plasticity of adolescent growth in boys

Plasticity of Adolescent Growth in BoysMICHAEL HERMANUSSEN*Aschauhof 3, 24340 Altenhof, Germany

ABSTRACT The present analysis examines the plasticity of adolescentgrowth in 21 selected historic and recent growth studies from 6 Europeancountries, the U.S., and Japan, during the last 150 years. Mean stature at theage of 6 years has significantly increased by approximately 6 mm per decade(P < 0.05), whereas adult stature has risen by approximately 10 mm perdecade (P < 0.01). Developmental tempo has also increased. Mean age attake-off significantly dropped by approximately 2 years per century (P <0.01), and age at peak height velocity by 1.7 years per century (P < 0.01). Yet,the secular trend affected different parts of the growth curves in a differentway so that the shape of the growth curves has also changed. Whereas ado-lescent growth rose significantly in the last century (P < 0.01) and increas-ingly contributed to the improvement of adult stature, no significant modifi-cation of the prepubertal portion was evident. Though early childhood andadolescent growth appeared equally plastic, both parameters were statisti-cally independent, indicating differences in the regulation of early and ado-lescent growth. Yet, the factors that regulate adolescent growth still remainto be elucidated. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 9:469–480, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Worldwide variation of human growthhas been thoroughly documented (Evelethand Tanner, 1990). Variations in stature donot only depend on ethnic differences. On-togenetic adaptation (plasticity) modifiesgrowth and final stature according to envi-ronmental and socioeconomic circum-stances. During periods of increasing pros-perity, children tend to grow faster and im-prove final stature by up to 17 cm within130 years as documented in Dutch con-scripts (van Wieringen, 1972, 1986),whereas under unfortunate circumstances,the opposite may be apparent. Estimatedstature of male Vikings of Greenland de-creased from 177 cm at the time of Eric theRed, towards 164 cm around 1400 when thepopulation died out due to climatic changesand malnutrition (Gribbin and Gribbin,1994).

It is uncertain whether the total period ofgrowth is vulnerable to ontogenetic adapta-tion, or whether different ages have differ-ent sensitivity to environmental conditions.Infancy and early childhood are more af-fected by secular growth regulation thanlater age groups (van Wieringen, 1972;Boldsen, 1995). But, adolescent growth also

does not appear to be insensitive to environ-mental circumstances. Short adolescentsare more prone to growth stunting duringperiods of war and economic depressionthan their taller peers (Hermanussen et al.,1995); they are relatively too numerous andthe stature distribution of historic samplesof conscripts is skewed (van Wieringen,1972; Boldsen and Kronberg, 1984). The op-posite was observed in recent East Germanconscripts. They were, on average, 2.3 cmshorter than West Germans, but caught-uprapidly after German reunification in 1989,and almost reached West German levels atpresent (Hermanussen, 1995).

This study analyzes the plasticity of ado-lescent growth in 21 historic and recentgrowth studies selected from 75 regionaland national investigations of the last 150years. In order to avoid political circum-stances that may interfere with growthregulation, a small number of comparablestudies was selected. Studies that were con-sidered rudimentary and implausible, or

*Correspondence to: Michael Hermanussen, Aschauhof 3,24340 Altenhof, Germany.

Received 20 February 1996; Accepted 4 October 1996

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 9:469–480 (1997)

© 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PROD #681

were performed during war or socioeco-nomic depression, with two exceptions(Brussels, Quetelet, 1835; Germany, Korn-feld, 1929/30), were rejected.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventy-five studies on male growth be-tween 1835 (Quetelet, cited after Boyd,1980) and the present, were available to theauthor (see appendix). Most historic studiesdid not meet modern requirements forgrowth surveys. Some did not appear trulyrepresentative and obtained data on growthstatus only from certain regions, schools, orrestricted areas. Others provided no infor-mation upon the origin of the data, thoughthey were considered national standards.Some studies ended several years beforenear final height was reached, and most his-toric data had been analyzed without appro-priate statistics. A very small number ofstudies was in opposition to common knowl-edge, e.g., cohorts of younger children werefound taller than older cohorts. In addition,some historic samples had to be rejected asthey provided immediate evidence for falsedescription by Preece-Baines modeling (seebelow). Thus, rigorous selection was neces-sary after which 21 studies from 8 countriesremained (for details see appendix). Threestudies were considered only partially appli-cable, and treated separately, as Preece-Baines modeling appeared unsatisfactory.Of these, the 1835 Quetelet study (Boyd,1980) was incorporated because it was theearliest study, thus serving as representa-tive for an extreme historic example of Eu-ropean growth, and in order to better exam-ine the effects of Preece-Baines modeling onhistoric growth data (see below). The 1906German (Camerer, 1906), and the 1933Swiss study (Kornfeld, 1933) were incorpo-rated because there was no apparent reasonto distrust them, except for difficulties inapplying the Preece-Baines model.

There were the 18 other studies: (1) Ger-man: Kornfeld, 1929/30; Reinken and vanOost, 1992; (2) Dutch: workers 1869, fromvan Wieringen, 1972; van Wieringen et al.,1971, 1985; (3) British: workers from mid-19th century, from Boyd, 1980; Tanner etal., 1966; (4) Swedish: Rietz 1903/4; Bromanand Dahlberg, 1942; Karlberg and Taran-ger, 1976; (5) Swiss: Heimendinger 1958;Prader et al., 1989; (6) American: Rietz1903/4; Reed and Stuart, 1959; Hamill etal., 1979; (7) Japanese: Tanner et al., 1982.

Twenty studies originated from 7 countries;three studies were available for Germany,The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, theU.S., and Japan; and two studies wereavailable for Great Britain. The 1835 Quete-let study remained alone and was deliber-ately not paired with modern data as theshape of the growth velocity pattern ap-peared very different. All but the studiesfrom the last century had been or are stillused as national reference data, or contain asubstantial quota of all children of the re-spective populations. The 1929/1930 Ger-man study was selected in order to illus-trate the effect of political instability ongrowth.

StatisticsAll studies except those from the last de-

cades that were either mixed-longitudinalor longitudinal were based on cross-sec-tional material. Means for body staturewere presented for each age group. Esti-mates of individual growth velocity werethus not available, and growth velocity ofthe respective population was estimated.Growth velocity of a population was definedas the difference in mean stature betweenannual cohorts, i.e., pubertal growth veloc-ity, appeared attenuated compared to indi-vidual growth velocity (Falkner and Tan-ner, 1986).

None of the growth studies provided in-formation on the occurrence of pubertalsigns so that direct measures of pubertywere not available. Instead of direct mea-sures, growth velocity was used as an indi-rect estimate for the onset of pubertal de-velopment. As the pubertal growth patternis characterized by decelerated growth rateprior to the onset of puberty, and acceler-ated growth rate during puberty with peakheight velocity during mid-pubertal devel-opment, the two characteristic inflexionpoints of the pubertal growth velocity curvewere used to estimate the onset and prog-ress of puberty.

In order to unambiguously identify thecharacteristic inflexion points of pubertalgrowth velocity in each population, meanstatures of all studies were fit with thePreece-Baines model. Calculated ages attake-off (TO) and at peak height velocity(PHV) served as substitute for pubertal de-velopment. Zemel and Johnston (1994)showed that parameters of the Preece-Baines model were valid when obtained

470 M. HERMANUSSEN

from cross-sectional data in boys. AllPreece-Baines modeled growth velocity pat-terns and authentic patterns were criticallyinspected in the present study. According toarbitrary judgement, mean residuals aftermodeling had to be smaller than 1.0 cm2 inorder to exclude studies that could not befitted by the Preece-Baines model. Thereaf-ter, authentic growth velocity patterns andmodeled growth velocity patterns werechecked for congruency, particularly for theages at TO and PHV. After exclusion of ru-dimentary and implausible studies, 18 stud-ies were satisfactorily modeled. Three stud-ies appeared suspects. There was no appar-ent biological reason to reject them. Theyprovided evidence for good fit, but authenticage at TO differed from the modeled age ofTO by more than two years (Fig. 1).

The following parameters were availablefor the 18 growth studies: (1) Year of publi-cation, or—in the Dutch and the Japanesesurveys, year of investigation, (2) stature atage 6, (3) stature at TO, (4) stature at PHV,(5) adult stature, (6) adolescent growth (in-crement of stature between TO and adultstature), (7) age at TO, (8) age at PHV, and(9) prepubertal growth (increment of stat-ure between age of 6 and age at TO), and(10) mean residuals after Preece-Bainesmodeling. In the three suspect studies, stat-ure and age at TO were estimated from au-thentic data and not from the Preece-Bainesestimates.

Each parameter represents a populationcharacteristic. Parameters of the samepopulation were treated as connectedsamples. Changes of these parametersthrough history, i.e., increase or decrease,were converted into «plus» and «minus», andWilcoxon matched pairs signed rank testswere applied (Sachs, 1978).

RESULTS

Table 1 demonstrates (1) year of publica-tion, (2) stature at age 6, (3) stature at TO,(4) stature at PHV, (5) adult stature, (6)adolescent growth (increment of stature be-tween TO and adult stature), (7) age at TO,(8) age at PHV, (9) prepubertal growth (in-crement of stature between age of six andage at TO), and (10) residuals after Preece-Baines modeling. The residuals indicateprecision of the fit by calculating leastsquares.

Fig. 2a exemplifies authentic body statureof Japanese boys between 1957, 1967, and

1977. Developmental tempo has acceler-ated, and stature has increased in all agegroups. Similar patterns were obvious inthe other studies. Fig. 2b illustrates annualgrowth velocities (authentic difference ofstature between annual cohorts) for Japa-nese boys. Preece-Baines modeled growthvelocity curves of Japanese, Dutch, Ger-man, and Swiss populations are shown inFigs. 3a–d. The pubertal growth spurt ishigher and the developmental tempo has ac-celerated in more recent populations.Equivalent data were found in British,American, and Swedish studies (data notshown). Only the 1929/1930 German studycontrasts this tendency, and illustrates thenegative effect of severe socioeconomic de-pression on adolescent growth. Although6-year-old boys were taller in 1929/1930than in 1906, they lost their advantage andfinally were smaller.

Fig. 4 examines the historic changes ofmean stature at 6 years (Fig. 4a), at the ageof TO (Fig. 4b), and at the age of PHV (Fig.4c), and adult stature (Fig. 4d) of the 6 coun-tries with three studies and the two Britishstudies. The Quetelet study is not depictedbecause it was not paired. Significant incre-ments of stature at age 6 (P < 0.05), statureat PHV (P < 0.01), and adult stature (P <0.01) have occurred throughout the last cen-tury. Stature at age 6 increased by approxi-mately 6 mm per decade, whereas adultstature increased by approximately 10 mmper decade.

Developmental tempo has also increased.Mean age at TO (Fig. 4e) significantly de-creased by approximately 2 years per cen-tury (P < 0.01), and age at PHV (Fig. 4f), by1.7 years per century (P < 0.01). The shapeof the growth curves has also changed.Whereas adolescent growth rose signifi-cantly in the last century (P < 0.01, Fig. 4g),and increasingly contributed to the im-provement of adult stature (Fig. 4h), no sig-nificant modification of the prepubertal por-tion was evident (Fig. 4i) with no apparentcontribution to adult stature (Fig. 4k).

Though early childhood and adolescentgrowth appear plastic, with significantsecular trends in stature at age 6 and ado-lescent growth, both parameters are statis-tically independent. When stature at 6 isrelated to adolescent growth in each popu-lation, Fig. 4l unambiguously illustratesthat there is no relationship between theseparameters. This strongly suggests differ-

PLASTICITY OF ADOLESCENT GROWTH 471

Fig

.1.

Com

pari

son

ofau

then

tic

ann

ual

grow

thra

tes

and

Pre

ece-

Bai

nes

mod

eled

grow

thra

tes

ofB

elgi

an(Q

uet

elet

,183

5),G

erm

an(1

906)

,Sw

iss

(193

3),

and

Am

eric

an(1

903)

mal

es.

Th

inli

nes

indi

cate

Pre

ece-

Bai

nes

mod

eled

grow

thra

tes,

thic

kli

nes

indi

cate

auth

enti

can

nu

algr

owth

rate

s.A

geat

take

-off

acco

rdin

gto

Pre

ece-

Bai

nes

mod

elin

gap

pear

sea

rlie

r(a

rrow

)th

ansu

gges

ted

byth

eau

then

tic

grow

thra

tes

(ast

eris

k)in

the

earl

yB

elgi

an,

Ger

man

and

Sw

iss

stu

dies

.O

nly

the

earl

yA

mer

ican

stu

dyis

wel

lm

odel

edby

the

Pre

ece-

Bai

nes

mod

el.

TABLE 1. Developmental parameters of historic growth studies

Originof study (1)

Stature (cm) at6 yrs(2)

TO(3)

PHV(4)

adult(5)

Quetelet (1835) 104.5 143.11 144.2 169.9British (1860) missing 133.1 149.2 160.7British (1966) 114.6 137.1 158.8 175.0Dutch (1869) missing 130.6 146.6 159.6Dutch (1965) 117.8 141.6 162.0 178.3Dutch (1980) 118.8 140.8 163.9 182.0German (1906) 109.0 140.01 152.9 173.7German (1929) 112.0 135.0 153.7 169.5German (1992) 118.4 139.7 162.8 180.7Japan (1957) missing 126.7 148.7 165.3Japan (1967) missing 128.2 150.6 168.1Japan (1977) missing 128.9 151.7 169.6Swedish (1903) 116.0 136.6 157.2 171.9Swedish (1942) 117.3 137.4 160.1 180.6Swedish (1976) 116.6 137.0 161.8 182.2Swiss (1933) 112.8 141.01 155.6 175.2Swiss (1958) 116.0 136.8 158.6 176.7Swiss (1989) 117.3 139.0 160.9 178.1US (1903) 112.1 131.2 153.1 171.2US (1959) 116.7 135.2 158.4 176.8US (1979) 116.1 132.2 157.3 178.4

Originof study (1)

Adolescentgrowth

(cm)(6)

Age atTO

(years)(7)

Age atPHV

(years)(8)

Prepub.growth

(cm)(9)

Resid.of PBmodel.(cm2)

Quetelet (1835) 26.81 13.01 13.0 38.6 0.58British (1860) 27.6 11.6 14.7 missing 0.43British (1966) 37.9 10.0 13.7 22.5 0.50Dutch (1869) 29.0 12.7 16.6 missing 0.43Dutch (1965) 36.7 10.4 14.0 23.8 0.04Dutch (1980) 41.2 9.9 13.8 22.0 0.40German (1906) 33.71 12.01 14.3 31.01 0.67German (1929) 34.5 10.9 14.8 23.0 0.32German (1992) 41.0 9.8 13.7 21.3 0.31Japan (1957) 38.6 9.8 13.8 missing 0.27Japan (1967) 39.9 9.3 13.2 missing 0.10Japan (1977) 40.7 9.0 12.8 missing 0.06Swedish (1903) 35.3 11.0 15.3 20.6 0.40Swedish (1942) 43.2 9.7 13.7 20.1 0.50Swedish (1976) 45.2 9.6 13.8 20.4 0.15Swiss (1933) 34.21 12.01 14.4 28.21 0.45Swiss (1958) 39.9 9.8 13.7 20.8 0.48Swiss (1989) 39.1 9.9 13.7 21.7 0.21US (1903) 40.0 9.8 13.9 19.1 0.25US (1959) 41.7 9.4 13.4 18.5 0.55US (1979) 46.2 9.0 13.1 16.1 0.06

(1) year of publication (year of investigation of Dutch and Japanese data)(2) stature at six (authentic value)(3) stature at age of take-off for pubertal growth (after Preece-Baines modeling, except those,marked by asterisk)(4) stature at age of peak height velocity (after Preece-Baines modeling)(5) adult stature (after Preece-Baines modeling)(6) adolescent growth (increment of stature between take-off for pubertal growth and adultstature)(7) age of take-off for pubertal growth(8) age at peak height velocity(9) prepubertal growth (increment of stature between the age of six and the age at take-off)1Age at take-off was determined from the authentic data, and not after Preece-Baines modeling.See also Fig. 1.


ences in growth regulation of prepubertaland adolescent growth.

DISCUSSIONWorldwide variation of human growth

has been thoroughly documented (Evelethand Tanner, 1990), with ethnic, environ-mental, and socioeconomic circumstancesbeing involved in its plasticity (van Wierin-gen, 1986; Boldsen, 1995). Infancy and earlychildhood are apparently more vulnerableto environmental stress than later develop-mental periods (van Wieringen, personalcommunication 1992; Boldsen, 1995). How-ever, growth during adolescence also ap-pears flexible. Short adolescents are moreprone to growth stunting during periods ofwar and economic depression (Hermanus-sen et al., 1995), resulting in skewed distri-

Fig. 3a to 3d. Preece-Baines modeled annual growth rates of Japanese (a), Dutch (b), German (c), and Swiss (d)boys.

Fig. 2a. Stature of Japanese boys in 1957, 1967, and1977 (Tanner et al., 1982). Open circles indicate theoldest study (1957), lines indicate the central study(1967), closed circles indicate the most recent study(1977). 2b. Authentic annual growth rates (annual dif-ferences of stature) of Japanese boys (derived from Fig.1a). Open circles indicate the oldest study, lines indicatethe central study, closed circles indicate the most recentstudy.

butions of adult stature in many historicsamples (van Wieringen, 1972; Boldsen andKronberg, 1984; Hermanussen et al., 1995).

The present study investigated the plas-ticity of growth particularly of adolescentgrowth, in recent historic times. Historic in-vestigations often deviate from modern cri-teria of study design and evaluation, andoccasionally suffer from a certain degree ofplausibility. Many parameters that we areused to, obtain pubertal characteristics,growth velocity, and standard deviationsfrom modern growth studies, are absent in

historic data, and true final stature is sel-dom reached (Flugel et al., 1980). Thus,changes in developmental tempo and theonset of puberty are difficult to quantify.For this reason, and in order to make differ-ent growth studies comparable, some math-ematical pretreatment was necessary.

Numerous approaches have been pub-lished to analyze growth curves (e.g., Preeceand Baines, 1978; Gasser et al., 1985; Sager,1986; Karlberg, 1987). The Preece-Bainesmodel was chosen as it has been widelyused, it provides indirect parameters for de-

Fig. 4. Changes of mean stature at various ages during the last 130 years. Samples of equivalent populations(e.g., Germans 1906, 1929, 1992) are connected by lines. (A) change of mean stature at the age of six years, (B) nochange of mean stature at the age of TO, (C) change of mean stature at the age of PHV, (D) change of adult stature.Increment of development during the last 130 years. Samples of equivalent populations are connected by lines. (E)decreasing age at TO. (F) decreasing age at PHV. (G) increment of adolescent growth during the last 130 years, with(H) increasing contribution of adolescent growth to adult stature. (I) absence of change in prepubertal growth,during the last 130 years. (K) absence of any contribution of prepubertal growth to adult stature. (L) absence ofrelation between stature at six and adolescent growth.


velopmental tempo, and it is applicable forcross-sectional data on males (Zemel andJohnston, 1994). Most studies were easilymodeled. Yet, rudimentary studies andstudies with small or inapparent pubertalgrowth spurts could not be modeled with thePreece-Baines protocol. In the latter, mod-eling occasionally tended to underestimatethe age at TO. This problem was apparentin the 1835 Quetelet, the 1906 German, andthe 1933 Swiss studies which, therefore,were considered with caution. Yet, thesestudies were incorporated since there wasno apparent biological reason to distrust orreject them, except for difficulties in apply-ing the modeling procedure. Thus, from theoriginal list of 75 studies on male growthpublished between 1835 (Quetelet, cited af-ter Boyd, 1980) and the present, 21 studieswere selected and found comparable.

The present investigation confirms cur-rent knowledge on secular increments instature. Only the 1929 German study(Kornfeld, 1929) differed from the generalpattern, possibly due to socioeconomic cir-cumstances at that time. German males in1929 were 4.2 cm shorter than in 1906,which is of particular interest, as stature of6-year-old German children had been tallerin 1929 than in 1906 (+3.0 cm), i.e., thenegative trend in adult stature was due torestricted adolescent growth.

Infant and early childhood growth is sen-sitive to environmental factors (van Wierin-gen, personal communication, 1992; Bold-sen, 1995). The present investigation alsosuggests plasticity in adolescent growth andthus, supports earlier findings both on theinhibiting effects of war and economic de-pression on the stature of conscripts(Hermanussen et al., 1995), and on stimu-latory effects on the stature of conscriptsthat were seen after rapid economic im-provement (Hermanussen, 1995). The hu-man growth curve appears to consist of twoplastic periods that are prone to environ-mental growth regulation, and an inter-posed period of stability. Both periods ap-pear statistically independent suggestingdifferences in the regulation of prepubertaland adolescent growth.

The factors that regulate adolescentgrowth still remain to be elucidated. Thepresent investigation only suggests that be-sides those factors that are known to affectearly child growth, such as nutrition, ill-ness, and socioeconomic status, additional

factors are present, such as social and po-litical events, that might interfere with thefinal period of growth.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Dr. Heidi Danker-Hopfe,Bremen, who modeled all historic growthstudies by Preece-Baines analysis. Thiswork was supported by Deutsche Gesell-schaft fur Auxologie.

LITERATURE CITED

Boldsen JL (1995) The place of plasticity in the study ofthe secular trend for male stature: An analysis ofDanish biological population history. In Mascie-Taylor CGN and Bogin B (eds): Human Variabilityand Plasticity. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 75–90.

Boldsen JL, Kronberg D (1984) The distribution of stat-ure among Danish conscripts in 1852–56. Ann. Hum.Biol. 6:555–565.

Boyd E (1980) Origins of the Study of Human Growth.Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Health ScienceFoundation.

Broman B, Dahlberg G, Lichtenstein A (1942) Heightand weight during growth. Acta Pediatr. 30:1–66.

Camerer W (1906) Gewichts- und Langenwachstum derKinder. In Pfaundler M, Schlossmann A (eds): Hand-buch der Kinderheilkunde. Leipzig: Vogel, pp. 385–400.

Eveleth PB, Tanner JM (1990) Worldwide Variation inHuman Growth, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Falkner F, Tanner JM (1986) Human Growth, Vol. 3,2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press.

Flugel B, Greil H, Sommer K (1986) AnthropologischerAtlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Berlin: Tribune.

Gasser T, Kohler W, Muller HG, Largo R, Molinari L,Prader A (1985) Human height growth: Correlationaland multivariate structure of velocity and accelera-tion. Ann. Hum. Biol. 12:501–515.

Gribbin J, Gribbin M (1994) Kinder der Eiszeit. Frank-furt: Insel.

Hamill PVV, Drizd TA, Johnson CL, Reed RB, RocheAF, Moore WM (1979) Physical growth: National Cen-ter for Health Statistics Percentiles. Am. J. Clin.Nutr. 32:607–629.

Heimendinger J (1958) Die Ergebnisse von Korpermes-sungen an 5000 Basler Kindern von 0–18 Jahren.Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr., N. 32/33.

Hermanussen M (1995) Die Korpergroße deutscherWehrpflichtiger vor und nach der deutschen Wieder-vereinigung. Ein Beispiel fur den Einfluß politischerVeranderungen auf das Wachstum junger Manner.Med. Welt. 46:395–396.

Hermanussen M, Burmeister J, Burkhardt V (1995)Stature and stature distribution in recent West Ger-man and historic samples of Italian and Dutch con-scripts. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 7:507–515.

Karlberg P, Taranger J (1976) The somatic developmentof children in a Swedish urban community. Acta Pae-diatr. Scand., Suppl. 258:1–148.

Karlberg J (1987) On the modelling of human growth.Statistics in Medicine 6:185–192.

476 M. HERMANUSSEN

Kornfeld W (1929/30) Zur Bewertung von Grosse undGewicht bei Knaben und Madchen aller Altersstufen.Z. Kinderheilk. 48:188–207.

Kornfeld W (1933) Uber Normalwerte fur Große undGewicht bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Wien. Klin.Wochenschr. 22:683–687.

Prader A, Largo RH, Molinari L, Issler C (1989) Physi-cal growth of Swiss children from birth to 20 years ofage. Helv. Paediatr. Acta 43 (Suppl. 52):1–125.

Preece M, Baines MJ (1978) A new family of math-ematical models describing the human growth curve.Ann. Hum. Biol. 5:1–24.

Reed RB, Stuart HC (1959) Patterns of growth in heightand weight from birth to 18 years of age. Pediatrics24:904–921.

Reinken L, van Oost G (1992) Longitudinale Korperent-wicklung gesunder Kinder von 0 bis 18 Jahren. Klin.Padiatr. 204:129–133.

Rietz E (1903/4) Das Wachstum Berliner Kinder wah-rend der Schuljahre. Archiv Anthropol. 29:30–42.

Roede MJ, van Wieringen JC (1985) Growth diagrams1980. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheitszorg, Suppl.1985:1–34.

Sachs L (1978) Angewandte Statistik, 5th ed. Berlin:Springer.

Sager G (1986) Wachstumsmodelle und Wachs-tumsschub beim Menschen. Gegenbaurs morph.Jahrb. 132:57–67.

Tanner JM, Hayashi MA, Preece MA, Cameron N(1982) Increase in length of leg relative to trunk inJapanese children and adults from 1959–1977. Ann.Hum. Biol. 5:411–423.

Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Takaishi M (1966) Stan-dards from birth to maturity for height, weight,height velocity, and weight velocity: British children,1965 I/II. Arch. Dis. Child. 41:454–471, 613–625.

van Wieringen JC (1972) Secular changes of growth.1964–1966 height and weight surveys in The Nether-lands in historical perspective. Leiden: NetherlandsInstitute for Preventive Medicine TNO.

van Wieringen JC (1986) Secular growth changes. InFalkner F, Tanner JM (eds): Human growth, Vol. 3,2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 307–331.

van Wieringen JC, Waffelbakker F, Verbrugge HP, deMaas JH (1971) Growth diagrams 1965, Netherlands.Groningen: Walters-Noordhoff Publishing.

Zemel BS, Johnston FE (1994) Application of thePreece-Baines growth model to cross-sectional data:Problems of validity and interpretation. Am. J. Hum.Biol. 6:563–570.

APPENDIX

Seventy-five historic and modern investi-gations on the growth of males were ana-lyzed in respect to prepubertal and pubertalgrowth (Table A). As most historic studiesdid not meet modern requirements forgrowth surveys, rigorous selection accord-ing to strict criteria was necessary. Only in-vestigations of similar populations (identi-cal countries) were compared. A time inter-val of one decade apart was considered aminimum to allow secular comparisons ofgrowth (criterion A). When several studieswere available from the same background,studies that were best characterized werefavored. More than three studies per coun-try were avoided in order to allow an equi-librium between the countries. Studies withan age range of less than 10 years, or stud-ies that ended before the age 17.5 yearswere considered rudimentary and rejec-ted (criterion B). Authentic incrementsof body stature had to be plausible. Stud-ies with very irregular or even negativeannual increments were rejected (criter-ion C). Also rejected were studies thatcould not be modeled by the Preece-Bainesprotocol, or provided evidence for falsemodeling (Zemel and Johnston, 1994) (cri-terion D), except for the three studiesmentioned separately. European studiesimmediately after World War I, World WarII, and at the beginning of economic depres-sion during the 20th century were avoideddue to uncertain influences on populationgrowth (criterion E), except one (German,1929).

TABLE A. List of studies considered for the investigation of plasticity of growth inadolescent boys. Adult stature is given according to Preece-Baines modeling. In cases ofimproper modeling, final stature is replaced by authentic near final stature (raw data).

Numbers in the last column (source) refer to literature cited

Originof study (1)

Statureat 6 yrs

(2)

Adultstature

(5)

Criterionfor

rejecting SourceAustria (1923) missing 166.0 AE (20)Belgium (Quetelet)

(1835)104.5 169.7 D1 (3)

Belgium (1986) 116.0 176.6 A (43)Belgium (1984) 116.1 176.3 A (11)Britain (workers)

(1860)missing 160.7 (3)

Britain (non-workers)(1860)

missing 177.5 CD (3)


TABLE A. Continued.

Originof study (1)

Statureat 6 yrs

(2)

Adultstature

(5)

Criterionfor

rejecting SourceBritain (1966) 114.6 175.0 (39)East Germany (1968) missing missing B (23)East Germany (1980) 119.6 176.5 C (12)Finland (1971) 115.0 178.5 A (1)France (1938) 111.5 167.0 B (31)France (1942) 110.6 missing BDE (31)France (1950) 114.3 missing BDE (31)France (1979) 113.5 175.6 A (11)

Germany(Berlin)

(1903) 118.3 172.2 A (29)

Germany(Hamburg)

(1903) missing 167.8 A (29)Germany (1906) 109.0 173.7 D1 (6)

Germany

(high school andcollege)

(1913) 120.0 175.0 E (33)

Germany

(high school andcollege)

(1918) 118.5 173.3 E (33)

Germany(high school)

(1913) 118.5 172.9 E (33)

Germany(high school)

(1918) 116.2 172.3 E (33)

Germany

(pupils of middleclass and peasants)

(1913) 117.0 171.5 E (33)

Germany

(pupils of middleclass and peasants)

(1918) missing 171.0 CDE (33)

Germany(upper class)

(1917) 118.0 172.3 E (32)Germany (1929) 112.0 169.5 E1 (19)

Germany(lower class)

(1917) 112.0 missing BDE (32)Germany (1933) missing 169.1 BD (20)

Germany(Berlin)

(1957) 117.8 176.9 C (34)Germany (1968) 117.4 missing BD (36)Germany (1969) 121.5 177.2 A (35)

Germany(Ulm)(1977) 120.5 missing BD (9)

Germany (1992) 118.4 180.7 (27.28)Greece (1979) 117.0 175.1 A (11)Hungary (1958) 112.4 173.5 C (8)Hungary (1968) 114.9 175.2 C (8)Hungary (1978) 115.7 174.3 C (8)Hungary (1986) 116.2 176.5 C (11)Hungary (1988) 118.1 175.7 C (8)Ireland (1987) 114.2 176.8 A (17)Japan (1957) missing 165.3 (38)Japan (1967) missing 168.1 (38)Japan (1977) missing 169.6 (38)

The Netherlands(workers)

(1869) missing 159.6 (41)The Netherlands (orphans)

(1869)missing 160.6 CD (41)

The Netherlands (pupils)(1869)

missing 164.6 CD (41)

The Netherlands (1960) 115.7 176.0 A (41)The Netherlands (1965) 117.8 178.3 (40)The Netherlands (1985) 118.8 182.0 (30)Norway (1975) missing 181.6 A (5)Norway (1983) 118.7 179.3 B (42)Poland (1983) 117.8 178.0 A (11)Spain (1968) 120.2 missing BD (10)Spain (1977) missing missing BD (10)

478 M. HERMANUSSEN

LITERATURE CITED

1. Backstrom L, R-L Kantero (1971) II. Cross-sectional studies of height and weight in Finishchildren aged from birth to 20 years. In BackstromL, Kantero R-L, Tiisala R and Hallmann N (eds):Studies on growth of Finnish children from birth toten years. Acta Paediatr. Scand., Suppl. 220:9–12.

2. Bickel J, Bodmer HG (1967) Große und Gewichtvon Zurcher Schulkindern. Z. Praventivmed.12:345–353.

3. Boyd E (1980) Origins of the study of humangrowth. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon HealthScience Foundation.

4. Broman B, Dahlberg G, Lichtenstein A (1942)Height and weight during growth. Acta Paediatr.30:1–66.

5. Brundtland GH, Liesto L, Walløe L (1975) Heightand weight of school children and adolescent girlsand boys in Oslo. Acta Paediatr. Scand. 64:565–573.

6. Camerer W (1906) Gewichts und Langenwachstumder Kinder. In Pfaundler M, Schlossmann A (eds):Handbuch der Kinderheilkunde. Leipzig: Vogel, pp.385–400.

7. Catel W (1961) Differentialdiagnose vonKrankheiten bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, 3rded., Vol 1. Stuttgart: Thieme, p. 13.

8. Eiben O (1988) Szekularis novekedesvaltozasok

Magyarorszagon. Humanbiologia Budapestinensis,Suppl 6, 53–108.

9. Engelhardt I (1977) Normalmasse fur Kinder undJugendliche im Alter von 4 bis 16 Jahren. Doctoraldissertation, University of Ulm, Germany.

10. Esteban MB, Megias SM, Estaben FJM, MenendezMD (1987) Curvas de crecimiento de los ninos de lacomunidad autonoma de Madrid. Salud Rural 4:1–13.

11. Eveleth PB, Tanner JM (1990) Worldwide Varia-tion in Human Growth, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

12. Flugel B, Greil H, Sommer K (1986) Anthropolo-gischer Atlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Berlin: Tri-bune.

13. Gray H, Fraley F (1926) Growth standards. Weight,chest-girth and weight for private school boys. Am.J. Dis. Child. 32:554–555.

14. Hamill PVV, Drizd TA, Johnson CL, Reed RB,Roche AF, Moore WM (1979) Physical growth: Na-tional Center for Health Statistics percentiles. Am.J. Clin. Nutr. 32:607–629.

15. Heimendinger J (1958) Die Ergebnisse von Kor-permessungen an 5000 Basler Kindern von 0–18Jahren. Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr., N. 32/33.

16. Hernandez (1988) Curvas y Tablas de Crecimiento.Bilbao: Instituto de Investigacion sobre Creci-miento y Desarrollo.

TABLE A. Continued.

Originof study (1)

Statureat 6 yrs

(2)

Adultstature

(5)

Criterionfor

rejecting SourceSpain (1985) 115.5 177.0 A (10)Spain (1988) 115.1 176.5 A (16)

Sweden(Malmo)

(1942) 115.8 177.9 A (4)

Sweden(Stockholm)

(1942) 117.3 180.6 (4)

Sweden

(high schooland college)

(1903) 116.0 171.9 (29)Sweden (1976) 116.6 182.2 (18)Switzerland (1933) 112.8 175.2 D1 (20)Switzerland (1958) 116.0 176.7 (15)Switzerland (1967) 117.4 175.4 BD (2)Switzerland (1977) 117.6 missing BD (25)Switzerland (1989) 117.3 178.1 (24)US (1894) 112.7 172.6 A (44)US (1903) 112.1 171.2 (29)US (1926) 119.0 177.4 A (13)

US

(Americans ofnorthern European

descendants)(1931) missing 178.3 B (22)

US

(Americans ofItalian descendants)

(1939) missing 169.5 B (22)

US

(Americans ofnorthern European

descendants)(1939) missing 173.5 B (22)

US (1950) 117.5 175.5 A (7)US (1959) 116.7 176.8 (26)US (1970) 116.2 180.2 A (21)US (1979) 116.1 178.4 (14)US (1985) 115.9 177.4 A (37)1Study was deliberately selected inspite of rejection criterion


17. Hoey HMCV, Tanner JM, Cox LA (1987) Clinicalgrowth standards for Irish children. Acta Paediatr.Scand., Suppl. 338:1–31.

18. Karlberg P, Taranger J (1976) The somatic devel-opment of children in a Swedish urban community.Acta Paediatr. Scand., Suppl. 258:1–148.

19. Kornfeld W (1929/30) Zur Bewertung von Grosseund Gewicht bei Knaben und Madchen aller Al-tersstufen. Z. Kinderheilk. 48:188–207.

20. Kornfeld W (1933) Uber Normalwerte fur Großeund Gewicht bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. WienKlin. Wochenschr. 22:683–687.

21. McCammon RW (1970) Human Growth and Devel-opment. Springfield, IL: CC Thomas.

22. Meredith HV (1939) Stature of Massachusetts chil-dren of north European and Italian ancestry. Am. J.Phys. Anthropol. 24:301–346.

23. Oehmisch W (1970) Die Entwicklung der Korper-maße bei Kindern und Jugendlichen in der Deut-schen Demokratischen Republik. Berlin: Akademiefur Arztliche Fortbildung.

24. Prader A, Largo RH, Molinari L, Issler C (1989)Physical growth of Swiss children from birth to 20years of age. Helv. Paediatr. Acta 43, Suppl. 52:1–125.

25. Prader A, Budliger H (1977) Korpermasse, Wachs-tumsgeschwindigkeit und Knochenalter gesunderKinder in den ersten 12 Jahren. LongitudinaleWachstumsstudie Zurich. Helvet. Paediatr. Acta,Suppl. 37:1–44.

26. Reed RB, Stuart HC (1959) Patterns of growth inheight and weight from birth to 18 years of age.Pediatrics 24:904–921.

27. Reinken L, Stolley H, Droese W, van Oost G (1980)Longitudinale Korperentwicklung gesunderKinder. II. Große, Gewicht, Hautfalten von Kindernim Alter von 1.5 bis 16 Jahren. Klin. Padiatr.192:25–33.

28. Reinken L, van Oost G (1992) Longitudinale Kor-perentwicklung gesunder Kinder von 0 bis 18Jahren. Klin. Padiatr. 204:129–133.

29. Rietz E (1903/4) Das Wachstum Berliner Kinderwahrend der Schuljahre. Archiv Anthropol. 29:30–42.

30. Roede MJ, van Wieringen JC (1985) Growth dia-grams 1980. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheits-zorg, Suppl. 1985:1–34.

31. Saller K, Martin R (1959) Lehrbuch der Anthro-pologie, Vol. 2, 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.

32. Schlesinger E (1917) Das Wachstum der Knabenund Junglinge vom 6. bis 20. Lebensjahr. Z. Kinder-heilk. 16:265–304.

33. Schlesinger E (1919) Wachstum, Gewicht und Ko-nstitution der Kinder und der herangewachsenenJugend wahrend des Krieges. Z. Kinderheilk.22:79–123.

34. Schroder E (1960) Uber Veranderungen des Lan-genwachstums bei der schulpflichtigen Jungend.Der Offentliche Gesundheitsdienst 22:81–85.

35. Schulze H, Wissing W (1969) Koperlange und Kor-pergewicht der Dusseldorfer Jugend. Das offentli-che Gesundheitswesen 31:250–267.

36. Spranger J, Ochsenfurth A, Kock HP, Henke J(1968) Anthropometrische Normdaten im Kindesal-ter. Z. Kinderheilk. 103:1–12.

37. Tanner JM, Davies PSW (1985) Clinical longitudi-nal standards for height and height velocity forNorth American children. J. Pediatr. 107:317–329.

38. Tanner JM, Hayashi MA, Preece MA, Cameron N(1982) Increase in length of leg relative to trunk inJapanese children and adults from 1959 to 1977.Ann. Hum. Biol. 5:411–423.

39. Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Takaishi M (1966)Standards from birth to maturity for height,weight, height velocity, and weight velocity: Britishchildren, 1965 I/II. Arch. Dis. Child. 41:454–471,613–625.

40. van Wieringen JC, Waffelbakker F, Verbrugge HP,de Maas JH (1971) Growth diagrams 1965, Nether-lands. Groningen: Walters-Noordhoff Publishing.

41. van Wieringen JC (1972) Secular changes ofgrowth. 1964–1966 height and weight surveys inthe Netherlands in historical perspective. Leiden:Netherlands Institute for Preventive MedicineTNO.

42. Waaler PE (1983) Anthropometric studies in Nor-wegian children. Acta Paediatr. Scand., Suppl.308:1–41.

43. Wachholder A, Hauspie RC (1986) Clinical stan-dards for growth in height of Belgian boys and girls,aged 2 to 18 years. Int. J. Anthropol. 1:327–338.

44. West GM (1894) Anthropometrische Untersuchun-gen uber die Schulkinder in Worcester, Mass.,Amerika. Archiv Anthropol. 22:13–48.

480 M. HERMANUSSEN

plasticity of adolescent growth in boys

Documents