UK children shorter than EU children

[Popcorn121]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/21/children-raised-under-uk-austerity-shorter-than-european-peers-study

I listened to James O’Brien on LBC today talking about the above, the conversation was all about UK poor diet and parents being blamed for not feeding their children well (due to austerity). But AIBU to think that height is mostly determined by genetics? Yet this isn’t mentioned, maybe people in the UK are more likely to be shorter due to genetics? I’m shorter and ex is on the shorter side, even though I feed my kids fruit and veg and healthy protein like salmon and chicken they are still going to be short. I know a lot of families like this.

It's actually not even by proportion. If you use centimetres instead of age, a new born size is up to 50 cm and a 0 to 3 months is up to 62 cm. A 7-8 is up to 128 cm and a 9-10 is up to 140 cm. So both the same number of centimetres difference.

I really don't get the logic that babies don't vary, by the time both my kids could be measured standing up they were 9th centile - neither of them have moved off it much.
Guess where both DH & I sit 9th centile.

The tall parents in the primary drop off are the ones with the tallest kids.

That's not mentioned in the article. Can you link to how the study controlled for immigration?

Hmm. I'm always sceptical of stories like this. Did they take into account that many children in the UK have arrived from elsewhere since 2010, or been born to incomers to the UK? Did they look at the average height of the populations of their countries of origin as well?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes, one would expect they did. To dismiss everything from your armchair because you are 'always sceptical' is not a good approach to science. If you can find a genuine issue with their methodology do say, as happy to be corrected.

I am from abroad eu country. My parents fed me with rubbish no vegan just semi ready food. Luckily we had free school lunches that were good so I grew 5 foot 7. Taller than my mum.

Kids in the uk don't eat much high quality protein.

Babies vary but not that much in length and weight

Of course they do, we have a friend who had a 5lb 11 baby and one who had a big 10lb baby. If you work that out on a % thats a massive difference.
There are lots of 6lbs and lots of 8/9 lbs, again as a % of their body weight, babies definitely vary.

Yes, I'm sure diet can stunt people's growth but if everyone in your family is 5'5 you aren't suddenly going to grow to 6'2

Agreed. I also think their is probably a difference in average heights over the UK. Maybe it is a genetic thing or maybe its a Vit D thing, who knows, but I think people in the North are on average shorter than those in the south.

To robustly question survey results is something that should always be done in my view, and old habits die hard. I studied statistics as part of my accountancy training. We were taught not to simply accept data in isolation, but to ask questions and to look behind the scenes at how the data was collected, for what purpose and by whom, from what source, what it was compared with and whether there might be any other factors at play that were not included in the information-gathering process, either with the current data or the previous data with which it is being compared. I would also look at who was publicising the data, and whether they were using it to back up some agenda of their own.

I'm not interested enough in this particular topic to spend my valuable time looking for issues with their methodology. There are plenty of other people who could do that, and would no doubt do a thorough job of it. I was merely pointing out that it should not necessarily be taken at face value.

A healthy scepticism is fine but we're discussing a peer reviewed paper in Nature from a top Prof in pediatry in the world, with an h index of 154, and citation count of 120365! I mean.. Your statistical course in your accounting degree must be great but... Not sure what to say here, sorry... Just a bit stunned.

.. You make an assertion of scepticism. Based on your statistics course during your accounting degree. Then you say you aren't interested in spending your valuable time to read the paper...

One was talking about the way that bald, simply-presented statistics are sometimes used by the media in order to support a particular angle in an article they happen to be writing, and that is what can cause scepticism in some people, including myself. After all, how many of its readers will plough through the entire published report in order to check its findings and make up their own minds, and how many will just read what the journalist has decided to say about it?

D&V bugs in the first 5 years of life are most likely to impact growth. Parents don’t often know this - it’s one of the reasons why short South Asians born in South Asia produce tall kids.

Kids of South and SE Asian immigrants to the UK have the biggest growth curve. Because over there D&V is still the biggest reason for kids not achieving their full height potential. These families often have extremely tall genes that never fulfilled potential except during the inter/post war period. Which is why South Asian immigrants are often asked if grandparents were tall when you need to raise growth issues.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10086376/

This suggests that in early childhood there are minimal differences between ethnic groups, asian kids being slightly taller at 3yrs old than white kids.

So I don’t think thats the reason 5yr olds are shorter in the uk.

@AmaraTamara I set you a trap and you walked right into it.

"Based on your statistics course during your accounting degree" is the conclusion you came to after having read what I'd written. Except I didn't write that, did I? You simply took what was implied and made an assumption, which is exactly what many people do when reading a newspaper article containing some statistics. So thank you for that, because you have inadvertently proved my point.

You wrote "I studied statistics as part of my accountancy training."
That that's why you're sceptical. Fair enough. But then you wrote: "I'm not interested enough in this particular topic to spend my valuable time looking for issues with their methodology."

So you're sceptical, cos you "feel" it might be due to immigration, your training tells you to check data, but then you're not interested in checking the data. You really don't see what's wrong here?

Being sceptical, as the scientist you wanna be, necessitates a look at the evidence. Otherwise it's your feeling. But the peer reviewers have looked at evidence. The article is open source. Ditto supplementary methods....

I know what I wrote. You read more words into it than were actually there. I never mentioned a degree, you did. You read something, and you made up your own mind about what it meant.

That's what I'm talking about when I say I'm sceptical about facts and figures spouted by newspapers. I wonder about their motives. Hence 'lies, damn lies and statistics'. They are capable of manipulating some of their readers into thinking they mean something that isn't actually said. But the numbers are there in black and white, so people believe it implicitly. Hey ho.

I wasn't saying that the statistics in this particular report were incorrect. I was merely saying that I habitually look askance at data used to prove a point by the media. They could equally have used data from the same report to prove an opposing view if they so chose.

One was talking about the way that bald, simply-presented statistics are sometimes used by the media in order to support a particular angle in an article they happen to be writing, and that is what can cause scepticism in some people, including myself. After all, how many of its readers will plough through the entire published report in order to check its findings and make up their own minds, and how many will just read what the journalist has decided to say about it?

I do have to agree. Some people simply see a study bu a certain body and then believe it blindly.Or they dont even see the potential "angle" of the study and see any reasons or potential benefits their may be to the studies findings and how credible and independent that makes said study.
They just blindly believe it because of who presents it.
Most facts can be presented in a way to prove a narrative.

A further point, lets say the study was designed to reflect ethnic populatIons so 9.3% of study participants were asian. The asian kids would have to be extraordinarily small to result in say a 5cm height difference in average populations. To drag down the average by that much would mean that the asian population would have to be quite severely stunted in growth. This doesn’t seem to be bourne out by research on differences in children's height and from a basic maths perspective seems unlikely.

Whats the potential angle of the study? I’m not being goady I just don’t understand what anyone would get out of a study saying british kids are shorter than kids in other european countries?

Thanks @tiggergoesbounce

I was beginning to think I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness!

More the angle as presented by the paper, perhaps? They might equally have given the same statistics and said 'Look everyone! All that stuff about there being an obesity crisis in kids in the UK - well, it must be wrong because these statistics prove that the kids in the UK are smaller than kids from other countries in Europe!!!'.