I've found a nice study: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/htm
QuoteSummary of a few studies published since 2000 employing measures of leg length in relation to early life living conditions and health. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/htm#table_body_display_t3-ijerph-07-01047
They claim there's a strong correlation between childhood health, diet and leg length, thus height. Some quotes:
QuoteShorter limb length is associated with markers of lower early-life socioeconomic status
QuotePositive time trend in leg length from 1972 to 2000 both in rural and urban settings
Positive time trend in relative leg length. Boys measured in 1999–2002 had relatively longer legs in proportion to total stature than their counterparts in 1983–1983.
QuoteLeg length is a sensitive indicator of the quality of the environment.
Maya children in the USA show relatively longer legs in proportion to stature than their counterparts in Guatemala. By 2000, Maya migrants to the USA were 11.54 cm taller and 6.83 cm longer-legged than Maya children in Guatemala.
QuoteM&F: Individuals with relatively shorter legs in proportion to total stature are poorer than longer “legged” individuals
QuoteMaternal smoking during pregnancy resulted in lower adult SLL. Overall, adult SLL is related to a greater extent than trunk length to early life factors and prepubertal height
QuotePoor childhood health, insufficient diet, adverse family circumstances and maternal smoking during pregnancy are each known to reduce leg length [104,111–114]. Frisancho et al. [107] emphasize the environmental effects in a study that finds that leg length of Mexican-Americans aged 2–17 years old is significantly associated with socioeconomic status of their families. In that study, individuals from better-off families have significantly longer legs, but equal trunk length, when compared with boys and girls from poorer families.