[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Here’s a hypothesis.
Milder climates closer to the equator make possible a wide variety of fruit and vegetable foods that become staple crops for agrarian civilizations. Colder, harsher climates farther from the equator (i.e. Northern Eurasia) preclude much in the way of agriculture, favoring instead hunting, fishing and animal husbandry.
A higher percentage of animal protein and milk in the diet over generations (and the associated higher testosterone production) would then account for the greater size and height. Thus the disparity between the 5-foot-something Romans, who subsisted on wheat and Barley, and the 6-foot-something Goths and Gaels (that’s you, Irish!), who ate more wild game and beef.
The tremendous height of memebers of the Masai tribe, who at times subsist almost exclusively on milk, meat and blood, would seem to support this hypothesis (yes, yes, I know they might also be a genetic anomaly), even though they live closer to the equator.
This phenomenon happened in Japan over the last sixty years: The Japanese, by and large, used to be skinny little runts until after the second world war, when milk and meat (and more food in general) became readily available. These days 6-foot tall, relatively muscular Japanese men and well-proportioned Japanese girls (i.e. really nice tits and ass) are not at all uncommon.
Moral of the story? Eat more meat.[/quote]
Sounds like a discussion a friend and I had about coastal areas versus inland areas. Coastal people eat more seafood, and the environment is usually poor for growing grains. Inland people generally eat more grains because its available. We’ve noticed the coastal people tend to be shorter and thicker, while inlanders tend to be taller and less thick. Could be genetics too as this is Canada I am talking about and mostly Irish, English and Scottish settled the east coast, while mostly Russian, Ukranian settled the inland areas.
