Hacker News Reader

There is no "low end" , such a huge difference shows that both studies are not reliable.

The difference was 3.6cm in the study that measured 10 more years 30-80. And 5cm in the study that measured 10 fewer years 40-80.

The studies were conducted over different time periods when average nutrition changed, and demographics changed. And the study demographics just vary by location.

Height loss with age is incredibly well documented. Here’s a few more studies.

This is just basic medical textbook information. No one in the world is arguing that this phenomenon doesn’t exist.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32611342/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24962157/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10602346/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266703212...

Now, who is moving goalposts?

No one:

Again, from your OP: "so unless people naturally shrink 2" with age"

Are you denying basic science here, or what? Like, what is your deal?

Read what I wrote, read what you wrote. If you still don't get it - ask a chatbot, though you obviously understand and are just trolling.

I’m also confused.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com