ProQuest Text only interface « Back to Document View

Databases selected:  Multiple databases...

The Economy; CAPITAL: Biological Historians Trace Ebb and Flow
David WesselWall Street Journal(Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Sep 23, 2004. pg. A.2
Subjects: History,  Economic conditions,  Height,  Public health,  Life expectancy
Classification Codes 9190,  1220
Author(s): David Wessel
Document types: Commentary
Publication title: Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Sep 23, 2004.  pg. A.2
Source type: Newspaper
ProQuest document ID: 697760281
Text Word Count 826
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=697760281&sid=1&Fmt=3&cli entId=15403&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Abstract (Document Summary)

The grand old man of this field, Nobel Prize winner Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago, exudes optimism: "Life expectancy," he says, "will probably increase at the same rate during the 21st century as it did during the 20th" -- when life expectancy at birth went to 77 years from 48. "We'll probably add 30 years to life by the end of the century," he predicts.

His optimism is well-grounded. Month of birth doesn't matter much anymore: Winter diets have improved and summer-time water-borne diseases have been conquered. One problem solved. And the onset of debilitating chronic diseases comes later: Arthritis arrived, on average, 11 years later at the end of the 20th century than at the beginning. A white man in his early 60s is 2 1/2 times as likely to be free of chronic disease as his counterpart a century ago, Prof. Fogel says. But scholars are scrutinizing another, more puzzling trend: Northern European adults these days are consistently taller than Americans, and it's not because the U.S. is drawing short-stature immigrants. The fact inevitably invites speculation about the ill effects of American fast food, obesity and lethargy.

If the children are small at age four, it's got to be pre- and post- natal," he says. "It's not French fries or fast food. I'm not saying that doesn't contribute, but it's not showing up at age four."

Full Text (826   words)
Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

SCHOLARS WHO PIECE together the story of human progress by comparing the height and health of our ancestors say the cartoon version -- where apes give way to stooped hairy cavemen who give way to tall, erect modern humans -- is wrong. The past three centuries have produced taller, healthier people, but history is punctuated by periods of improved stature, health and longevity and periods of plateau or decrease.

The average height of American soldiers, for instance, peaked at 68.3 inches (173.5 centimeters) for those born in 1830 and fell to a nadir of 66.6 inches (169.2 centimeters) for those born in 1890, economic historians Richard Steckel and Dora Costa document. Among other things, disease spread by substantial migration around the country in the mid-19th century took its toll. The trend then reversed: Those born in 1970 average 69.8 inches (177.40 centimeters).

Reconstructing biological history is a way to see both the ebb and flow of living standards and of the gap between rich and poor. Upper- class 19th-century British men were much taller than lower-class men because they weren't hungry all the time. When diets of the poor improved, their children grew taller and the average height of British men rose. Genes play a huge role in an individual's height, but health, diet and environment influence societywide averages.

So are we, the beneficiaries of remarkable medical advance and wealth, on the cusp of another spurt in height, healthy old age and longevity? The answer may lie, to a surprising degree, in the womb and shortly afterward.

IN CLEVER WAYS, economic historians are accumulating evidence that aging begins before birth. We live longer and better not only because modern medicine cures diseases that killed our grandparents but because our mothers were better fed and in better health and we were better treated as infants. Two examples make the point.

In records of men who fought for the Union Army during the Civil War and lived at least until 1900, Prof. Costa and another researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology find that those born in spring and summer died sooner. Men born in April, May or June were 70% more likely to die of stroke as adults than those born in October, November or December. Their mothers didn't have as much to eat during the winter, it appears, and were more likely to have respiratory ailments; spring babies also were more likely to get infectious diseases with long-lasting effects.

Columbia University's Douglas Almond discovers that sons of pregnant women who got the flu during the influenza epidemic of 1918 were 20% more likely to be disabled as adults. Those who survived to the late 1970s tended to die three years sooner than men whose mothers were spared the flu. Sons of flu-stricken women were 20% less likely to finish high school.

That was then. What about now?

The grand old man of this field, Nobel Prize winner Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago, exudes optimism: "Life expectancy," he says, "will probably increase at the same rate during the 21st century as it did during the 20th" -- when life expectancy at birth went to 77 years from 48. "We'll probably add 30 years to life by the end of the century," he predicts.

His optimism is well-grounded. Month of birth doesn't matter much anymore: Winter diets have improved and summer-time water-borne diseases have been conquered. One problem solved. And the onset of debilitating chronic diseases comes later: Arthritis arrived, on average, 11 years later at the end of the 20th century than at the beginning. A white man in his early 60s is 2 1/2 times as likely to be free of chronic disease as his counterpart a century ago, Prof. Fogel says. But scholars are scrutinizing another, more puzzling trend: Northern European adults these days are consistently taller than Americans, and it's not because the U.S. is drawing short-stature immigrants. The fact inevitably invites speculation about the ill effects of American fast food, obesity and lethargy.

Prompted by pesky questions from a New Yorker reporter, Prof. Steckel of Ohio State University recently began looking at children's heights. His early finding is that four-year-old Americans are an inch and a half (3.8 centimeters) behind the Dutch, Danes and Swedes. "Kids are about the same height if they grow up under the same economic conditions.

If the children are small at age four, it's got to be pre- and post- natal," he says. "It's not French fries or fast food. I'm not saying that doesn't contribute, but it's not showing up at age four."

What is it? He doesn't know yet. But he is haunted by the evidence that inequality in 19th-century Europe was reflected in the average height of the population and wonders if the unevenness of health care and living conditions in the U.S. is at the root of this.

---

Your thoughts? Write to capital@wsj.com. Online subscribers can see Q&A Tuesday at WSJ.com/CapitalExchange.


Copyright © 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions
Text-only interface
Columbia University Libraries

From ProQuest Company