Height Study Redux Redux

Several months ago, I ranted about a height study that I thought was kind of bogus. Then I ranted about it again. And I just read a New Yorker article that is the article I could only wish I’d written, if I had, y’know, a research budget and stuff, instead of just my rantings. In particular, he supports my theory about childhood nutrition correlating with height.

Biologists say that we achieve our stature in three spurts: the first in infancy, the second between the ages of six and eight, the last in adolescence. Any decent diet can send us sprouting at these ages, but take away any one of forty-five or fifty essential nutrients and the body stops growing. (“Iodine deficiency alone can knock off ten centimetres and fifteen I.Q. points,” one nutritionist told me.)

So, yay. My crackpot theories hold some water after all. Or at least that’s how I choose to read it.

What’s also interesting is how I found this article. This week’s New Yorker had an article about gifted education and nerd camps that sounded interesting to me (I have a previous interest). Unfortunately, it wasn’t available online except for this interview snippet with the author. So I googled the author, looking for other articles, and found the height article. Wacky. It’s like he’s writing the articles I’d want to, if I were more than an Internet hack. Never fear, I did end up with a copy of the nerd camp article the old-fashioned way, by copying it from my friend’s dead tree edition.