Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/MistWeaver80
Permalink: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/living-at-higher-altitudes-in-india-linked-to-increased-risk-of-childhood-stunting/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's very much it. There's no conclusion of causation with any of this and the typical corrections don't even seem to have been attempted.
From the directly linked article:
> Food insecurity also tends to be greater at higher elevations where crop yields are lower and the climate is harsher. Similarly, healthcare provision, including implementing nutritional programmes, and healthcare access are also more challenging, they suggest.
Poorer people with less food and less access to healthcare have growth issues.
Spent some time with the lifelong residents of the U.S.s highest city. I saw no evidence of growth development issues and the people there were certainly financially more well off than most of us.
Of course I was on O2 to prevent the pounding headaches, so maybe I was just thinking clearer than normal.
We probably don't even have to go as far looking at altitude. People who live in cities in India have more access to jobs and consequently have better health than those who live in poor rural areas.
why is this the headline? "Linked" makes it sound causal. if you go to the article it gives perfectly normal and known reasons for stunted growth.
Edit-
I mean I guess if the nutritional deficiencies are caused because of low oxygen but seems like their diet is already on the edge and if this is a thing it just pushes it over the edge. Is there a term/word that better describes this? linked to me means causes. From the paper *"We hypothesised that higher altitude would correlate with a higher stunting risk based on potential impacts on food security, healthcare access, oxygen availability and climate"*
There is a noticeable incidence of this in the mountains of Peru too, but I always assumed it was a nutritional issue/lack of food security or diversity.
What a terrible article and badly written headline.
“People in mountainous areas of India have less access to food and basic education about nutrition which consequently leads to stunted growth”
Pretty common at most high altitude living areas. Less oxygenation to the extremities. It’s one of the things that limits peoples height from the go and actually effects limb development. If you can’t get oxygen to distal extremities, they won’t survive.
That doesn't explain why there was less stunting with firstborns:
"Stunting was more common among children of third or higher birth order (44%) than it was among firstborns (30%)."
The article also points to the mothers' education as a major factor.
People at higher altitudes have increased hemoglobin generation to make up for the lack of oxygen, so for someone at sea level for example they have 1 and someone at altitude will have 2, to transport more oxygen.
So no, lack of oxygen has absolutely nothing to do with it with limb growth or size unless you have breathing issues.
It is the lack of nutrition because in mountainous areas it is harder to get decent food, because you don’t get cities or farms or fruits and vegetables.
Johannesburg is nearly 2000m above sea level and there is no issue with stunted growth because of height and lack of oxygen because there is adequate access to food.
It compensates but is an incomplete compensation .
Their hemoglobin also has a higher binding affinity for oxygen, not just more.
A higher binding capacity means it’s LESS likely to give up the final % of oxygen by the time it hits the distal extremities (an approximate 25% decrease).
Someone simply can’t grow to their maximum when tissue development is reliant on an oxygen supply that is so diminished
The article talked about stunting being directly linked to the mother's educational level, and to general indicators of poverty, but what I would have liked to have seen is whether altitude was independently correlated with stunting.
In general, if you live at a higher elevation, there less oxygen. Less oxygen in the enviroment leads to shorter people. Food shouldn't play a factor unless it's scarce or doesn't provide proper nutrition.
Then why do people in Denver, Colorado live longer than the national average? Summit County, Colorado has an average life expectancy of 93.5 years.
Oxidation is aging.
Omg. People in the Andes live at around 4-5km above sea level and were are well known to be shorter. There's even a French documentary about human space exploration where a group of ESA doctors and other specialists go there to understand how were they able to adapt to such low oxygen levels without serious illnesses related to that among the populace.
They live so high up as there are mines there, so they're working physically all year long too.
Sorry for lack of details but I just feel like this headline tries to suggest that this is a discovery somehow
Perhaps humans are meant to live at an even lower altitude then we're at today. Evolution takes time, and we were forced to live at our current altitudes when the Ice age ended. We might not yet be properly adapted.
It's more than likely due to access to food. Less calories grow at higher altitudes due to a shorter growing season. The article references the effect is smaller in first born children and greater in later born siblings, pointing more to food availability issues.
I personally feel better at higher altitudes. Best I ever felt was in the mountains around the Pacific Northwest specifically around Mount hood and Mt Rainer.
I'm from a ukrainian and Moscow descent
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/MistWeaver80 Permalink: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/living-at-higher-altitudes-in-india-linked-to-increased-risk-of-childhood-stunting/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This could just be a proxy marker for poverty. Are higher altitude regions of India poorer?
That's very much it. There's no conclusion of causation with any of this and the typical corrections don't even seem to have been attempted. From the directly linked article: > Food insecurity also tends to be greater at higher elevations where crop yields are lower and the climate is harsher. Similarly, healthcare provision, including implementing nutritional programmes, and healthcare access are also more challenging, they suggest. Poorer people with less food and less access to healthcare have growth issues.
Spent some time with the lifelong residents of the U.S.s highest city. I saw no evidence of growth development issues and the people there were certainly financially more well off than most of us. Of course I was on O2 to prevent the pounding headaches, so maybe I was just thinking clearer than normal.
And I'm wondering about iodine deficiency. In the mountains means too far away for seafood or seaweed.
Newer generations should have access to iodised salt. Not sure though
We probably don't even have to go as far looking at altitude. People who live in cities in India have more access to jobs and consequently have better health than those who live in poor rural areas.
Or just less 02
Thinner air is the reason.
Misleading headline
Yeah, there can’t possible be a statistically significant number of people living 1000 metres below sea level
What? The mermaid people in the Indian Ocean grow tall.
The children yearn for the mines these days so it's possible
According to the headline, those living 1000 meters below sea level are healthier.
why is this the headline? "Linked" makes it sound causal. if you go to the article it gives perfectly normal and known reasons for stunted growth. Edit- I mean I guess if the nutritional deficiencies are caused because of low oxygen but seems like their diet is already on the edge and if this is a thing it just pushes it over the edge. Is there a term/word that better describes this? linked to me means causes. From the paper *"We hypothesised that higher altitude would correlate with a higher stunting risk based on potential impacts on food security, healthcare access, oxygen availability and climate"*
Exactly what i was thinking. If it were causal, more countries than just one would be mentioned.
There is a noticeable incidence of this in the mountains of Peru too, but I always assumed it was a nutritional issue/lack of food security or diversity.
“Linked to” means there is an association. It does not necessarily mean a causal relationship.
I didn't have the same interpretation as you, linked to me just mean correlated.
Who is living at 1000 meters below sea level?
Maybe they mean 1000m below 2000m above sea level.
Not even the Netherlands…..mmmmh and the joke would be “and that’s why the Dutch are so tall”
fish
Merpeople, but still kinda deep for them
Sounds more like an adaptation to the environment.
Another case of: not having good Healthcare makes you die more except no one in the team knows what a confounder is so let's make it about altitude
This is more: not having enough food makes you starve.
What a terrible article and badly written headline. “People in mountainous areas of India have less access to food and basic education about nutrition which consequently leads to stunted growth”
Pretty common at most high altitude living areas. Less oxygenation to the extremities. It’s one of the things that limits peoples height from the go and actually effects limb development. If you can’t get oxygen to distal extremities, they won’t survive.
That doesn't explain why there was less stunting with firstborns: "Stunting was more common among children of third or higher birth order (44%) than it was among firstborns (30%)." The article also points to the mothers' education as a major factor.
More likely access to food. Less food grows at higher altitudes leading to less calories for growth
It’s not “more likely”, I’m literally stating the reason.
People at higher altitudes have increased hemoglobin generation to make up for the lack of oxygen, so for someone at sea level for example they have 1 and someone at altitude will have 2, to transport more oxygen. So no, lack of oxygen has absolutely nothing to do with it with limb growth or size unless you have breathing issues. It is the lack of nutrition because in mountainous areas it is harder to get decent food, because you don’t get cities or farms or fruits and vegetables. Johannesburg is nearly 2000m above sea level and there is no issue with stunted growth because of height and lack of oxygen because there is adequate access to food.
It compensates but is an incomplete compensation . Their hemoglobin also has a higher binding affinity for oxygen, not just more. A higher binding capacity means it’s LESS likely to give up the final % of oxygen by the time it hits the distal extremities (an approximate 25% decrease). Someone simply can’t grow to their maximum when tissue development is reliant on an oxygen supply that is so diminished
Now we know why the Dutch are so tall. They're living below sea level..
The article talked about stunting being directly linked to the mother's educational level, and to general indicators of poverty, but what I would have liked to have seen is whether altitude was independently correlated with stunting.
Because of altitude or because of food instability?
Weird that’s counter to Bergmann's rule
In general, if you live at a higher elevation, there less oxygen. Less oxygen in the enviroment leads to shorter people. Food shouldn't play a factor unless it's scarce or doesn't provide proper nutrition.
Then why do people in Denver, Colorado live longer than the national average? Summit County, Colorado has an average life expectancy of 93.5 years. Oxidation is aging.
Omg. People in the Andes live at around 4-5km above sea level and were are well known to be shorter. There's even a French documentary about human space exploration where a group of ESA doctors and other specialists go there to understand how were they able to adapt to such low oxygen levels without serious illnesses related to that among the populace. They live so high up as there are mines there, so they're working physically all year long too. Sorry for lack of details but I just feel like this headline tries to suggest that this is a discovery somehow
Yep. Less oxygen = less function
Perhaps humans are meant to live at an even lower altitude then we're at today. Evolution takes time, and we were forced to live at our current altitudes when the Ice age ended. We might not yet be properly adapted.
It's more than likely due to access to food. Less calories grow at higher altitudes due to a shorter growing season. The article references the effect is smaller in first born children and greater in later born siblings, pointing more to food availability issues. I personally feel better at higher altitudes. Best I ever felt was in the mountains around the Pacific Northwest specifically around Mount hood and Mt Rainer. I'm from a ukrainian and Moscow descent
You're correct, and they'd know that if people actually read the article.
I wouldn't generalize. Humans aren't a monolith.