backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Nov 6 at 3:54 PM

Study predicts that in 400 years average woman will weigh nearly 1 kg more, be 2 cm (almost an inch) shorter

A strong body of evidence exists that humans are continually evolving a diverse fashion in response to various environmental influences.  Despite skepticism from some who blindly reject such studies for various dogmatic reasons, human evolution does appear to be happening.  And researchers in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology are revealing exciting insights into what man (and woman) may look like in the future.

A new study from Yale University researchers offers some intriguing and unusual conclusions about where human evolution may be headed.  A new study analyzing a population of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham indicates that women are being naturally selected to be shorter and chubbier, have children younger, and have lower cholesterol and blood pressure.

The complex study came to these conclusions by looking at the medical records of 2,238 female participants, spread across two generations (starting in 1948) and looking at their medical history when they reached menopause.  The study examined those that successfully reproduced and looked at what traits influenced their reproductive success.  It also made adjustments for income, education and lifestyle choices such as smoking, before applying correlations to determine the direction of evolution.  They also looked at secondary effects, i.e. whether low blood pressure led to younger sexual maturity, or whether the paths were independent.

Based on the results women in the third generation of the study, currently ongoing, are expected to begin their first period a month earlier, and enter menopause a full month later than their mothers and grandmothers, on average.  Heaviness proved to be also be selected, as heavier women have more children, on average.

Professor Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University and coauthor of the study states, "The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong.  It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture."

The Yale experts predict that based on the current trends, in the year 2409AD, the average woman in Framingham will be 2 cm  (almost 1 inch) shorter and 1 kg heavier (approximately 2.5 lb).  Women in 2409 AD are predicted to have their period 5 months earlier and to go into menopause 10 months later -- almost a full year later.

Sean G. Byars, a post-doctoral researcher at Yale, was lead author of the paper, and researchers from University of Pennsylvania and the Boston University School of Medicine also contributed to it.  The intriguing study was funded by Yale University and was published in a prestigious journal -- the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- on October 19.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By ThePooBurner on 11/2/2009 3:02:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A new study analyzing a population of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham indicates that women are being naturally selected to be shorter and chubbier, have children younger, and have lower cholesterol and blood pressure.


Perhaps those in Farmington just like fatties?




RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By itlnstln on 11/2/2009 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 5
Well, I, for one, like big butts, and I cannot lie.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By mikefarinha on 11/2/2009 3:20:46 PM , Rating: 5
I can't deny that, brother.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By crfog on 11/2/2009 4:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to be aroused by girls with large, round butts and itty bitty waists...


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Einy0 on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Myg on 11/2/2009 5:27:11 PM , Rating: 1
I wish they would fire or ban Jason from continuing blogging here...

This agenda based reporting is making my physically ill. I miss the old DT.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By ThePooBurner on 11/2/2009 5:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Selective breeding != Evolution.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/2/2009 6:52:54 PM , Rating: 5
Eh, what? Selective breeding is a rather major mechanism of evolution, actually. It's not just who lives and who dies, but who breeds, and mate selection is a rather large part of an awful lot of animal behaviors.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Cypherdude1 on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 4:21:46 AM , Rating: 3
Somewhere other than Framingham...


By ThePooBurner on 11/6/2009 3:54:51 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree. Selective breeding allows for desirable *existing* traits to be multiplied and more prevalent in the gene pool. Evolution, on the other hand, is a mutation or a whole new trait that did not previously exist. For example, selectively breeding a T-rex population will never result in a canary. It will only result in t-rexs with particular t-rex traits.

Ero, this is NOT evolution in any way, shape, or form. This is purely breeding.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By LumbergTech on 11/2/2009 6:52:58 PM , Rating: 3
new scientist magazine disagrees


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2009 6:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but a period of 75 years is rediculously short time period for evolution to take place.

Selective breeding or a change brought on from external factors or dietary habit's is NOT evolution.

Now, find me a genetic mutation or change in DNA causing this trend, and show that's it's being passed on genetically, and then you have something. But this study is doing nothing more than observing something, forming a hypothosis based on a short time period and small sampling size, and forming a conclusion. That is no proof of evolution.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/2/2009 8:07:36 PM , Rating: 4
Genetic mutations are one of many mechanism by which genetic variation occurs.

Selective breeding and differential reproduction and survival due to the environment (ie, your external factors) is the very definition of natural selection. Your assertion that these are not evolution is not merely wrong - it's misunderstanding a fundamental portion of evolution to such an extent that it's mind boggling.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2009 9:45:11 PM , Rating: 3
sigh..

Do I have to point out that his "proof", is that in hundreds of years women will be one inch shorter and slightly heavier ?

I love how we're arguing like this is an absolute given already...


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/2/2009 11:28:49 PM , Rating: 3
We're not arguing like this is an absolute given already. Statistically I'd expect the study to be on shaky ground, and claims it's proof of anything are highly questionable.

But - even if the study is completely wrong and proves nothing, incorrect counter arguements are still incorrect.


By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 11:50:15 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. Reclaimer is failing to understand the very meaning of the word evolution. He would like it to be a very limited definition of which that simply isn't the case. If you want genetic mutation then go look around Chernobyl I'm sure they've had some of the "evolution" you're looking for. While I can understand your logic it just simply isn't the case. If our tastes and such change, such as who we desire to mate with, it's all chemistry, literally. Just because we can't measure everything in the brain doesn't mean it's not evolving.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By mcnabney on 11/3/2009 9:41:20 AM , Rating: 4
Let's just leave the article at bad science. First, societal selective pressures and diet changes clearly obliterate any specific, biological, selective pressure on the population. Second, the didn't even touch on the subject of race, since different races bring different portfolios of averages. More hispanics marrying into a white communinity is going to make subsequent generations shorter. But that is not evolution. That is just a side effect of racial blending and hybridism.


By kaoken on 11/3/2009 1:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well if a person of mix race has an advantage over other people, then I'd say that's evolution right there.


By William Gaatjes on 11/4/2009 9:34:10 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed. How you live your life influences your offspring. Although for example alcohol abuse may not effect your children's dna, When you children have children, your grandchildren can be affected. Even living on a certain diet can cause this effect. In essence this means that you are what you eat, but at certain right situations, your children become what you eat as well.

To quote myself :
quote:
That people realize that what negative thing they do, lives on beyond tomorrow in their offspring.


Because environmental effects will be imprinted in your dna when :

A: The egg cells are formed in the human female fetus .

B: When the spermatogonium (sperm stem cells) are formed in the adolescent human male.

This means that social and environmental factors affect your DNA. It is not like you mutate in a heavy way, it is more that the amount of gene expression alters for the affected genes. Our DNA is not a basic blue print, many genes are switched on simultaneously , reducing the amounts of genes needed. But making our gene expression far more complex and thus at the same time more susceptible to the environment we live in.

It is called epigenetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_15_(human)

An example is that the deletion or malfunction of 1 gene on chromosome 15 can cause 2 different genetic disorders.
Because the same gene is used differently depending if it is from your father or mother.

To do a little speculation :

In essence if you want to make true clones through vertical gene transfer not susceptible to the environment , you would have to create an entire new human being with DNA sequences for every step in that we are formed. Instead of needing multiple genes in the right amount simultaneously, we would need for every step one gene that is to be turned on or off. That would however possibly make our dna huge.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By B166ER on 11/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Myg on 11/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By muIIet on 11/2/2009 7:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
What about gravity?


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 4:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
Has someone turned it up?


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By FATCamaro on 11/3/2009 10:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely amazing


By EasyC on 11/4/2009 12:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
FATCamaro LOL.

Up here in the northeast, the women are def fatter. People are just lazy to begin with.

Next thing there will be an article about how McDonalds an Burger King are affecting evolution.


By AWeav09 on 11/2/2009 8:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I want to approach from the front when I notice that a woman has full buttocks.


By rburnham on 11/5/2009 10:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
We must not overlook the round things in my face.


By JoshuaBuss on 11/2/2009 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
this is what I'm wondering.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By kattanna on 11/2/2009 3:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
aye, i'd like to see the same study done in a generally warmer climate, like here in los angeles.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 3:40:08 PM , Rating: 5
Then the study would determine that women are evolving into silicone based life.


By Scabies on 11/2/2009 3:45:49 PM , Rating: 5
and could not sustain a population through orthodox reproduction


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By mattclary on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
By Zoomer on 11/2/2009 6:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
IVF, more likely.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By jonmcc33 on 11/3/2009 8:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
Or Florida. Saw plenty of fat women there but my eyeballs focused on all the taller, athletic looking women in bikinis.


By michael2k on 11/3/2009 10:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yet it is the ones who reproduce that matter, no?


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 3:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Shorter and fatter = less cholesterol and lower blood pressure? How did they come to that conclusion?


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By kattanna on 11/2/2009 4:26:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Shorter and fatter = less cholesterol and lower blood pressure? How did they come to that conclusion?


probably the same way a dozen cherry picked tree rings spells out the end of the world through flooding and ever increasing global temperatures

;>)


By theapparition on 11/2/2009 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 3
This is being so overexaggerated.

In 400 years, they expect the average women to weigh 2.2lbs more and be close to an inch shorter. What's the big deal????

Even if the studies small sample size and extrapolations are questionable.


By Ammohunt on 11/3/2009 1:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
Being overweight does not mean you are un-health as a matter of fact the opposite is more often true esspecially in the wild and when it comes to fitness to reproduce.


By callmeroy on 11/4/2009 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shorter and fatter = less cholesterol and lower blood pressure? How did they come to that conclusion?


Amazingly a lot of folks make this same FALSE assumption -- high cholesterol isn't directly tied to being over weight. Logically it makes sense because the assumption goes that if someone is overweight they are probably eating lots of junk food. However, there are folks I know and I myself am about 40 pounds overweight (btw I'm working on it -- 4 months ago I was 60 pounds overweight!) and have "healthy" levels of cholesterol. Any doctor worth his salt will deem any cholestrol level above 150-160ish to be starting to lean toward the warning zone, over 200 you just flat out have high cholesterol. I know more than a few folks who are anywhere from 20 to one friend of mine who is easily 100 pounds overweight and yet their cholesterol levels are all well below 200. Oddly enough since these folks are all aware of their health risks and are trying to get in better shape, yes -- in fact we have spoken about cholesterol levels as a group of friends while working out...

Being overweight is mostly a self control/will power thing, but I do feel some people just don't understand that for some very overweight folks its WAY more than self-control or will power....but you can preach that until you are blue in the face and some folks will NEVER understand it.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By mooncancook on 11/2/2009 5:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, and how about do one study based on the population in Tokyo, Japan and another one based on some African Villages and tell us if the trend is the same


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By Zoomer on 11/2/2009 6:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
It'll probably be bad for the Tokyo case. They are being exposed to more milk and red meat earlier than before.


By mooncancook on 11/2/2009 7:24:31 PM , Rating: 3
They definitely keep getting taller, so should we conclude that human will evolve to be taller and taller at the "Tokyo rate" based on the study of the population in Tokyo over the last few generations?


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By iFX on 11/2/2009 6:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's as good an explanation as the evolution fairy selecting body types at random.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 4:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
Or that if you have relatively free access to high energy foods and lead a sedentary lifestyle you will be fatter...


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By iFX on 11/3/2009 11:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By UltraWide on 11/2/2009 7:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
When you sample from the population from any region, it is representative of the country as a whole; statistically. :)

But these results are scary and SAD. BARF


By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 8:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a sample though. It'd be like having a plate of 50 hot wings, eating one and determining what the rest are going to be. That 1 might be lemon pepper but the rest are ranch. The only thing this "study" is is a sample of that town, perhaps the county or state depending on the rest of the state.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By AToZKillin on 11/2/2009 9:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sprung.


By kmmatney on 11/2/2009 9:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
I've come undone


By nilepez on 11/3/2009 1:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A new study analyzing a population of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham indicates that women are being naturally selected to be shorter and chubbier, have children younger, and have lower cholesterol and blood pressure.


What's not clear is did they have more children because they were fat or are they fatter because they had more children?

Time will tell, but I won't be alive for the final report ;)


By atlmann10 on 11/3/2009 3:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
Framingham Massachusetts evolution of under 300 women. I would think this is a very large basis for the prediction of human evolution. I would also agree with the statements about breading and animal attraction.

Maybe this points to the fact that nature doesn't want anyone there any more. So it will make them women short and fat. Yes short fat women tend to have more children, which would largely be because short fat women need something to do. I would say an evolutionary study based on a small Massachusetts town has as much relevance on human evolution as the color of tomatoes in New England which are planted for early harvest.

That would be nothing at all. 2600 or whatever number of people in any test or study is irrelevant as that is not even 1/100th percent of the earths population, then you split it in half by sex and it means even less.


RE: I offer an alternate hypothysis...
By drycrust on 11/3/2009 3:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
How is this evolution? Are they going to develop fins and swim everywhere? I think this is just idiotic because being overweight not only reduces fertility, it also shortens life, makes getting a partner more difficult, increases health costs, etc.


By michael2k on 11/3/2009 10:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to overlook bigger boobs and hips. Those could get bigger without hurting health or fertility.


extrapolation
By cludinsk on 11/2/2009 3:01:01 PM , Rating: 5
so by the year 5012 women will be 6 inches tall and weigh 570 pounds...




RE: extrapolation
By bighairycamel on 11/2/2009 3:05:55 PM , Rating: 5
What will they do with all the leftover "No fat chicks" T-shirts?


RE: extrapolation
By lightfoot on 11/2/2009 3:09:47 PM , Rating: 5
And they will be born pregnant and never go through menopause, just like tribbles.


RE: extrapolation
By Motoman on 11/2/2009 3:09:38 PM , Rating: 5
That would be awesome. Then men could just focus on their Lucy Liubots and not have to worry about the human race dying out.


RE: extrapolation
By scrapsma54 on 11/2/2009 3:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And researchers in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology are revealing exciting insights into what man (and woman) may look like in the future.


How is this exciting?


RE: extrapolation
By AnnihilatorX on 11/2/2009 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 5
Exciting for any Burger King or McDonald executives I am sure.


RE: extrapolation
By TSS on 11/2/2009 6:22:10 PM , Rating: 5
That's funny actually.

First thing that came to my mind while reading the acticle is in the dark ages, humans where alot shorter. I belive humans got longer as living conditions improved: better food, sanitation, etc.

So if where shrinking again... living conditions must be deteriorating. Even though 1kg really isn't much in 400 years.


RE: extrapolation
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 4:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: extrapolation
By mikefarinha on 11/2/2009 3:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
Are you taking into account the 'plumping with saltwater' factor?


RE: extrapolation
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: extrapolation
By GhandiInstinct on 11/2/2009 6:25:46 PM , Rating: 3
Technically on a planet with a low enough gravity they could weigh that much and not be fat.


RE: extrapolation
By marsbound2024 on 11/2/2009 7:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
You mean a planet with high enough gravity... :/


RE: extrapolation
By marsbound2024 on 11/5/2009 12:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why I got rated down because if you have a low enough gravity, it means that if you weighed that much on that planet then came to Earth, you'd weigh even more so you'd be fat obviously. However, take what you weigh right now--if you are skinny--and go to Jupiter (if it had a solid surface). You would weigh a heck of a lot more and yet still have the same physical appearance. Weight = mass * gravity, folks!


RE: extrapolation
By Fracture on 11/5/2009 5:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technically on a planet with a low enough gravity they could weigh that much and not be fat.


You SHOULD have said:

Technically on a planet with a low enough gravity they could be that fat and not weigh that much.

Otherwise in order to "weigh that much" (ie, the same weight), a skinny person would have to be on a high-gravity planet to weigh as much as a fat person would normally.


Fatties
By B3an on 11/2/2009 3:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well being as this is in america i'm not surprised the woman there will be even fatter on average in the future. Bit of a no brainer that one.




RE: Fatties
By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 3:29:40 PM , Rating: 1
At a rate of 2.5 lbs every 400 years it may as well be a flat line. Besides, I really doubt that's going to be the case anyway. Who the hell can predict 10 minutes into the future let alone 400 years? Also, who can predict evolution? I'm sure even looking at our history no one could have surmised that we'd end up looking the way we do now.


RE: Fatties
By rcc on 11/2/2009 5:30:07 PM , Rating: 3
Well, without details it's hard to say, however, on the face of it you have to love scientific study that predicts 400 years into the future based on a sample of 75 years in the past.


RE: Fatties
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 3:38:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Heaviness proved to be also be selected, as heavier women have more children, on average.


This is not ground breaking. Fat chicks have lower self esteem and thus are easier. While a hot girl is more selective as to who she sleeps with, a fat chick takes it where and when she can get it. This also seems to be coupled to willingness to have unprotected sex. Fat chicks don't seem to care, hence why they get pregnant, while hot chicks do.

Luckily for them, black guys love fat chicks.

Personally I like a girl with a little meat on her. Not bone thin but not fat. I don't wanna feel like I'm gonna break a girl. Nor do I want to feel I'm going to strain my back (assuming the girl is shorter than me since a taller girl will weigh more which is fine).


RE: Fatties
By mattclary on 11/2/2009 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 3
Rate him down and he will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine...

The truth hurts, I think he nailed it.


RE: Fatties
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 4:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
I try.


RE: Fatties
By corduroygt on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Fatties
By Proxes on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Fatties
By scrapsma54 on 11/2/2009 5:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Physically fit people will be on top of the chain, while the slow fat people will be on the lower end.

Reminds me of an episode of family guy where peter mentions something about watching fast Predators chasing short fat children.


RE: Fatties
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 7:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the first rule of Zombieland. Cardio.

When the zombie apocalypse happens, the fatties go first.


RE: Fatties
By wutang146 on 11/2/2009 7:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
I see that great minds think alike ;)


RE: Fatties
By Lord 666 on 11/3/2009 7:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
The one thing the study didn't take in account was chest size. Over the past 20 years, the average bust size has gone from 36B to C. Even looking at girls in HS now compared to how I remember my HS years, there is definitely some blossoming going on. This additional size is where the weight is being put on.

Don't agree with the getting shorter part. I know many tall hs age girls and older that have large chests. Even both of my girls are 95 percentile or higher on both weight and height. They are not fat as the increases have been proportional and near linear.


RE: Fatties
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 8:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
That's plastic surgery and not natural evolution.


RE: Fatties
By wutang146 on 11/2/2009 7:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
This study obviously didn't take into account the possibility of a zombie outbreak either. As soon as people are running for their lives, I'm sure evolution will correct the curve and we'll start to see an "Usain Bolt" generation of humans. Bring on the zombie infestation!


RE: Fatties
By Schadenfroh on 11/2/2009 9:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Better a fatty than a skeleton.


RE: Fatties
By luceri on 11/4/2009 12:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
not really.. skeleton can easily change.. fatty can't.


I read a different study
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 3:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/arti...

quote:
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.


Basically, the causal relationship is because attractive women are more likely to reproduce thanks to natural selection.

Of course, how can you realistically do a scientific study based on a subjective trait like beauty? Still, it makes so much more sense that attractive women are more likely to reproduce and pass on those sexy genes of theirs.




RE: I read a different study
By Spivonious on 11/2/2009 3:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Attractive women = horny guys = more reproduction

Did they really need a study for that?


RE: I read a different study
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 3:42:34 PM , Rating: 5
Go to Walmart and the theory of hot women have more kids is easily disproved.

Granted maybe they were hot before they had kids.


RE: I read a different study
By Iaiken on 11/2/2009 3:47:38 PM , Rating: 4
I am rarely with FIT, but he may be on to something:

www.peopleofwalmart.com

BE AFRAID!


RE: I read a different study
By mattclary on 11/2/2009 3:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


RE: I read a different study
By chmilz on 11/2/2009 4:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, they were ugly from the get-go.


RE: I read a different study
By rcc on 11/2/2009 5:27:11 PM , Rating: 5
You are missing an important factor though.

A higher percentage of beautiful women are vain, and take particular care not to become pregnant as they think it makes them less beautiful.

Like everything else, pick your dataset and you get the answers you want. : )


growth hormones
By donkeycrock on 11/2/2009 3:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think they forgot to factor in growth hormones, steroids and what ever else the invent for our growing populations food source.




RE: growth hormones
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 3
The only downside of growth hormones is that we're now confusing 14 year olds for 20 year olds because they've got DD titties and dress like skanks.


RE: growth hormones
By messyunkempt on 11/2/2009 5:22:54 PM , Rating: 5
wooooahhhhhhhhh, less of the 'we' polanski! ;)


RE: growth hormones
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 4:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
RE: growth hormones
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 4:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
^Irie Saaya, born November 15, 1993.

Currently 15, and that is an old picture...


RE: growth hormones
By Alexstarfire on 11/3/2009 7:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
Happen to know how old she is in that picture? Her boobs say 19, but the rest of her body screams 12, maybe 13.


RE: growth hormones
By Hoser McMoose on 11/5/2009 1:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
A quick Google search turned up the following link with the original photo:

http://kickinekos.blogspot.com/2005/06/la-milagros...

Note the date of the link? Yeah that was a few years back. My Spanish isn't very good but I believe the article states that she was 10 when this photo was taken.


Silly projection
By fishman on 11/3/2009 6:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
The diet 400 years from now will be more important than current trends right now. With the population expanding, food supplies in 400 years will become more scarce, so that the diet may reduce the height and weight of men and women.




RE: Silly projection
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 8:21:33 AM , Rating: 3
Or it will reduce the number of men and women.


How many variables are they able to predict?
By JediJeb on 11/2/2009 3:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The complex study came to these conclusions by looking at the medical records of 2,238 female participants, spread across two generations (starting in 1948) and looking at their medical history when they reached menopause. The study examined those that successfully reproduced and looked at what traits influenced their reproductive success. It also made adjustments for income, education and lifestyle choices such as smoking, before applying correlations to determine the direction of evolution. They also looked at secondary effects, i.e. whether low blood pressure led to younger sexual maturity, or whether the paths were independent.


So as long as trends in income, education, lifestyle choices ect remain on the same trend they have since 1948 then this will happen. There are so many factors that are envolved how can they try to predict the path of evolution. If the economy crashes for 40 years in the future how would that affect the outcome. Sounds like their conclusion is like basic physics courses where you always assume the experiment is done in a vacuum on a frictionless surface.

From what studies I have seen before the opposite was happening up until now, so what changed? If you look at painting from the middle ages women were much heavier then than now. Is the weight preference cyclical and if so makes no sense to predict a linear model.




By Nutzo on 11/2/2009 4:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
This study is worthless. 2.5 pounds in 400 years? a simple "fashion" trend could make more of a difference in just a couple years. What if it becomes fashionable to be "plump" like it was in the middle ages instead of skinny?


Junk Science?
By ZachDontScare on 11/2/2009 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
The immediate question that comes to mind is if they controlled for demographics, if thats even possible. For example, if the hispanic population increased by some percentage in that town - and it probably did - women in the lines tracked may have been more likely to marry a hispanic man, who's children then would tend shorter.

If something like that was the case, the conclusion is that the town's demographics were changing, not that nature was selecting shorter women.

Heck, given how meaninglessly small the numbers are (one inch in 400 years?), it could just indicate that one woman married a very short out of towner.

Another possibility is that diets have changed. This generation's girls may be more prone to under nurishment due to playing 'vegitarian' when younger, stunting their growth by some small amount.

Basically, this study sounds like a load of BS.




RE: Junk Science?
By corduroygt on 11/2/2009 4:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Damn it I had the same idea...
wonder if asian and hispanic immigration has an effect on the results. They do tend to be shorter on average, although not fat, but the fatness can be explained by the average American getting fat over the last 50 years.


Not Evolution
By jdietz on 11/2/2009 5:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Does natural selection happen in humans?
It does for mutations that give no chance of survival (stillbirth or death soon after birth).
But otherwise (for things like weight and height) it does not happen.




RE: Not Evolution
By rcc on 11/2/2009 5:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Our societies today tend to protect people from natural selection, but yes, it still happens. Just scope out the Darwin awards.


:)
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 3:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
In my country the gypsy women start having children as young as 11 years old. It is not exception it is THE RULE. At 25-26 some are already grandmothers.

A hundred years ago they were less than 1% of the population. Now they must be at least 50%. Education does not matter for them.

The US, EU, UN etc organization are supporting them. In 10 to 20 years people like me will be forced to emigrate to the US or Western Europe, because of unbearable living conditions.

See what I'm talking about:

http://www.yambolnews.net/images/stories/sgradi/bl...
http://212.36.3.59/site_pics/160/6_1225137773.jpg
http://www.chernomore.bg/pictures/200908280810500....

And no - nobody forces them to live like that. The municipalities have built them new, clean homes and in just a few months they turn them in what is to be seen on these pictures.
I am not going to talk about crime and so on. Among that garbage you can see the latest models Mercedes Benz or BMW.

Just natural selection and evolution I guess!




RE: :)
By JoshuaBuss on 11/3/2009 10:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
where is this?


<no subject>
By Scabies on 11/2/2009 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
shorter and chubbier, have children younger,

direct correlation?
quote:
Heaviness proved to be also be selected, as heavier women have more children, on average

should read
quote:
Women that have more children are, on average, heavier than those that have fewer/none

which earns a Captain Obvious Award.
quote:
The Yale experts predict that based on the current trends, in the year 2409AD, the average woman in Framingham will be 2 cm (almost 1 inch) shorter and 1 kg heavier (approximately 2.5 lb).

so get them slims while you can!

And yeah, a sample of one town is a bit misleading...




causation
By mattclary on 11/2/2009 3:50:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
heavier women have more children, on average.


Or, "women who have more children tend to be heavier"?




I don't think that's evolution
By Josh7289 on 11/2/2009 3:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
But the key to human evolution now is genetic engineering.




I think that...
By Simozene on 11/2/2009 4:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
...McDonald's is favoring shorter, heavier women. And men for that matter.




By sintaxera on 11/2/2009 5:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Did they factor in the possibility that maybe it's the chemicals that mimic estrogen that are bringing periods sooner, causing growth plates to fuse earlier, and increasing weight?

Maybe it's all the plastics and hormones in our food that are changing people, and has nothing to do with any type of selection and therefore nothing to do with evolution.

Why not do a study on the Amish, who are less likely to be influenced by such things?




Faulty thinking
By wallijonn on 11/2/2009 6:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A new study analyzing a population of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham indicates that women are being naturally selected to be shorter and chubbier, have children younger, and have lower cholesterol and blood pressure.


He should visit Oklahoma. There the women, because they eat beef with steroids and biotics, are 6 feet tall goddesses.




people
By LumbergTech on 11/2/2009 7:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
lotta morons posting their amateur ideas here..

it said

1 kg more, be 2 cm (almost an inch) shorter

that isnt exactly "fatties"

use your head




By EricMartello on 11/2/2009 7:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you're not at testing several women from various populated geographic regions on the planet, any conclusions drawn are completely invalid and worthless. I think American women (and by that I mean women who have lived in the US for most of their lives) are getting fatter...shorter too, maybe, but fatter for sure.




mmmmmmmmmm
By Iketh on 11/3/2009 12:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
i consider myself at the edge of the human evolution timeline... and i LOVE shorties...




Bring on Bigamy
By bapcorp on 11/3/2009 12:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
In the future we will then need to legalise bigamy.
Thus we will have;
1) The hot wife, thats tall and skinny (maybe silicon enhanced)for the public to see.
2) The token breeder - that only close family members will know, oh and she does the food shopping, cooking, cleaning etc.




By nofumble62 on 11/3/2009 12:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
The more kids they have, the chubbier they get.

It does not need a university researcher to figure that out.

Don't tell me what I already knew.




I volunteer...
By johnsonx on 11/3/2009 5:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
All thin, tall hotties line up at my place for insemination.

It's a tough job, but I'm willing to do it for the sake of humanity.




A new epoch in human history
By MrPoletski on 11/3/2009 10:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
"Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says"

The macdonalds epoch ;)




Ummm....
By pastorjay on 11/2/2009 3:59:54 PM , Rating: 1
...don't drink the water?

One town? Come on...




The guys in Framingham
By bubba551 on 11/2/2009 4:51:22 PM , Rating: 1
must be drinking a lot of beer.




Seems obvious
By A554SS1N on 11/2/2009 4:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
Pregnant women are heavier, so heavier women being more likely to have children is pretty damn accurate. :P




????
By jahwarrior on 11/2/2009 7:09:43 PM , Rating: 1
I thought this was a tech site...




Mick is a moron
By Breathless on 11/3/09, Rating: 0
Wow
By icanhascpu on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By jbruno617 on 11/2/2009 9:30:56 PM , Rating: 1
If you look at the demographics of framingham the study would make a little more sense.

But I agree its half ass.


RE: Wow
By phxfreddy on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wow
By icanhascpu on 11/5/09, Rating: -1
I know this one..
By StraightCashHomey on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: I know this one..
By StraightCashHomey on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: I know this one..
By messyunkempt on 11/2/2009 5:25:01 PM , Rating: 5
tiny legs?


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki