Anthropometric historiography has used human height as an indicator of the “biological standard of living”, based on the biomedical theory of physical growth. According to it, height reflects the difference between energy from diet and energy expended through disease and physical exertion. This article weighs the importance of these three variables in height using military recruitment data from Extremadura, one of the least developed regions of the EU. Data show important anthropometric growth in men recruited between 1856 and 2000 because of three major advances: the epidemiological transition, the nutritional transition, and structural change. These improvements, however, did not simultaneously impact height. Advances in health first triggered anthropometric progression. Significant improvements in nutrition and working conditions did not appear until well into the 20th century. This finding invites a cautious interpretation of progress and shows that improving health can advance biological well-being without improving living conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luján et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: