy to be honest.

Eterne
01-17-2019, 09:38 AM
There was some genetic stuff last year using the massive dataset 200,000 strong UK Biobank and finding that the cline of ancestry from Southern England to Scotland and Northern Ireland reflected a tendency of slightly reducing height (SE England taller than Celtic groups, and so less Northern European ancestry, within the British Isles, with shorter height), but no more than 1 or 2 cm. I'll see if I can dig it out later and post it up.

Jessie
01-17-2019, 12:16 PM
There was some genetic stuff last year using the massive dataset 200,000 strong UK Biobank and finding that the cline of ancestry from Southern England to Scotland and Northern Ireland reflected a tendency of slightly reducing height (SE England taller than Celtic groups, and so less Northern European ancestry, within the British Isles, with shorter height), but no more than 1 or 2 cm. I'll see if I can dig it out later and post it up.

I doubt it has anything to do with less Northern European ancestry. All those groups are Northern European but SE English might be a bit more southern as per Reich.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587

Anyway different studies must show different things because the study below found Irish and Scots slightly taller than the English.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1570677X14000665-gr1.jpg

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X14000665

Dorkymon
01-17-2019, 12:22 PM
It's literally all a matter of nutrition. That's why Asians raised in the West are usually taller than those at home.

Trelvern
01-17-2019, 12:38 PM
I doubt it has anything to do with less Northern European ancestry. All those groups are Northern European but SE English might be a bit more southern as per Reich.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587

Anyway different studies must show different things because the study below found Irish and Scots slightly taller than the English.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1570677X14000665-gr1.jpg

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X14000665

may be some scandinavian influence in Scotland and Ireland?
I have some nMonte results for you which connect you to icelandic and norwegians ,swedish too(new Dorkymon thread )

Nqp15hhu
01-17-2019, 05:10 PM
I doubt it has anything to do with less Northern European ancestry. All those groups are Northern European but SE English might be a bit more southern as per Reich.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587

Anyway different studies must show different things because the study below found Irish and Scots slightly taller than the English.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1570677X14000665-gr1.jpg

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X14000665

The average man in Northern Ireland is 5 foot 11, really?

homunculus
01-17-2019, 06:44 PM
may be some scandinavian influence in Scotland and Ireland?

I'd imagine it being due to more steppe ancestry among the gaelic areas compared to the southeast as far as I understood. Tends to correlate at least slightly with male height.

Eterne
01-17-2019, 07:55 PM
OK, so papers:

1. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/06/28/357483 - "Quantification of genetic components of population differentiation in UK Biobank traits reveals signals of polygenic selection"

Abstract: "We analyzed 43 UK Biobank traits and focused on PC1 and North-South and East-West birth coordinates across 337K unrelated British-ancestry samples, for which our method produced close to unbiased estimates of genetic components of population differentiation and high power to detect polygenic selection in simulations across different trait architectures. For PC1, we identified signals of polygenic selection for height (74.5+-16.7% of 9.3% total correlation with PC1 attributable to genome-wide genetic effects; P = 8.4x10-6) and red hair pigmentation (95.9+-24.7% of total correlation with PC1 attributable to genome-wide genetic effects; P = 1.1x10-4); the bulk of the signal remained when removing genome-wide significant loci, even though red hair pigmentation includes loci of large effect."

Specifically:

We analyzed 43 UK Biobank traits and focused on PC1 and North-South and East-West birth coordinates across 337K unrelated British-ancestry samples, for which our method produced close to unbiased estimates of genetic components of population differentiation and high power to detect polygenic selection in simulations across different trait architectures.

For PC1, we identified signals of polygenic selection for height (74.5+-16.7% of 9.3% total correlation with PC1 attributable to genome-wide genetic effects; P = 8.4x10-6) and red hair pigmentation (95.9+-24.7% of total correlation with PC1 attributable to genome-wide genetic effects; P = 1.1x10-4); the bulk of the signal remained when removing genome-wide significant loci, even though red hair pigmentation includes loci of large effect.

Results are displayed in Figure 2 and Table S11. We identified two traits with statistically significant %G for PC1 (p<0.05/67=7.5◊10-4), implicating polygenic selection: height and red hair pigmentation. For height (ΔY=0.093; individuals with ancestry from southern England are taller on average than individuals with ancestry from Northern Ireland), our estimate of %G was 74.5% (s.e.=16.7%; p=8.4◊10-6), implying that differences in height along PC1 are primarily due to selection and cannot be explained by genetic drift. We note that height has previously been reported to be under polygenic selection10-16. For red hair pigmentation (ΔY=−0.039; red hair is more common in individuals with ancestry from Northern Ireland than in individuals with ancestry from southern England), our estimate of %G was 95.9% (s.e.=24.7%; p=1.1◊10- 4 ), implying that differences in red hair pigmentation along PC1 are primarily due to selection and cannot be explained by genetic drift. "

We note that our results involving British PC1 are orthogonal to previous findings involving European PC128: we repeated our analysis using a European PC1 computed using all N=460K European-ancestry samples 22,26, and determined that the correlation We note that our results involving British PC1 are orthogonal to previous findings involving European PC128: we repeated our analysis using a European PC1 computed using all N=460K European-ancestry samples22,26, and determined that the correlation between European PC1 and British PC1 loadings was only −0.017, and that the %G for height along European PC1 (relative to ΔY = −2.5%) was −20.7% (s.e.=10.2%, p=0.043), which is consistent with the ref. 28 finding that the genetic component of the population difference in height along European PC1 has the opposite sign of the total population difference.

For height (ΔY=-0.091; individuals born in the southern UK are taller on average than individuals born in the northern UK), our estimate of %G was 124.6% (s.e.=15.9%; p=4.6◊10-15), implying that differences in height along North-South birth coordinate are predominantly genetic and cannot be explained by genetic drift.

From supplement:

Correlation| PC1 |North_South |East-West
Height |0.093 |-0.091 |0.087

E.g. both eastern and southern ancestry in within the UK is associated with taller height.

2. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/09/355057 - "Signals of polygenic adaptation on height have been overestimated due to uncorrected population structure in genome-wide association studies"

Nice figure from this paper:

28472

Shows the correlation with more southerly ancestry (more Southern European related alleles within UK sample) with greater height, and reverse in general European sample.

(As known, cline of southern vs northern Europrean related ancestry is farmer vs steppe, so within British variation, more farmer related ancestry = taller).

Another paper 3 - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/12/10/354951 - "Reduced signal for polygenic adaptation of height in UK Biobank" is an partly independent confirmation of 2.

Another supplementary figure from a nice UK Biobank paper on visualizing population structure (probably the least interesting figure from their paper, but relevant to this thread) - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/23/423632 - "Revealing multi-scale population structure in large cohorts":

28473

White Irish (self identified) probably about a cm shorter than White British (self identified) (latter average should be a composite of slightly taller Southern English and shorter people from the north, following the above).

(Samples are of fairly old people, so this may be a less useful guide for Asian groups as likely to be confounded by reduction in nutrition in Asia, an effect that doesn't show up so strongly in recent European or African samples, later despite high material poverty).

Jessie, re: the data you presented there, while that's a helpful addition, I think that's relatively limited samples sizes from auxologists like Grasgruber, who are working with relatively small samples, confounded by cohort effects, etc. So harder to know what is genetic.

I'd rate hundreds of thousands of Biobank samples as more likely to be true! (Seems almost impossible for it to be untrue, descriptively). Though whether the cause is genetic, it could still be an environmental effect, somehow.

(Personally speaking, most of my British Isles ancestry from the north btw).

moesan
01-22-2019, 10:19 PM
It's literally all a matter of nutrition. That's why Asians raised in the West are usually taller than those at home.

Don't agree at all. It's a bit more complicated: genetic heredity is a work + mesologic conditions (I agree that among nutrition, some factors, not always linked to quantity and not linked at all to better health, are working to date, with the industrial food).
whatever pleases to us, in phenotypes, we found almost always heredity and milieu/lifestyle, and environment/selection.
Let's keep in mind even close cousins HG's of Mesologic had statures running from 1m55 to 1m74; but selection can be extra-genetic in mode of action, but genetic in its results (modifed new generations, with new sts of genes). ATW these differences among European HG's were not born in a week-end.

Dorkymon
01-23-2019, 09:41 AM
Don't agree at all. It's a bit more complicated: genetic heredity is a work + mesologic conditions (I agree that among nutrition, some factors, not always linked to quantity and not linked at all to better health, are working to date, with the industrial food).
whatever pleases to us, in phenotypes, we found almost always heredity and milieu/lifestyle, and environment/selection.
Let's keep in mind even close cousins HG's of Mesologic had statures running from 1m55 to 1m74; but selection can be extra-genetic in mode of action, but genetic in its results (modifed new generations, with new sts of genes). ATW these differences among European HG's were not born in a week-end.

If that were true the average folk would have broken the 1.8m barrier long before the industrial age. But there's a clear correlation with diet.

moesan
03-29-2019, 06:40 PM
These maps are old and if I remember well they were criticized later: B.I. the Galloway area with 1m78 at those times is nonsense ; I think it was army recrues and when in other parts the measured people were of diverse occupations and generations (age) - Coon wrote something senseful about British populations (regions and social classes) stature -
I red somewhere that around the 1950's the Welsh and Scottish people would have been around 1m705 when the English mean was over 1m71, maybe over 1m72; for Scotland I dn't know but Welsh people had since some time the reputation of being a bit shorter than English people as a whole; but England is large and regional differences existed, linked as well to ethnicity than to occupations and social classes;
as a whole workers classes show smaller people, not only linked to food but maybe even more to physical activity since teenages, playing upon skeleton and muscles: the high level classes people with higher statures are not always the strongest ones, it is not only food that makes health and strength but also sport, muscular activities (oxygenation) -
concerning Ireland I wonder if they are not a bit overestimed for stature (maybe some states made with emigrees in the US? Very often the people trying their chances in foreign lands are as a mean higher statured than the mean population they come from, and they come sometimes of specific regions o their homeland -
more generally, even the official states were still heterogenously made (regions, generations mixed or not) in the last 1980-90's !!! So, Wiki or not...

moesan
03-29-2019, 07:11 PM
If that were true the average folk would have broken the 1.8m barrier long before the industrial age. But there's a clear correlation with diet.

I never said nutrition had no role in the game, I said it is not the only factor at work;
let's take two persons: same genetical background (true tweens by instance), same nutrition, one who makes physical efforts since his ten's and one who stays all the day before his TV: the second will be higher, with longer humerus (upper part) than cubitus compared to the other, but with smaller head (eh ya!) and narrower shoulders, even arms span, and surely smaller breast chest and also a different density in vascularisation of muscles;
the contrary to what was believed (the human heads growing and growing endless!)
But in common pops the reality is complicated by a lot of external factors (ethnic origins, social origins, way of life...)
I think that the traditional view concerning food has to be changed: today it is a question not only of more natural food, but also of diverse food hormones and so on...

Bas
03-29-2019, 07:19 PM
It's literally all a matter of nutrition. That's why Asians raised in the West are usually taller than those at home.

I'd say nutrition has a large part to play, which is also tied to a large extent to economic status. But although some diaspora populations may be taller than those they left behind in their homelands, after several generations they still do not approach the heights of other ethnic groups. Some populations are still going to be taller or shorter on average than others, no matter what diet they eat. Certain environments, for instance Jungles, are always going to select for smaller people, so it'd take a while for people with ancestry from these types of environments to become taller even after generations of their ancestors eating a lot of high-quality protein.

So yes, nutrition will help but I believe it can only close the gap in height to people whose ancestors have already been undergoing selection for height for thousands of years.

An interesting article here about Bosnians: https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/04/12/move-over-dutch-men-herzegovinians-may-be-tallest-world-11122

The Tall Mountain Men of Herzegovina

What explains the height of Herzegovinians? The team believes two primary factors are at play, but they have opposing effects.

A particular genetic profile in men (called Y haplotype I-M170) is correlated with height. (See graph on left below.) Ecological data3 shows that as the frequency of this genetic profile increases in the population, the average male height in a country also increases. In the Netherlands, about 35% of men have this genetic profile, but in Herzegovina, the frequency is over 70%. Extrapolating the genetic trend line suggests that the average Herzegovinian man could possibly be as tall as 190 cm (nearly 6' 3").

29563

But the average male Herzegovinian isn't that tall. Why? That's where the other factor, nutrition, comes into play. Average male height in a nation is also correlated with protein quality. Nations that consume more protein in the form of pork, dairy, eggs, and fish tend to be taller, while those that attain more protein from cereals tend to be shorter. (The graph on the right shows that the Dutch have a diet rich in high-quality protein, while Bosnians and Herzegovinians do not.)

Because of the large Muslim population, many Herzegovinians don't eat pork. In an email to ACSH, Dr. Grasgruber says that the religious prohibition on pork may be largely to blame for the shorter average stature of Herzegovinians. Indeed, regions with a greater fraction of Muslims were shorter than regions with fewer Muslims. Additionally, poverty plays a role, as citizens of B&H were 1.9 cm taller if both of their parents went to university.

Together, the data suggests that Herzegovinians have the genetic potential to be more than two inches taller than the Dutch, but many currently do not achieve that potential due to nutritional choices and poverty.

sktibo
03-30-2019, 11:37 AM
For what it's worth - and just for the record I don't think this is worth much - but on the topic of "Are the Scottish shorter than the English" I was recently visited by a friend living in Fife who said the Scottish men in the area she lives are quite short, generally under 5'10. That's the first I've heard that as many of the Scots I've met in Canada are quite tall. I've come across very tall and very short English and Scottish people, as well as everything in between. What I can't remember meeting are short Danes or Dutch individuals, not to say they don't exist of course.

moesan
03-30-2019, 07:00 PM
all factors are at work, nothing more, nothing less (natural environmental pressure, quantity and quality of nutrition, physical activity and evidently genetic, this last one being under selection but evolving more slowly - but often enough scientists involved in a precise field are giving the most weight to their proper field -