Quote from: Jack1066 on February 06, 2017, 01:44:20 AMThe 10%, 40% thing as far as I remember is just how much your height can vary based on environment on top of genetics.
As far as I remember this variability is calculated off the average height.
So, say a 174 cm guy in Holland is 6 cm off the average, and the average is 180 cm, if his genetic heritability was 80% (varies from person to person), 80% of this deviation from the average might be explained by genetics and 20% by nutrition and environment. Which would mean his maximum "potential" was 175.2 cm but he only reached 174 due to poor nutrition.
80% is considered the average heritability for white males. I worked out once I could have been about half an inch or an inch taller myself, but then again I'm not sure as my dad has always claimed 5'8 but I am pretty sure I am already 1.5-2 inches taller than him (he is 60 though so I assume he's shrunk an inch or so by now). And as I said I did practically everything I could to stunt my growth in my teens.
I think this is all really situationally dependant though. Short people can have tall parents and families and tall people can have short parents. Random genetic mutations happen.
That's a weird way of calculation since your body doesn't know what the average height is. A kid with short parents could have the best development years possible, optimal nutrition, optimal sleep, optimal exercise, but still be under the average height, and therefore is supposed to have stunted his growth. Wouldn't a better calculation be to take the calculated height (dads height + moms height), because that one is more telling of the individual?
I'm just rambling here and it's 3 am, but let's say I'm 171 My calculated height, based on my parent's height, would have been about 177. 20% of that difference is 1.2 cm. So my bad lifestyle would only have affected my growth by that much, correct?
QuoteThey all sleep 12 inches every night
LOL! I'm off to bed, good night ya.