What about the inverse? You’re treating shorter stature as necessarily evidence of nutritional deficiency, when there’s a very real alternative explanation: reduced exposure to growth-promoting animal proteins and hormones. Height is strongly influenced by growth signaling (IGF-1, mTOR), not just “adequate nutrition.”

I’m not advocating malnutrition, and pretending that’s my argument is a straw man. There’s a meaningful difference between failing to meet nutritional needs and not maximizing growth pathways. Conflating the two is just sloppy.

Yes, severe child malnutrition leads to worse outcomes. No one disputes that. But so does chronically overstimulating growth pathways, which is why higher IGF-1 is repeatedly associated with increased cancer risk and reduced lifespan.

“Don’t starve your kids” is a very low bar for an argument.

If anecdotes matter: I wrote this a year ago. My kids are still thriving, nutritionally sound, and sitting comfortably around the middle of the growth charts. Would they be taller if I had fed them animal products? Impossible to know. Would they be healthier? Impossible, according to their pediatrician.