Human Height

The average height of a population can inform us about the nutrition and living conditions of populations in the past for which we have little other data.

Poor nutrition and illness in childhood limit human growth. As a consequence, the average height of a population is strongly correlated with living standards in a population. This makes the study of human height relevant for historians who want to understand the history of living conditions.

Because the effect of better material living standards is to make people taller, human height is used as an indirect measure of living standards. It is especially relevant for the study of living conditions in periods for which little or no other data is available — what historians refer to as the pre-statistical period.

It is important to stress that height is not used as a direct measure of well-being. The variation of height within a given population is largely determined by genetic factors.1

The history of human height allows us to track progress against undernourishment and disease and makes it possible to understand who started to benefit from modern advancements and when.

See all interactive charts on human height ↓

Related topics:

Food Supply

How had the availability of food changed over time? How does food supply vary across the world today?

Hunger and Undernourishment

How does undernourishment vary across the world? How has it changed over time?

Micronutrient Deficiency

Food is not only a source of energy and protein, but also micronutrients — vitamins and minerals — which are essential to good health. Who is most affected by the "hidden hunger" of micronutrient deficiency?

Other research and writing on human height on Our World in Data:

The history of human height

The last two millennia

Over the last two millennia, human height, based on skeletal remains, has stayed fairly steady, oscillating around 170cm. With the onset of modernity, we see a massive spike in heights in the developed world.

Male heights from skeletons in Europe, (1–2000) — Clark
Male heights from skeletons in Europe, 1-2000 — Clark2

It is worth noting that using skeletal remains to estimate the height of historical populations is affected by measurement error.

Accurately measuring the height of an individual is a straightforward task, but this is less likely to be the case when measuring the height of skeletons. What is more, the techniques used to date skeletal remains (such as radiocarbon dating) only provide a probabilistic estimate.

Another factor to consider is the potential sample bias from the historical sources. Since the height data is largely composed of soldiers, criminals, slaves, and servants, these groups may not be representative of the wider population.3

Increase of human height over two centuries

The University of Tuebingen also provides estimates of human height in men in many countries around the world from 1810 to 1980. It gives us a perspective of changes over almost two centuries. We can see these estimates in the charts.

Human height has steadily increased over the past 2 centuries across the globe. This trend is in line with general improvements in health and nutrition during this period.

Historical data on heights tends to come from soldiers (conscripts), convicted criminals, slaves, and servants. It is for this reason much of the historical data focuses on men.

Recent data on heights uses additional sources including surveys and medical records.

How has height changed globally?

People today are taller, on average, than their ancestors were 100 years ago. This is true for every country in the world.

But how much have human heights changed, and how does this vary across the world?

The data shown here comes from a global study, published by the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC) in 2016.4 This dataset is based on both demographic and health surveys as well as academic studies. It reports the estimated average (mean) height for adults by their year of birth, meaning that it only includes estimates for those who have reached the age of 18.

If we compare adult men to those born a century earlier, we see that the global mean height in men and women has increased by around ten centimeters (cm). We see this in the chart.

The average young adult born recently is around ten centimeters, around 5%, taller than their ancestors 100 years ago.

Regional variation in height changes

There are significant regional variations in change in average human heights.

The following slope chart illustrates the changes in mean male height by region. Here we see that the largest gains in height were seen for European and Central Asian men; their mean height overtook North American men in the process. The smallest absolute gains were seen for South Asian men.

Overall, the regional variation in male heights increased over the last century. In men born a century ago, there was an 8 cm gap in mean height between the shortest and tallest regions. 100 years later, this gap had widened to 12 cm.

We can also see this regional change for women, here. Again, the trends are similar: the heights of European and Central Asian women increased the most — overtaking North American women.

Compared to men, there was less of a divergence in female heights by region: for women born a century ago, the gap between the tallest and shortest region was 9 to 10 cm. A century later, this was almost the same — a gap of 10 to 11 cm.

Which countries have seen the greatest absolute gains in height?

Some countries have seen much larger increases in average human height than others.

The chart shows the absolute change in the mean height of adult women in each country. As reflected in the regional trends above, the largest increases were typically in — but not limited to — Europe and Central Asia.

In this chart, we can see the same metric in men.

Despite variation across countries, men and women globally saw similar gains: about 8 to 9 cm.

Which countries have seen the greatest relative gains in height?

Relative changes offer a different perspective on changes in average human heights, illustrated here in men and here for women.

While the average height of men around the world increased by 5%, the percentage change varies worldwide, with the greatest relative increases in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

In women, the largest relative increases were seen in Europe, South America, and East Asia.

Did heights across the world increase more in men or women?

Did men or women see the greatest increase in height over this period? It depends on the country.

At the global level, the relative increase in mean height was the same in men and women: around five percent. But as we see below, there is significant variation across countries.

This chart shows the percentage change in men on the y-axis, and for women on the x-axis. The grey line here represents where the change was equal for both sexes. Countries that lie above the grey line saw greater height increases in men than in women; for countries below the line, the opposite is true.

Some countries saw very different changes in men and women, and are located further from the diagonal line.

Human height across the world

How does human height vary across the world?

Human height is a partly heritable trait. However, non-genetic, environmental factors — such as nutrition and health — during pregnancy, childhood, and adolescence, also have an impact on the population-wide distribution of height. Because of this, variations in height across the world indicate not only genetic differences, but also general differences in living standards.

Here, we examine variations in mean male and female heights by country.

How tall are men across the world?

The global mean height of adult men born in 1996 is 171 centimeters (cm), or 5 feet and 7.5 inches. There are also clear differences between regions. Men tend to be shorter South Asia, while they tend to be taller in Europe and Central Asia.

How tall are women across the world?

The global average height of adult women born in 1996 is 159 cm, or 5 foot and 3 inches.

There are regional variations in the heights of women. As with men, the tallest women are European and Central Asian, while women from South Asia tend to be the shortest.

Gender differences in height

How much taller are men than women?

Globally, for people born in 1996, women’s mean height is about four and a half inches, or 12 centimeters (cm), shorter than men’s.

The scatter plot illustrates the difference between the average heights of men and women around the world. It plots average male height on the y-axis, and average female height on the x-axis. The grey line shows where these heights are equal.

As we can see, all countries lie above the diagonal line, which means that on average, men are taller than women in every country in the world.

You can see the absolute difference in mean heights for any country in the world here.

The chart also shows changes in men and women’s heights over time.

A century ago, South Korean men were on average 18 cm taller than women; this difference fell to 13 cm, meaning that South Korean women saw larger absolute gains in height than South Korean men.

By contrast, in the Philippines this difference doubled from 7 cm to 14 cm, meaning that the average height of Filipino men increased faster than that of Filipino women.

Where are men much taller than women?

The following map shows the ratio of male-to-female average heights across the world. Globally, the ratio is 1.07, meaning that on average, men are around 7% taller than women.

Across the world, this relative difference between the sexes varies greatly. Regionally, the gap in mean height between men and women is smallest across Sub-Saharan Africa.

The global ratio has remained relatively stable since the data began in 1896 despite large increases in absolute terms in the average heights of both men and women.

Despite a relatively consistent ratio at the global level, some countries have seen significant changes, such as South Korea and the Philippines.

How do expected growth trends differ for boys and girls?

As we’ve previously explored, the average man is taller than the average woman: this is seen across all countries in the world. But when does this differentiation in heights take place? How do the growth trends for boys and girls in childhood differ?

The chart presents the expected growth rates for healthy boys and girls during childhood and adolescence. It combines data from World Health Organization (WHO) growth reference standards for infants, children, and adolescents.

These standards are used to assess the degree to which the health and nutritional demands for growth and development are met around the world. The studies included healthy children from a diverse set of ethnicities.5

As the chart shows, boys are typically a fraction taller than girls at birth. Both boys and girls grow quickly in the first six months of life, but the growth rate decreases gradually during the following years.

Of course, not all children grow at the same rate. The ribbons around the median growth lines on the chart represent two standard deviations above and below the median expected trend. Heights that fall within two standard deviations of the median are considered to be "healthy growth”.

Stunted growth: A child whose height-for-age falls below this ribbon is considered to be "stunted" — this means their height is too short for their age.

Stunting typically occurs during the first two years of life, since this is when growth is fastest and sufficient nutrition is crucial. This means environmental factors have an important effect during this period.6 There is evidence to suggest that "catch-up growth" — growth that is faster than normal for age and follows a period of growth inhibition — is possible if environmental factors improve.78

Read more in our article:

What is childhood stunting?

Stunting is an important marker of childhood malnutrition. But what is it, and how is it measured?

Human Height in Prehistoric Times

Mesolithic times, Middle Ages, subsistence societies, and modern foragers

In the last two centuries, height has substantially increased in many world regions, but up until modern times, the archeological record of human skeletons suggests that there was little trend toward improving living conditions.

Male heights from skeletons in Europe, (1–2000) — Clark
Male heights from skeletons in Europe, 1-2000 — Clark2

The two tables present estimates of the heights of men in foraging and subsistence societies with those from preindustrial societies. There is no clear difference between these records, suggesting that preindustrial societies were not that different from their ancestors millennia ago — which is consistent with the "Malthusian Model" of the pre-growth economy, which we discuss in our entry on economic growth.

Heights of adult males in modern foraging and subsistence societies — Clark (2008)9





Height (centimeters)


Plains Indians (a)

United States




Anbarra (b)





Rembarranga (c)





Alaskan Inuit (d)

United States




Northern Pacific Indians (e)

United States




Sandawe (f)





Shoshona (g)

United States




Fox Basin Inuit (c)





Solomon Islanders (h)

Solomon Is.




Canadian Inuits (d)





!Kung (i)





Ache (j)





Hadza (c)





Hiwi (j)





Batak (c)





Agta (c)





Aka (c)

Central African Republic



Heights from skeletal remains by period, from mesolithic times until now, globally — Clark (2008)10




Height (centimeters)

Mesolithic (a)




Neolithic (a,b)







1600–1800 ( c)




1700–1800 ( c)




1700–1850 ( c)




Pre-Dynastic (d)




Dynastic (d)




2500 BC (e)




1700 BC (f)

Lerna, Greece



2000–1000 BC (g)

Harappa, India


300 BC–AD 250 (h)

Japan (Yayoi)



1200–1600 (h)

Japan (medieval)



1603–1867 (h)

Japan (Edo)



1450 (i)

Marianas, Taumako



1650 (i)

Easter Island



1500–1750 (i)

New Zealand



1400–1800 (i)



Is the increase in human height coming to an end?

Human height for both men and women has increased over the past century, in all countries.

But, over the last few decades, human height in some countries has been stagnating. This is illustrated in the following charts which show the year-on-year relative change in average male and female heights by region. Positive values here indicate an increase in average height from one year to the next; zero indicates no change; and negative indicates a decline.

Here we can pull out several key points.

Firstly, we see that changes in height across the world are gradual: average heights tend to change slightly year by year.

Secondly, we see that across all regions, average human heights have experienced significant growth over the past century.

But the trends also suggest that growth in average male heights has stagnated in Europe and Central Asia, while reversing in the Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and Pacific, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The story is largely the same for women, but with the addition that average female heights in North America have stagnated as well.

This seems like an unexpected result. Human height is positively correlated with standards of living; living standards have been increasing across the world in recent decades, so why would average human heights be stagnating or even falling?

This trend is particularly curious for Sub-Saharan Africa, where average height appears to be falling the most while the region has simultaneously achieved progress across many aspects of well-being.

In the next section, we explore why this might be the case.

Why has growth in human height stagnated in rich countries?

Height is partly determined by genetics. However, the genes of human populations tend to only change slowly, over long time periods, which indicates that the trends seen result from other factors.

One explanation is that there is an upper limit to average heights, at which nutritional and health factors are optimal. This scenario could explain the recent stagnation, especially in high-income countries across Europe and Central Asia, where living standards are high.

A study published in Nature examined the recent stagnation of heights in the Netherlands, the tallest population in the world.11

The authors found similar results: the 150-year increase in average heights in the Netherlands had come to an end in recent decades. They concluded that the reason for this is not entirely clear. They suggest that the Dutch may have reached the maximum mean height possible for the population.

But they also hypothesized that recent lifestyle changes — not a genetic upper bound — may be hindering further increases in the average heights of men and women, such as inadequate nutrient intake from consumption of fast food, more sedentary lifestyles leading to overweight and obesity, which are related to lower height.12 Another potential reason could be a reduction in milk consumption, according to a study looking at data from the Netherlands.13

Therefore, the positive height trend in high-income countries may return if lifestyles improve.

Other studies have assessed the apparent stagnation, or slowed growth, in other high-income regions. For example, in the 19th century, North Americans were the tallest in the world but fell behind many countries in Europe over the 20th century.

Studies have attributed this to poorer nutrition, lower social safety nets, poorer health insurance, and higher rates of inequality in the United States.14

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the pattern is even more puzzling. The average male and female heights of the region have been falling since 1970, despite improvements in health and nutrition.

Researchers have proposed different explanations for this. For example, one explanation is that this is due to selection: the least healthy children — whose growth is stunted due to malnutrition — do not survive to adulthood, while the survivors are healthier and taller. When child mortality rates decrease, stunted children survive to adulthood, thus lowering the average adult height.15

In contrast, other researchers have suggested that this effect does not account for the difference, and suggest other factors.16

What explains the changes and differences in human height?

There are large differences in human height across the world. These differences are not just geographical: human heights have changed significantly over our history, with increases in every country over the past century.

Height is determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. How our height might reflect our environment — today and in the past — has been a key focus area for research.  Height is often seen as a proxy for "biological standards of living”: the World Health Organisation recommends its use “to predict health, performance, and survival”.17

A study of male heights across 105 different countries determined that “height and the HDI [Human Development Index] seem to be largely interchangeable as indicators of human well-being”.18

This is illustrated in the following scatter plot which shows the relationship between a country’s Human Development Index and average male height by year of birth. Here we see that people are taller in countries with a higher standard of living.

Why is the relationship between individuals’ heights and a country’s socioeconomic development so strong? We explore this below.

How does nutrition affect health?

Nutrition is one of the strongest determinants of human height.19

Humans convert the chemical energy stored in the macronutrients of food into energy. When children grow, dietary energy intake from food must grow to continue balancing energy expenditure from metabolic functions and physical activity.20

If people experience enduring low dietary intake, or undernourishment, then they can adapt by reducing the rate of growth, which leads to stunting, and restricts adult height. Therefore, insufficient dietary energy intake across a population results in a low average adult height.21

Among macronutrients, protein is an essential component of a healthy diet. It is necessary for a wide range of biological processes, including growth. It is made up of basic building blocks called amino acids. Some amino acids — known as the nutritionally essential amino acids — cannot be made in the body, and so must come from the diet.

Diets must provide adequate quantities of the full range of amino acids for human growth and metabolism. The capacity of different protein sources to satisfy these demands, based on their amino acid profile and digestibility, is defined as "protein quality”.22

The table shows the protein quality of different foods. Animal-source food usually contains higher quality protein than plant-source food. They are also a good source of micronutrients, such as iron and zinc, which are necessary for metabolism.23

Protein quality of common foods24

Protein Source












Black bean










A study by Headey (2018) of dietary patterns in lower-income countries suggests there is a strong association between the consumption of animal-sourced foods and height, and that countries with higher animal protein intake tend to be taller.25

In high-income countries, where animal protein intake is high, Grasgruber (2014) found that the strongest predictor of male height is the ratio of high-quality animal proteins (from milk products, red meat, and fish) to low-quality plant proteins (from wheat, rice, and other cereals).26

This could explain why some countries with very high socioeconomic status have shorter heights than we’d expect. Having a mixture of plant source proteins — such as cereals plus legumes or oil seeds — helps providing the essential amino acids and micronutrients that are necessary for growth.

However, diets in low-income countries are often dependent on a single staple food source. In Bangladesh, for example, a large share of dietary energy comes from cereals and grains, of which is most is rice. Because of this, low-income countries are unlikely to exhibit enough dietary diversity.

By contrast, cereals and grains constitute less than a quarter of dietary energy in richer countries.

Animal proteins form an increasingly large part of our diets as income increases. Since nutrition plays a key role in determining height, there is an obvious relationship between income and height.27

A high level of socioeconomic development therefore predicts taller average heights.

How does health affect height?

Health — particularly in childhood — also influences human height. Disease during childhood can restrict growth because it reduces the availability of nutrients and raises metabolic requirements.28

Children fighting disease have higher nutritional requirements during a time when nutrients are less available. As such, high incidences of disease should lead to shorter average heights.

Grasgruber (2016) found that male height strongly correlated with child mortality.18

This relationship is illustrated in the scatter plot, with child mortality rate on the y-axis and mean male height on the x-axis. A low child mortality rate suggests low incidences of disease, as well as sufficient nourishment, and hence predicts a taller average height.

As the chart shows, countries with higher child mortality rates also tend to have shorter heights in adulthood.

The distribution of adult heights within populations

We have looked in detail at how mean heights vary across the world. But this tells us very little about the distribution of heights globally, regionally, or within a given country. How do heights vary: do most people have heights very similar to the average; or do they span a wide range?

Height is normally distributed

Adult height within a population is approximately normally distributed, and is affected by a large number of genetic and environmental factors.29

One of the foundational theorems in probability (known as the Central Limit Theorem) says the sum or average of a trait that is determined by independent variables that are identically distributed will roughly show the shape of a bell curve.

The range of human heights in a population falls centrally around the mean height. In a perfectly normal distribution, it’s also the case that the mean and median height are the same — they fall right in the middle of the distribution.30

The normal distribution of heights allows us to make inferences about the range. Around 68% of heights will fall within one standard deviation of the mean height; 95% within two standard deviations; and 99.7% within three. If we know the mean and standard deviation of heights, we have a good understanding of how heights vary across a population.

We see this distribution of heights in the figure below. It comes from a study which was based on an aggregate of the regions with available data — Europe, North America, Australia, and East Asia. Drawing upon height data from almost 150,000 twinned pairs born between 1886 and 1994, the authors investigated the variance in heights across populations through time.31

They found the mean male height to be 178.4 centimeters (cm) in the birth cohort born between 1980 and 1994.32

The standard deviation was 7.59 cm. This means 68% of men were between 170.8 and 186 cm tall; 95% were between 163.2 and 193.6 cm. Women were smaller on average, with a mean height of 164.7 cm, and a standard deviation of 7.07 cm. This means 68% of women were between 157.6 and 171.8 cm; and 95% between 150.6 and 178.84 cm.

Regionally, the standard deviation of male heights was largest in North America and Australia, at 7.49 cm, and smallest in East Asia, at 6.37 cm. The pattern was the same for women, with 6.96 cm in North America and Australia, and 5.74 cm in East Asia.33

How does the environment and living standards affect the distribution of heights?

Differences in height within a population are not only influenced by genetic variance. Greater environmental variance within a population is also reflected by a wider distribution of heights. The distribution of heights has therefore been used as one indicator of socioeconomic inequality in the past.34

In a population with perfectly equal access to nutrition and health resources, height distribution would only reflect genetic variation and random variation.

Unequal access to these resources within a population means that wealthier individuals could have better health and nutrition, and therefore tend to grow taller than poorer ones; the variance of heights therefore becomes larger.

In other words, resource-based variance due to income inequality is added to genetic variance, widening the distribution of heights. Some empirical evidence across a range of contexts would support this hypothesis.

For example, in India in the twentieth century, an individual’s caste had a significant influence on their height. Members of the high castes — who had better access to nutrition and health resources — were 4.5 cm taller on average than members of the low castes.35

Genetic differences between caste groups are unlikely to account for this height difference, due to the population’s common genetic heritage.36

Furthermore, Ayuda (2014) identified a relationship between socioeconomic status and height among Spanish conscripts from 1850 to 1958. They found that “literate conscripts were always taller than illiterate ones (by nearly 1 cm), and agricultural workers, with fewer economic resources, were significantly shorter (by 3.6 cm) than highly qualified non-manual workers”.37

Height inequality is also positively correlated with income inequality, which is measured by the Gini coefficient.

This relationship was observed in a study of Kenya during the 20th century, where the inequality in height mirrored fluctuations in the Gini coefficient. It also compared the height distributions of Uganda and Togo, where average heights were roughly equal, but there was higher income inequality in the former than in the latter, and the distribution of heights was wider in Uganda.38

Interactive charts on human height


  1. Perkins, J. M., Subramanian, S. V., Davey Smith, G., & Özaltin, E. (2016). Adult height, nutrition, and population health. Nutrition Reviews, 74(3), 149–165.

    Yengo, L., Sidorenko, J., Kemper, K. E., Zheng, Z., Wood, A. R., Weedon, M. N., Frayling, T. M., Hirschhorn, J., Yang, J., Visscher, P. M., & the GIANT Consortium. (2018). Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for height and body mass index in ∼700000 individuals of European ancestry. Human Molecular Genetics, 27(20), 3641–3649.

  2. The source is Clark (2008) - A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press.

    The original source of the Data is Steckel, 2001. “Health and Nutrition in the Pre-Industrial Era: Insights from a Millennium of Average Heights in Northern Europe.” Working Paper 8542. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research., figures 3 and 4,andKoepke, Nikola, and Joerg Baten. 2005. “The Biological Standard of Living in Europe during the Last Two Millennia.” European Review of Economic History 9(1): 61–95. A version of this paper is online here.

  3. Howard Bodenhorn, Timothy W. Guinnane, and Thomas Mroz. Biased samples yield biased results: What historical heights can teach us about past living standards. Vox CEPR Policy Portal (2015). Available online here.

    By comparing the heights of soldiers in the US army with countries that enforced conscription, we can see the bias more clearly. In countries that had conscription, the average height of conscripts was increasing over the period. Meanwhile, in the US, where entry was voluntary, the height of soldiers was falling.

  4. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC) (2016). A century of trends in adult human heighteLife, p. e13410.

  5. See here and here at the WHO.

  6. Martorell, R. (1989). Body size, adaptation and function. Human Organization, 15-20.

  7. Jee, Y. H., Baron, J., Phillip, M., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2014). Malnutrition and catch-up growth during childhood and puberty. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 109, 89.

  8. Perkins, J. M., Subramanian, S. V., Davey Smith, G., & Özaltin, E. (2016). Adult height, nutrition, and population health. Nutrition Reviews, 74(3), 149-165.

  9. The Source is Clark (2008) - A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press. Notes: *denotes heights adjusted to ages 21–40. The heights of all !Kung males averaged 2 centimeters less than those aged 21–40.

    The original sources of Clark are:

    Steckel, Richard H., and Joseph M. Prince. 2001. “Tallest in the World: Native Amer- icans of the Great Plains in the Nineteenth Century.” American Economic Review 91(1): 287–294.

    b Page 102 in Kelly, Robert L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    c Page 223 in Jenike, Mark R. 2001. “Nutritional Ecology: Diet, Physical Activity, and Body Size.” In Hunter-Gatherers: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, eds. Catherine Panter-Brick, Robert H. Layton, and Peter Rowley-Conwy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205–238.

    d Page 207 in Hawkes, Ernest William. 1916. “Skeletal Measurements and Observations of the Point Barrow Eskimo with Comparisons with Other Eskimo Groups.” American An- thropologist, New Series 18(2): 203–244.

    e Page 327 in Boaz, Franz. 1891. “Physical Characteristics of the Indians of the North Pacific Coast.” American Anthropologist 2(4): 321–328.

    f Page 69 in Trevor, J. C. 1947. “The Physical Characteristics of the Sandawe.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 77(1): 61–78.

    g Page 751 in Boaz 1899. “Anthropometry of Shoshonean Tribes.” American Anthropologist New Series 1(4): 751–758.

    h Page 267 in Guppy, H. B. 1886. “On the Physical Characters of the Solomon Islanders.” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 15: 266–285.

    i Page 172 in Truswell, A. Stewart, and John D. L. Hansen. 1976. “Medical Research among the !Kung.” In Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, eds. Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 166–194.

    j Pages 180–82 in Hurtado, A. Magdalena, and Kim R. Hill. 1987. “Early Dry Season Subsistence Ecol- ogy of Cuiva (Hiwi) Foragers of Venezuela.” Human Ecology 15(2): 163–187.

  10. The Source is Clark (2008) - A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press. The original sources of Clark are:

    a Page 133 in Meiklejohn, Christopher, and Marek Zvelebil. 1991. “Health Status of European Populations at the Agricultural Transition and the Implications for the Adoption of Farming.” In Health in Past Societies: Biocultural Interpretations of Human Skeletal Remains in Archaeological Contexts, eds. Helen Bush and Marek Zvelebil. British Archaeological Reports International Series 567. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

    b Pages 51–52 in Bennike, Pia. 1985. Paleopathology of Danish Skeletons. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

    c Steckel 2001. “Health and Nutrition in the PreIndustrial Era: Insights from a Millen- nium of Average Heights in Northern Europe.” Working Paper 8542. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    d Masali, M. 1972. “Bone Size and Proportions as Revealed by Bone Measurements and Their Meaning in Environmental Adaptation.” Journal of Human Evolution 1: 187–197.

    e Mellink, Machteld J., and J. Lawrence Angel. 1970. “Excavations at Karatas-Semay U.K. and Elmali, Lycia, 1969.” American Journal of Archaeology 74(3): 245– 259.

    f Angel, J. Lawrence. 1971. The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Popula- tion. Athens: American School of Classical Studies.

    g Pages 43–45 in Houghton, Philip. 1996. People of the Great Ocean: Aspects of the Human Biology of the Early Pacific. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    h Boix, Carles, and Frances Rosenbluth. 2004. “Bones of Contention: The Political Economy of Height Inequality.” Working Paper, University of Chicago, Department of Political Science. Table 6.

    i Dutta, Pratap C. 1984. “Biological Anthropology of Bronze Age Harappans: New Perspectives.” In The People of South Asia: The Biological Anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Nepal, ed. John R. Lukacs. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 59–76.

  11. Schönbeck, Y., Talma, H., van Dommelen, P., Bakker, B., Buitendijk, S. E., HiraSing, R. A., & van Buuren, S. (2013). The world’s tallest nation has stopped growing taller: the height of Dutch children from 1955 to 2009. Pediatric research, 73(3), 371.

  12. Freedman, D. S., Khan, L. K., Serdula, M. K., Dietz, W. H., Srinivasan, S. R., & Berenson, G. S. (2003). The relation of menarcheal age to obesity in childhood and adulthood: the Bogalusa heart study. BMC pediatrics, 3(1), 3.

  13. Berkey, C. S., Colditz, G. A., Rockett, H. R., Frazier, A. L., & Willett, W. C. (2009). Dairy consumption and female height growth: prospective cohort study. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers, 18(6), 1881-1887.

  14. Komlos, J., & Lauderdale, B. E. (2007). The mysterious trend in American heights in the 20th century. Annals of human biology, 34(2), 206-215.

    Koletzko, B., De la Guéronnière, V., Toschke, A. M., & Von Kries, R. (2004). Nutrition in children and adolescents in Europe: what is the scientific basis? Introduction. British Journal of Nutrition, 92(S2), S67-S73.

    Bowman, S. A., & Vinyard, B. T. (2004). Fast food consumption of US adults: impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. Journal of the American college of nutrition, 23(2), 163-168.

    Steckel, R. H. (1995). Stature and the Standard of Living. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(4), 1903.

    Sunder, M. (2003). The making of giants in a welfare state: the Norwegian experience in the 20th century. Economics & Human Biology, 1(2), 267-276.

  15. Bozzoli, C., Deaton, A., & Quintana-Domeque, C. (2009). Adult height and childhood disease. Demography, 46(4), 647-669.

  16. Schneider, E. B. (2023). The determinants of child stunting and shifts in the growth pattern of children: A long‐run, global review. Journal of Economic Surveys, joes.12591.

  17. World Health Organization. (1995). Physical status: The use of and interpretation of anthropometry, Report of a WHO Expert Committee.

  18. Grasgruber, P., Sebera, M., Hrazdíra, E., Cacek, J., & Kalina, T. (2016). Major correlates of male height: A study of 105 countries. Economics & Human Biology, 21, 172-195.

  19. Perkins, J. M., Subramanian, S. V., Davey Smith, G., & Özaltin, E. (2016). Adult height, nutrition, and population health. Nutrition reviews, 74(3), 149-165.

  20. Joint, F. A. O. (2004). Human energy requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, Rome, 17-24 October 2001.

  21. Martorell, R. (1989). Body size, adaptation and function. Human Organization, 15-20.

  22. Joint, W. H. O. (2007). Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition. World Health Organization technical report series, (935), 1.

  23. Neumann, C., Harris, D. M., & Rogers, L. M. (2002). Contribution of animal source foods in improving diet quality and function in children in the developing world. Nutrition research, 22(1-2), 193-220.

  24. Hoffman, J. R., & Falvo, M. J. (2004). Protein–which is best?. Journal of sports science & medicine, 3(3), 118.

    Nosworthy, M. G., Neufeld, J., Frohlich, P., Young, G., Malcolmson, L., & House, J. D. (2017). Determination of the protein quality of cooked Canadian pulses. Food science & nutrition, 5(4), 896-903.

    Phillips, S. M. (2016). The impact of protein quality on the promotion of resistance exercise-induced changes in muscle mass. Nutrition & metabolism, 13(1), 64.

    Schaafsma, G. (2000). The protein digestibility–corrected amino acid score. The Journal of nutrition, 130(7), 1865S-1867S.

  25. Headey, D., Hirvonen, K., & Hoddinott, J. (2018). Animal sourced foods and child stunting. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(5), 1302-1319.

  26. Grasgruber, P., Cacek, J., Kalina, T., & Sebera, M. (2014). The role of nutrition and genetics as key determinants of the positive height trend. Economics & Human Biology, 15, 81-100.

  27. Komlos, J. (1985). Stature and Nutrition in the Habsburg Monarchy: The Standard of Living and Economic Development in the Eighteenth Century. The American Historical Review,90(5), 1149-1161. doi:10.2307/1859662

  28. Stephensen, C. B. (1999). Burden of infection on growth failure. The Journal of nutrition, 129(2), 534S-538S.

  29. Komlos, J., & Kim, J. H. (1990). Estimating trends in historical heights. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 23(3), 116-120.

    Wood, A. R., Esko, T., Yang, J., Vedantam, S., Pers, T. H., Gustafsson, S., … & Amin, N. (2014). Defining the role of common variation in the genomic and biological architecture of adult human height. Nature genetics, 46(11), 1173.

  30. Although the terms mean and median are often used interchangeably with "average”, their values can be very different. To calculate the mean of a range of values, we sum them all and divide by the number of values. To calculate the median we find the value which falls exactly in the middle of the range of values. In a normal distribution, the mean and median are the same. But for other distributions, they can be very different.

  31. Jelenkovic, A., Hur, Y. M., Sund, R., Yokoyama, Y., Siribaddana, S. H., Hotopf, M., … & Pang, Z. (2016). Genetic and environmental influences on adult human height across birth cohorts from 1886 to 1994. Elife, 5, e20320.

  32. This means this cohort reached the age of 18 (adulthood) between 1998 and 2012).

  33. Hur, Y. M., Kaprio, J., Iacono, W. G., Boomsma, D. I., McGue, M., Silventoinen, K., … & He, M. (2008). Genetic influences on the difference in variability of height, weight and body mass index between Caucasian and East Asian adolescent twins. International Journal of Obesity, 32(10), 1455.

  34. Van Zanden, J. L., Baten, J., Foldvari, P., & Van Leeuwen, B. (2014). The changing shape of global inequality 1820–2000; exploring a new dataset. Review of income and wealth, 60(2), 279-297.

  35. Guntupalli, A. M., & Baten, J. (2006). The development and inequality of heights in North, West, and East India 1915–1944. Explorations in Economic History, 43(4), 578-608.

  36. Moorjani, P., Thangaraj, K., Patterson, N., Lipson, M., Loh, P. R., Govindaraj, P., … & Singh, L. (2013). Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(3), 422-438.

  37. Ayuda, M. I., & Puche-Gil, J. (2014). Determinants of height and biological inequality in Mediterranean Spain, 1859–1967. Economics & Human Biology, 15, 101-119.

  38. Moradi, A., & Baten, J. (2005). Inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa: new data and new insights from anthropometric estimates. World development, 33(8), 1233-1265.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

Max Roser, Cameron Appel and Hannah Ritchie (2021) - “Human Height” Published online at Retrieved from: '' [Online Resource]

BibTeX citation

    author = {Max Roser and Cameron Appel and Hannah Ritchie},
    title = {Human Height},
    journal = {Our World in Data},
    year = {2021},
    note = {}
Our World in Data logo

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.