If all growth factors [race, hormones, disease, age, country, latitude, altitude, area [city or farm or suburb or mountains], diet, sleep, exercise, smoking, drugs, air pollution, area drinking water makeup, exposure to lead, etc.,] are not accounted for then it is a flawed study.
Impossible to reach such a protein growth determiner as too many variables present. Even a third grader can figure this one out. Did they do a comparative height/protein study on the Dinka tribe? Probably not. As I say, appears to be a totally flawed study.
All the girls in my class growing up for 13 years were shorter than the shortest boy, except for two girls; they were the tallest girls.They both had millionaire fathers. They lived in mansions at the beach on the lake. I wonder why they were the tallest girls....duhhhhhhh
You wrote:
“Flawed study. Height during growth depends upon genetics and the amount of exposure to sunshine, the Vitamin D kick.”
I wrote:
“That is partly true, and partly false:...”
Then you wrote:
“If all growth factors... are not accounted for then it is a flawed study.”
It is you who made a simplistic, categorical assertion. I was responding to that error.
I never said it was not a flawed study. I said that your original assertion was partly true, and partly false.
It indeed was partly true, and partly false: You admitted as much in your response by acknowledging that there were many factors involved (i.e., not just “genetics” and “amount of exposure to sunshine”!).
Your statement completely disregarded diet, digestion, and assimilation, among other things. Sunshine and genetics do not make D3 without the necessary dietary precursors and proper digestion and assimilation.
Respond to what I wrote - not to what I did not write.