It's a diet thing, and genetics
2006-12-14 06:43:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Asians being "smaller" than westerners is a generalization but is also generally true. I think there are two factors. Diet is certainly one. The western diet tends to be higher in protein and lower carbohydrates. And westerners tend to eat more. Another factor is genetics. Westerners breed more broadly so that the strengths of each racial or ethnic group can come out in successive generations. The weaknesses do as well of course. There has been, and to some degree still is, a tendency amongst Asians to marry and re-produce with other Asians. This tends to reinforce racially dominant character traits such as a smaller size.
2006-12-14 06:54:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Rich 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Asians, here we go again. In Anthropological terms that covers everyone from the Mongols, Chinese, Koreans Japanese and Pacific Islanders. Not all Asians are smaller than Westerners (you are speaking about height and not length, right?).
Diet and the size of their environment is what the profs told me it was back when I was in College.
2006-12-14 09:31:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's diet.
Decades ago, Franz Boas, the founder of anthropology as a professional discipline in the United States, carried out a study of immigrants and their children. In keeping with the times, he did anthropometry -- measuring skulls and height and shoulder breadth and femur length, etc. etc. The common idea at the turn of the 20th century was that immigrants to the U.S. were of inferior "races," biologically different from "white" Americans (meaning Anglo-Saxon stock), and should be blocked from immigrating due to their biological inferiority. Proof of this belief was found in the how small the immigrants were.
He conclusively showed that the children of 'undersized' immigrants grew to the same size as the children of 'native-born' Americans, and that the reason was the high protein diet. It was not their 'race' or genetics.
In addition -- my own personal observation shows me that Koreans, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. etc. born in the U.S. are just as huge as everyone else here!
2006-12-16 16:22:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kate G 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have also noticed that many native people from the Americas tend to be smaller as well, but then again these people were said to have crossed the ice land bridge from asia to alaska during the last ice age.
2006-12-14 10:58:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by drail 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In 1479, a little know Western brush salesman, went to Asia and went door to door with more than just a bag of brushes to sell. He had a rare disease called Migittus Myasseeus. The Asians all caught it and shrank to the size of Nicole Richie.
2006-12-14 07:02:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
In past generations, it was because of diets. I am "normal" sized, but I am American born and raised. Even the Chinese people in China are now bigger. All of Asia is eating a more Westernized diet as such, therefore people's size is increasing.
2006-12-14 06:50:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by AsianPersuasion :) 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Using the Japanese as an example, I've come to understand that for the longest time, instead of drinking cow's milk, they drank only soy milk. The soy milk was good for them, but it didn't allow the bones to grow big and strong.
But notice that there are many Japanese now who are (average) height. I'm told (from other Japanese) that it's due to drinking cow's milk, thus getting the calcium & nutrients needed to grow.
2006-12-14 15:50:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Turmoyl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
High protein diet, especially with red meat, makes people bigger. Asians usually ate a lot less red meat, but now that their diets are more westernized they are growing taller.
2006-12-14 06:45:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by braennvin2 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is funny because I saw and realized about 4 decades ago were smaller than us today. We eat and they put chemicals on precess food and double portion of food. That is why we are so big.
2006-12-14 10:22:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by ☃FrostyGal♪♬♪ 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Smaller bones inherited from their ancestors - remember "foot binding" was a real issue for years. Maybe selective elimination of the "finest"?
2006-12-14 06:46:05
·
answer #11
·
answered by candy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋