Long-Term Determinants of the Anthropometric Measures, 1901-1979
My goal here is to provide some measure of the relative success of the gross nutrition hypothesis in accounting for the secular trend in levels and tempo of human growth. It is important at the outset to be clear about the goals I have set for myself in the analysis that follows. What I show is that using the criterion of classical statistical theory one cannot reject the net nutritional hypothesis for Japan. I also show that given this provisional acceptance of the net nutritional hypothesis, changes in the demands placed on nutritional intake, rather than changes in the levels of gross nutritional intake, appear to be decisive to the secular trend in human growth and population quality.
Is such a modest aim satisfactory? There has been considerable debate on this point over the last two decades. There now seems to be some sort of consensus among scholars in the social sciences that an arbitrary distinction between the methods of science and those of the humanities, which was the pivotal notion of logical positivism, is not possible. Indeed, the prevailing view now seems to be that rhetoric and argument based on a notion of persuasiveness that goes beyond a mechanical recounting of statistical "tests" and "experiments" is the best we can aspire to in the social sciences (see Denton 1988; Klamer, Mc-Closkey, and Solow 1988; McCloskey 1994; Mirowski 1987). To accept this position is not to embrace an extreme version of relativism according to which there is no criterion by which we distinguish between competing hypotheses and viewpoints. But it does lead us to abandon the idea that any given statistical test is absolute and definitive. And it leads us to a pragmatic approach to the choice of statistical methods. In particular, it leads me to a strategy based on two criteria: use of forms for time series analysis, which allows me to estimate elasticity so I can differentiate between stronger and weaker effects, and use of cross-sectional and qualitative data as a supplement to time series analysis. Part II of this volume explores the latter kind of evidence.
In what follows I use log-log regressions to explore the impact of the three major factors underlying trends in net nutritional intake on the secular trend in human growth in Japan over the eight and a half decades between 1900 and 1985. The particular regression formats I employ are presented in chart 3. In the appendix to this chapter I provide a discussion of some of the technical reasons for using the particular functional forms underlying my results.
Chart 3 |
|
The results appear in table 11 (for height), table 12 (for weight), table 13 (for the BMI), and table 14. While there are differences between the findings for each of the measures taken separately, their consistency is striking. Indeed, as a practical matter, consistency is important to my pragmatic approach because I do not believe that any one "test" will ever be decisive. What is the main message to emerge from these results? It is twofold. First, the impact of gross nutritional intake as measured here is not great. For instance, results secured with the two broad composite variables for gross nutritional intake, NUTI1 and NUTI2, based on a wide variety of nutrients like calories, proteins, and vitamins, do not seem to have a consistent and positive impact on the levels and six-year gains in the anthropometric measures. And insofar as nutrition does seem to have a consistent statistically significant impact, it does so in terms of fat and calcium intake; it is the CALFATI
TABLE 11 | ||||||||||||
A. Estimates Based on Indexes Covering Entire Period | ||||||||||||
1907-1979 | 1907-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Height | H(-6) | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | H(-6) | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | H(-6) | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 |
Males, 6 | n.e. | - | - | -033 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | +.013 | -.032 |
Females, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | +.013 | -.034 |
Males, 12 | - | - | - | -.062 | - | - | -.353 | - | - | - | +.021 | -.091 |
Females, 12 | - | - | +.022 | -101 | - | - | - | - | - | - | +.022 | -.101 |
Males, 18 | -.132 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -.151 | - | +.013 | - |
Females, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
1901-1979 | 1901-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Gains in Height | H | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | H | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | H | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 |
Males, 6-12 | -4.101 | - | - | -.292 | -5.261 | - | - | -1.261 | -3.441 | - | +.061 | - |
Females, 6-12 | -2.611 | - | - | -.281 | - | - | - | -1.501 | -2.711 | - | - | - |
Males, 12-18 | -6.791 | - | +.043 | - | -5.981 | - | - | - | -7.431 | - | - | - |
Females, 12-18 | -11.41 | - | - | - | -11.61 | - | - | - | -10.81 | - | - | - |
NOTES: | a Based on first differences of log-log regressions. See chart 2 and appendix to chapter 2 for a discussion. Abbreviations roughly follow those given in tables 8, 9, and 10. H = standing height; H(-6) for year t indicates standing height for persons 6 years or younger in the year t - 6; NUT1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 based on the index of nutrition for the entire prewar and postwar period; PHMEI for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of public health and medicine; and CYL1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of child/youth labor input covering the entire prewar and postwar periods. In the regressions on levels, the three indexes are lagged 6 years. In the case of gains, they are not lagged. In the regressions on gains, H indicates the level of height in the year in which the gain begins. Values only reported if they are at least significant at the 15% level (two-tailed test). |
TABLE 11 continued | ||||||||
B. Estimates Based on Nutrition and Child/Youth Labor Input Indexes Covering Postwar Period Onlyb | ||||||||
1953-1979 | 1955-1979 | |||||||
Height | H(-6) | CALFA1 | PHM1 | CYL2 | H(-6) | NUT2 | PHM1 | CYL2 |
Males, 6 | n.e. | - | +.014 | - | n.e. | - | +.013 | - |
Females, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - |
Males, 12 | +.641 | - | +.011 | - | +.681 | - | +.011 | -.043 |
Females, 12 | +.212 | +.042 | +.0044 | - | +.181 | - | +.013 | - |
Males. 18 | -.271 | - | - | - | - | - | +.013 | - |
Females, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
1953-1979 | 1955-1979 | |||||||
Gains in Height | H | CALFA1 | PHM1 | CYL2 | H | NUT2 | PHM1 | CYL2 |
Males, 6-12 | - | - | +.041 | - | - | - | +.041 | -.183 |
Females, 6-12 | -2.311 | +.163 | +.024 | - | -1.911 | - | - | - |
Males, 12-18 | -6.941 | - | +.043 | - | -6.391 | -.294 | +.042 | - |
Females, 12-18 | -12.961 | - | - | - | -11.072 | - | - | - |
NOTES: | b See note to panel A for a discussion of the regression format and a set of basic definitions. Additional abbreviations: CALFA1 = index of combined calcium and fat intake; CYL2 = index of child/youth labor input based on postwar data series not available for the prewar period (see tables 8 and 10). Significance levels (two-tailed tests): 1, 1% level; 2, 5% level; 3, 10% level; 3, 15% level. |
TABLE 12 | ||||||||||||
A. Estimates Based on Indexes Covering Entire Period | ||||||||||||
1907-1979 | 1907-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Weight | W(-6) | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | W(-6) | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | W(-6) | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 |
Males, 6 | n.e. | - | - | -.063 | n.e. | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Females. 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Males. 12 | +.341 | - | - | -.161 | - | -.664 | - | -1.073 | - | - | +.081 | -.171 |
Females, 12 | - | - | - | -.133 | - | - | - | - | - | +.081 | -.171 | |
Males, 18 | - | - | +.023 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | +.043 | - |
Females, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
1901-1979 | 1901-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Gains in Weight | W | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | W | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 | W | NUT1 | PHM1 | CYL1 |
Males, 6-12 | - | - | - | -.381 | -1.612 | - | - | -2.191 | +.273 | +.071 | - | -.891 |
Females. 6-12 | -1.591 | - | - | -.243 | - | - | - | -1.361 | - | +.043 | - | -.861 |
Males, 12-18 | -1.661 | - | +.062 | - | -.723 | -.723 | -.373 | -.493 | - | +.062 | - | -1.431 |
Females, 12-18 | -2.141 | - | - | - | -1.411 | -1.411 | - | -.771 | - | - | - | -.1.313 |
NOTES: | a Based on first differences of log-log regressions. See chart 2 and appendix to chapter 2 for a discussion. Abbreviations follow those given in tables 8, 9, and 10. W = weight; W(-6) for year t indicates weight for persons 6 years or younger in the year t-6; NUT1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 based on the index of nutrition for the entire prewar and postwar period; PHME1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of public health and medicine; and CYL1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of child/youth labor input covering the entire prewar and postwar periods. In the regressions on levels, the three indexes are lagged 6 years. In the case of gains, they are not lagged. In the regressions on gains, W indicates the level of weight in the year in which the gain begins. Values reported only if they are at least significant at the 15% level (two-tailed test). |
TABLE 12 continued | ||||||||
B. Estimates Based on Nutrition and Child/Youth Labor Input Indexes Covering Postwar Period Onlyb | ||||||||
1953-1979 | 1955-1979 | |||||||
Weight | W(-6) | CALFA1 | PHM1 | CYL2 | W(-6) | NUT2 | PHM1 | CYL2 |
Males, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - |
Females, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - |
Males, 12 | - | - | +.042 | - | - | - | +.042 | - |
Females, 12 | - | +.152 | - | - | - | - | +.033 | - |
Males, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Females, 18 | +.872 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
1953-1979 | 1955-1979 | |||||||
Gains in Weight | W | CALFA1 | PHM1 | CYL2 | W | NUT2 | PHM1 | CYL2 |
Males, 6-12 | -722 | +.192 | +.061 | - | -.733 | - | +.071 | - |
Females, 6-12 | -891 | +.321 | +.033 | - | - | - | +.051 | - |
Males, 12-18 | - 1.221 | - | +.062 | - | -.942 | - | +.071 | - |
Females, 12-18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
NOTES: | b See note to panel A for a discussion of the regression format and a set of basic definitions. Additional abbreviations: CALFA1 = index of combined calcium and fat intake; CYL2 = index of child/youth labor input based on postwar data series not available for the prewar period (see tables 8 and 10). Significance levels (two-tailed test): 1, 1% level; 2, 5% level; 3, 10% level; 4, 15% level. |
TABLE 13 | ||||||||||||
(Estimates Based on Indexes Covering Entire Period) | ||||||||||||
1907-1979 | 1907-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
BMI | B(-6) | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | B(-6) | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | B(-6) | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 |
Males, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - |
Females, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | -823 | n.e. | - | - | |
Males, 12 | +.312 | - | - | - | +.393 | - | - | - | -.464 | - | - | - |
Females, 12 | -.421 | - | - | - | -.502 | - | - | - | - | - | - | +.062 |
Males, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -.213 | - | - | - |
Females, 18 | +.174 | -.164 | - | - | - | - | - | - | +.353 | - | - | - |
1901-1979 | 1901-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Gains in BMI | BMI | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | BMI | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | BMI | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 |
Males, 6-12 | -7.131 | - | - | - | -8.691 | - | - | -4.392 | -6.351 | - | - | - |
Females, 6-12 | -11.01 | 1.374 | - | - | 12.01 | - | - | - | -5.941 | - | - | +.533 |
Males., 12-18 | -5.031 | - | - | - | -4.601 | - | - | - | -5.721 | - | - | - |
Females, 12-18 | -3.091 | - | - | -3.201 | -2.491 | - | -1.391 | - | - | - | - | - |
NOTES: | a Based on first differences of log-log regressions. See chart 2 and appendix to chapter 2 for a discussion. Abbrevations roughly follow those given in tables 8, 9, and 10. B(-6) indicates BMI for persons six years younger in the year t - 6; NUT1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 based on the index of nutrition for the entire prewar and postwar period; PH for year t is a six-year average for the years t - 5 through t for the index of public health and medicine; and CYL1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of child/youth labor input covering the entire prewar and postwar periods. For the regressions on levels, the three indexes are lagged 6 years. In the case of gains they are not lagged. In the regressions on gains H indicates the level of height in the year in which the gain begins. Values reported only if they are at least significant at the 15% level (two-tailed test). See tables 11 and 12 for significance test indicators. |
TABLE 14 | ||||||||||||
(Estimates Based on Indexes Covering Entire Period) | ||||||||||||
1907-1979 | 1907-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Chest Girth | c(-6) | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | C(-6) | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | C(-6) | NUT1 | CYL1 | |
Males, 6 | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - |
Females, 6 | n.e. | -.122 | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - | n.e. | - | - | - |
Males, 12 | -.224 | - | .014 | - | - | - | .114 | - | - | - | .011 | - |
Females, 12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | +.131 |
Males, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -.123 | - | - |
Females, 18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | +.941 | - | - | - |
1901-1979 | 1901-1940 | 1945-1979 | ||||||||||
Gains in Chest Girth | CG | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | CG | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 | CG | NUT1 | PH | CYL1 |
Males, 6-12 | -3.321 | - | - | - | -6.491 | - | - | -.952 | -3.191 | - | .051 | - |
Females, 6-12 | -.3.821 | - | - | - | -4.342 | -1.553 | - | -1.381 | -3.301 | - | -.043 | |
Males, 12-18 | -4.371 | - | - | - | -4.361 | - | - | -.693 | -3.242 | -.513 | - | - |
Females, 12-18 | -5.251 | - | - | - | -4.161 | -1.244 | - | -.744 | - | - | - | - |
NOTES: | a Based on first differences of log-log regressions. See chart 2 and appendix to chapter 2 for a discussion. Abbreviations follow those given in tables 8, 9, and 10. C(-6) indicates chest girth for persons six years younger in the year t - 6; NUT1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 based on the index of nutrition for the entire prewar and postwar period; PH for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of public health and medicine; and CYL1 for year t is a six-year average for the years t through t + 5 for the index of child/youth labor input covering the entire prewar and postwar periods. In the regressions on levels, the three indexes are lagged 6 years. In the case of gains, they are not lagged. In the regressions on gains, H indicates the level of height in the year in which the gain begins. Values reported only if they are at least significant at the 15% level (two-tailed test). See tables 11 and 12 for significance test indicators. |
variable that gets the best results in this time series analysis. Thus one tentative conclusion that can be drawn from my analysis is that the shift toward dairy product consumption that was especially pronounced after World War II contributed to the secular trend in population quality. Second, secular trends in demands placed on nutritional intake seem to have dominated in the secular trend in population quality, especially during the prewar period. For instance, the elasticities on the proxy for child/youth labor input are especially large in the prewar period. After the war this index appears to be less important and the index of public health and medicine appears to be more important, although its estimated elasticity does not tend to be very large. These results accord with common sense. Before the war and the introduction of antibiotic drugs, the efficacy of public health and medicine was limited; and immediately after World War II, compulsory education was extended through to the end of middle school, which drastically reduced child/youth labor input.
Putting more social detail in these somewhat dry results is my aim in the second part of this book. But the results reported here are of interest and give support to the net nutritional hypothesis basic to this study.