This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Angus M. Thomson, MBChB, FRCOG, DPH

Am J Dis Child. 1970;120(5):398-403.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

If I had to choose the best single criterion of good growth, it would be tallness. People in the affluent and best-educated classes are relatively tall, and in many respects they are healthier. Tall people are more intelligent, on the average, than short people.¹ Tall women bear children more easily and have fewer perinatal losses than short women.² Tall athletes have what Khosla³ has described as an unfair advantage in speed and agility. Tallness, or at least the relatively long legs which go with tallness, seems to form part of the artistic ideal of human beauty, and this is exploited in advertising.⁴

The facts are not in dispute, but their interpretation has been controversial for a long time. Tanner¹ noted that in 1892, William Townsend Porter, who later became a leading physiologist in the United States, found children in lower school grades to be shorter . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Newcastle upon Tyne, England

From the Medical Research Council, Reproduction and Growth Unit, Princess Mary Maternity Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

Footnotes
Received for publication June 26, 1970.

Read before the American Pediatric Society, Atlantic City, NJ, April 30, 1970.

Reprint requests to Medical Research Council, Reproduction and Growth Unit, Princess Mary Maternity Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 3 BD, England (Dr. Thomson).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?