An Unpopular Aspect of National Health.—I

SOME years ago a party of men visited the Tower of London and tried on the old suits of armour kept there. They found that most of the suits were too small for them, and therefore exclaimed with a whoop of extravagant joy that we were a finer people than our fathers before us. That cry has reverberated—without any justification whatsoever.

Such an " investigation " is utterly valueless. I do not know the whole story, but we can be quite certain that the suits of armour numbered; at the most, twenty or so, whilst the men were scarcely more numerous. No competent statistician would dream of making deductions from less than a hundred observations, and, when dealing with a population as varied as that of England, he would not even feel safe with a thousand. Moreover, while we can know nothing of the original wearers of the armour (unless it was of a very early date) the triers-on were probably all of the upper classes, whose stature is 1-2 inches above that of the rest of the nation—here common observation is confirmed by scientifically ascertained fact.

Only two reliable attempts have been made to measure the physical qualities of the nation—one between 1878-83 by the Anthropometrical Committee of the British Association, and the other by the Army medical authori- ties in 1917-19. The findings of the latter came as a bad shock, but, being unpleasant, were so soon forgotten in the flush of victory as to be worth repeating. Of every nine men examined by the medical boards :— Three were " perfectly fit and healthy " ; Two " were upon a definitely infirm plane of health and strength " ; Three " could almost (in view of their age) be described as physical wrecks " ; One was " a chronic invalid."

A formidable indictment, but impossible of comparison with the 1878-83 Report, which only investigated physique and not health. The average stature of grown men (ages 23-55) in those years was 5 ft. 7.4 ins., whilst the 1917-19 Report runs :—" There is already sufficient evidence to show that (the) height of 5 ft. 6 ins. will be found to be approximately the average measurement of the Grade 1 men of military age " (18-51). My own analysis of the Report confirms this and yields the further figure of 5 ft. 5.7 ins. as the average measurement for men of all grades, nearly two and a half million men— enough to satisfy the most meticulous statistician.

Both Reports have at various times been challenged, the criticism levelled at that of 1917-19 being that the country had already been drained of its best men. The writers of the Report rebut this charge in advance on the grounds that the men examined included (1) " A very large number of men in protected industries, which in the nature of things employed an abnormally high proportion of the physically fit." (2) Men previously granted exemption. (3) " A large number of lads who attained the age of eighteen during the year."

The Report continues, " It seems probable, therefore, that the men examined during the year may be regarded in the aggregate as fairly representing the manhood of military age of the country in the early part of the twen- tieth century from the standpoint of health and physique."

The boys who attained the age of eighteen in the year 1918, being as yet untouched by the War, constituted an absolutely fair sample of the population. Their average stature shows exactly the same fall from the average of boys of the same age in the years 1878-83—from 5 ft. 6.9 ins., to 5 ft. 5.1 ins. (Grade 1, 5 ft. 5.3 ins.).

The findings of the 1917-19 Report must therefore be taken as accurate, and the question is whether those of 1878-83 are equally reliable. These figures have been condemned by some as too high, on the ground that too few measurements of the poorest classes were included. A mathematical analysis destroys this objection.

If, for instance, the lengths of a large number of nuts are measured and are then plotted out on paper, the line drawn through them will take the shape of a tall and narrow bell. The largest number of nuts, which will be of medium length, will be at the top of the bell ; and the curve then falls away steeply to the smallest numbers on either side—the longest and shortest nuts. This, the " normal curve of variation," is obtained for almost any , , natural object. If the sample taken 'is too small, or if it has been selected so as to be unrepresentative, then the Curve will be .distorted—either the top of the bell will be flattened because there are too few individuals at the mean, or there will be a bump on one Side or the other where there are more than the normal number of individuals.

The curve taken from the 6,194 individuals measured by the Anthropometrical Committee is almost perfect, showing that the average height given is correct within One decimal point of an inch. Besides this internal evidence, the Comniittee's findings are closely confirmed by another and independent body of figures. These' are the measurements obtained from white native-born conscripts (315,620 in number) to the Army of the United States. Their average height was 5 ft. 7.67 ins.*-5 ft. 7.66 ins. is given by the Committee as the average for the United Kingdom, which, owing to the Scotch contri- bution, is two decimal points higher than the average for England alone.

Finally there are the measurements taken of 7,537 recruits to the English Army in the years 1860-4. These show an average stature of 5 ft. 7.0 ins. (age 25)—a little loiver than that of 1878-83, but definitely higher than that of 1917-19. The curve, however, falls away too Steeply on one side, showing that some sort of selection has been at work to exclude a large proportion of men above the mean height. This, of course, is exactly what would be expected ; for the taller and more prosperous merlin the country did not go into the Army, which was more often the refuge of the destitute.

The height of boys of 18 (number 20,163) in these years is 5 ft. 6.0 ins., and the curve shows almost exactly the same distortion.

I should, of course, have drawn the curve for 1917-19 ; butin most cases the details are too meagre, only averages being given.' But the large numbers involved in that investigation render the average reliable.

Though much work remains to be done, it is now safe to say, that the average male height, whether of full- grown men or of boys of 18 years, has fallen by at least an inch in about forty years. But height, of itself, is of no value, and there may not,. therefore, be any corre- sponding decline in health and general physique. This possibility is not borne out by my as yet incomplete examination of the Other measurements taken. There .has been a similar decline in birth weight and chest-girth. Also, though height itself is valueless, it appears to be a Very good index (statistically speaking) of robustness ; for 111'1917-49 the average stature of the Grade 1 men, who 'Were graded regardless of their height, was at least -3 in. greater' thin that of the country as a whole. They were

3 3

"'Mc:listing, -Medical and Anthropological, U. B. Army; 1875; probably a full half-inch taller than the men of the other grades.

I hope to deal in another article with the possible causes of this deterioration and I can only say here that poorer feeding is not one of them. It is commonly believed that the greater stature of the professional classes (the 1878-83 Committee gives it as 5 ft. 918 ins.) is due to the more advantageous circumstances in which they are reared. Various independent investigations do not bear out this entirely unwarranted belief, showing, indeed, that stature is an inborn character, almost unaffected, within wide limits, by nutrition. Significant confirmation of this is given by–the 1878-83 Committee, who found that the average stature of 98 Fellows the Royal Society was 5 ft. 9.76 ins.=--38 in. greater than that of the professional classes as a whole. If the smallness of the numbers does not entirely destroy the value of the figures, the only inference to be drawn from this slight, but definite, difference (in conjunction with other similar findings) is that stature is very closely-correlated, not only with health, but also with mental attainments. It is quite • impossible to believe that future F.R.S.'s were better fed than their companions at home and school !

(To be continued:!

ELDON MOORE.