2Senior lecturer, Department of Health Policy, SPH, MNUMS, S. Zorigstreet –3, Ulaanbaatar, 14210, Mongolia
3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, SHP, MNUMS, S. Zorigstreet –3, Ulaanbaatar, 14210, Mongolia
4Senior lecturer, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, SHP, MNUMS, S. Zorigstreet –3, Ulaanbaatar, 14210, Mongolia
5Professor, Dean of SPH, MNUMS, S. Zorigstreet –3, Ulaanbaatar, 14210, Mongolia
6Professor, Department of Occupational Health, MNUMS, S. Zorigstreet –3, Ulaanbaatar, 14210, Mongolia
Keywords: Secular growth changes; Height; Weight; Effect size;
As we know, growth of all living being including the children here is determined by gene, though final expression is the summation of a complex interaction of some factors such as nutrition, socio-economic and geo-climatic, which ultimately modify the manifestation of genetic potential to higher and lesser intensity [2-7]. Some reports advocate well documented changes in weight especially, height among adolescents [8-12], but still other studies reported increase of height in a populations [8,13,14], with information of height leveling-off in children in Poland and Germany [15,16]. Information regarding the changes in height and weight among children in Mongolia is meagre. The purpose of this paper is to find out the secular growth changes in respect of height and weight among schoolchildren in Ulaanbaatar city, Mongolia.
Height and weight were measured with Physician Beam Scale (Detecto 339 Balance Beam Scale with Height Rod). Height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm as each subject stood erect, barefooted with the head held in Frankfort horizontal plane. Weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg with light clothing and barefooted.
Data analysis was made on SPSS-17.0 software. Arithmetical mean with standard deviation for each group (M ± SD) and standard error of the mean were calculated.
In order to detect the changes in height and weight of children in different years meta-analysis was performed. Particularly, the effect size (Cohen’s d – standardized differences of means) was calculated using the following equation [17]:
The interpretation of the effect sizes was done using (Table 1).
Cohen’s effect size was considered small where d ≥ 0.2, medium as d≥0.5 and large effect size where d ≥ 0.8.
An effect size is exactly equivalent to a ‘Z-score’ of a standard Normal distribution. For example, an effect size of 0.8 means that the score of the average height in the one group is 0.8 standard deviations above the average height in the second group, and hence exceeds the height measurements of 79% of the second group.
Effect size, d |
Percentage of group Y who would be below average A in group X |
Probability that person from group Y will be higher than A from group X, if both chosen at random (=CLES) |
Effect size, d |
Percentage of group X who would be below average A in group Y |
Probability that person from group Y will be higher than A from group X, if both chosen at random (=CLES) |
0 |
50% |
0.5 |
0.7 |
76% |
0.69 |
0.1 |
54% |
0.53 |
0.8 |
79% |
0.71 |
0.2 |
58% |
0.56 |
0.9 |
82% |
0.74 |
0.3 |
62% |
0.58 |
1 |
84% |
0.76 |
0.4 |
66% |
0.61 |
1.2 |
88% |
0.8 |
0.5 |
69% |
0.64 |
1.4 |
92% |
0.84 |
0.6 |
73% |
0.66 |
1.6 |
95% |
0.87 |
Dynamics for the body weight is nearly similar to the stature but gender differences occur earlier for weight. Peak weight boost comes around at the age of 13 to 14 years for girls and boys (Figure 3, 4).
In 1962-2010, there was an statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in average height of boys at the age of 8, 9 and 13-17 years old whereas there was a decrease of average height of boys aged 10, 11 and 12 years from 1978 to 1992, and 8-10, 14-17 years from 2010 to 2015 (Table 2).
An increase in girls’ average height occurred throughout all age groups except decrease in girls ‘height aged 10-12 years and 10, 12, 14-17 years in 1992-2010 and 2010-2015 respectively (Table 2).
There was an statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in average weight for boys and girls throughout all age groups except decrease in weight of children’s of both sexes aged 12-17 years old in 2010-2015 (Table 3).
When we compare the statistically significant changes in height and weight over the years in children both sexes using effect sizes, it was revealed that in 1962-1978, there were in general medium effect sizes (d=0.7) in boys’ height, which means height of boys increased in average of 4.1 cm. In 1978-1992, decrease in height was revealed in three age groups such as 10, 11 and12 years old with effect size as 0.4, 0.1 and 0.5, which means that 66%, 50% and 69% of boys of those age groups in 1992 were shorter of the same age average height boys in 1978. But in 1998-2010, increase in height was noted in all age groups, and Cohen’s d ranged from 0.3 to 1.3.
The striking results were observed when boy’s heights of 2010 and 2015 were compared. In seven out of 10 age groups (8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 years old) heights of boys were decreased with medium size effects (Table 4).
Regarding girls’ height, the similar changes in effect sizes were observed (Table 4).
Years |
1962 |
1978 |
1992 |
2010 |
2015 |
|
Age |
Sex |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
8 |
Boys |
119.6 ± 4.7 |
122.3 ± 5.1 |
123.0 ± 6.2 |
128.8 ± 6.0 |
127.4 ± 4.9* |
Girls |
118.6 ± 4.8 |
120.4 ± 5.4 |
123.0 ± 6.4 |
126.3 ± 4.5 |
126.6 ± 4.1 |
|
9 |
Boys |
123.8 ± 5.3 |
126.7 ± 5.1 |
128.7 ± 5.6 |
135.4 ± 6.3 |
131.7 ± 4.6* |
Girls |
122.7 ± 5.0 |
125.4 ± 4.3 |
130.9 ± 4.9 |
132.1 ± 6.8 |
132.6 ± 4.9 |
|
10 |
Boys |
127.6 ± 5.8 |
132.3 ± 3.9* |
130.8 ± 4.2* |
137.0 ± 5.6 |
134.0 ± 5.7* |
Girls |
126.3 ± 4.8 |
130.7 ± 6.7 |
133.0 ± 5.1 |
137.6 ± 6.96 |
137.6 ± 4.9 |
|
11 |
Boys |
132.0 ± 5.4 |
134.9 ± 5.2 |
134.2 ± 6.1 |
139.1 ± 5.9 |
144.1 ± 7.5 |
Girls |
133.1 ± 6.2 |
137.6 ± 5.3 |
142.2 ± 7.7 |
139.4 ± 5.2 |
142.5 ± 5.5 |
|
12 |
Boys |
137.2 ± 7.0 |
141.0 ± 5.1* |
137.7 ± 7.0* |
146.1 ± 7.4 |
148.5 ± 7.0 |
Girls |
138.1 ± 6.6 |
141.4 ± 5.7 |
148.0 ± 7.4 |
146.2 ± 6.2* |
144.8 ± 6.7 |
|
13 |
Boys |
141.3 ± 6.2 |
147.4 ± 8.6 |
148.8 ± 7.6 |
152.6 ± 7.9 |
155.0 ± 6.3 |
Girls |
142.9 ± 5.2 |
147.3 ± 6.3 |
152.6 ± 7.9 |
150.4 ± 5.8 |
151.7 ± 6.1 |
|
14 |
Boys |
146.7 ± 7.5 |
152.0 ± 6.5 |
154.2 ± 8.2 |
163.3 ± 7.7 |
157.0 ± 7.2* |
Girls |
147.2 ± 6.3 |
149.5 ± 3.4 |
156.1 ± 6.6 |
160.4 ± 5.1 |
153.8 ± 5.5 |
|
15 |
Boys |
152.7 ± 7.5 |
158.1 ± 6.1 |
161.0 ± 7.2 |
165.2 ± 6.6 |
162.4 ± 6.8* |
Girls |
150.4 ± 5.6 |
152.2 ± 3.9 |
159.6 ± 5.8 |
160.8 ± 5.4 |
159.7 ± 4.0 |
|
16 |
Boys |
158.2 ± 6.0 |
161.1 ± 6.9 |
167.8 ± 6.6 |
169.9 ± 6.4 |
168.3 ± 5.6* |
Girls |
152.1 ± 5.2 |
155.4 ± 2.4 |
161.1 ± 6.7 |
163.9 ± 5.7 |
160.0 ± 5.8 |
|
17 |
Boys |
163.4 ± 6.3 |
0 |
169.7 ± 6.1 |
173.7 ± 5.4 |
170.4 ± 5.6 |
Girls |
152.7 ± 5.0 |
0 |
162.0 ± 4.1 |
164.1 ± 5.8 |
163.5 ± 5.1 |
|
Years |
1962 |
1978 |
1992 |
2010 |
2015 |
|
Age |
Sex |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
8 |
Boys |
22.4 ± 2.4 |
22.6 ± 2.4 |
25.1 ± 3.6 |
27.7 ± 4.8 |
27.1 ± 4.6 |
Girls |
21.6 ± 2.3 |
21.8 ± 2.5 |
22.8 ± 3.6 |
25.7 ± 3.8 |
25.9 ± 4.2 |
|
9 |
Boys |
24.1 ± 2.6 |
24.5 ± 2.7 |
25.9 ± 2.6 |
28.6 ± 5.6 |
29.9 ± 4.1 |
Girls |
23.4 ± 2.6 |
23.7 ± 2.4 |
24.6 ± 3.5 |
28.8 ± 5 |
29.3 ± 5.4 |
|
10 |
Boys |
26.1 ± 3.2 |
27.9 ± 2.2 |
28.5 ± 3.5 |
29.4 ± 6.2 |
30.1 ± 5.4 |
Girls |
25.1 ± 3.2 |
26.3 ± 3.6 |
28.3 ± 3.8 |
30.5 ± 5.3 |
31.7 ± 7.0 |
|
11 |
Boys |
28.6 ± 3.4 |
28.9 ± 2.8 |
30.2 ± 4.8 |
32.8 ± 6.0 |
39.1 ± 6.1 |
Girls |
29.4 ± 4.3 |
30.4 ± 4.3 |
33.8 ± 5.6 |
33.3 ± 5.5 |
34.4 ± 7.0 |
|
12 |
Boys |
31.9 ± 3.6 |
32.1 ± 3.5 |
33.9 ± 4.0 |
39.9 ± 7.9 |
39.3 ± 6.5 |
Girls |
32.1 ± 4.8 |
33.1 ± 3.9 |
37.9 ± 5.5 |
40.5 ± 7.4 |
42.0 ± 6.7 |
|
13 |
Boys |
34.4 ± 4.7 |
36.9 ± 5.5 |
39.9 ± 6.8 |
45.1 ± 8.6 |
41.4 ± 4.2 |
Girls |
37.7 ± 5.4 |
37.9 ± 5.4 |
41.41 ± 6.2 |
41.45 ± 7.4 |
43.2 ± 6.2 |
|
14 |
Boys |
38.6 ± 5.6 |
40.6 ± 7.1 |
44.0 ± 5.8 |
52.2 ± 6.8 |
46.4 ± 3.9 |
Girls |
40.7 ± 6.2 |
41.0 ± 5.1 |
45.0 ± 6.3 |
50.3 ± 6.0 |
45.4 ± 6.5 |
|
15 |
Boys |
44.8 ± 7.2 |
44.9 ± 5.6 |
45.8 ± 6.9 |
53.4 ± 5.9 |
52.2 ± 8.1 |
Girls |
44.9 ± 5.9 |
45.0 ± 4.4 |
47.8 ± 5.3 |
51.9 ± 8.2 |
50.3 ± 7.4 |
|
16 |
Boys |
48.6 ± 6.3 |
49.4 ± 6.6 |
54.4 ± 6.7 |
56.8 ± 7.6 |
53.7 ± 6.7 |
Girls |
47.7 ± 5.5 |
48.0 ± 2.9 |
51.1 ± 5.7 |
54.5 ± 6.1 |
51.1 ± 3.7 |
|
17 |
Boys |
54.4 ± 6.3 |
0 |
58.3 ± 6.2 |
61.1 ± 8.3 |
56.7 ± 6.1 |
Girls |
49.0 ± 5.5 |
0 |
54.2 ± 5.6 |
55.3 ± 5.7 |
52.5 ± 2.8 |
|
Boys |
2010 |
2015 |
2010/2015 |
Girls |
2010 |
2015 |
2010/2015 |
||||
Age, years |
Average ± SD |
Average ± SD |
Average height difference |
SD, Average |
Effect size, d |
Age, years |
Average ± SD |
Average ± SD |
Average height difference |
SD, Average |
Effect size, d |
8 |
128.8 ± 6.0 |
127.4 ± 4.9 |
-1.4 |
5.5 |
-0.3 |
8 |
126.3 ± 4.5 |
126.6 ± 4.1 |
0.3 |
4.3 |
0.1 |
9 |
135.0 ± 6.3 |
131.7 ± 4.6 |
-3.7 |
5.5 |
-0.7 |
9 |
132.1 ± 6.8 |
132.6 ± 4.9 |
0.5 |
5.85 |
0.1 |
10 |
137 ± 5.6 |
134 ± 5.7 |
-3 |
5.5 |
-0.5 |
10 |
137.6 ± 7.0 |
137.6 ± 4.9 |
0 |
5.95 |
0 |
11 |
139.1 ± 5.9 |
144.1 ± 7.5 |
5 |
6.7 |
0.7 |
11 |
139.4 ± 5.2 |
142.5 ± 5.5 |
3.1 |
5.35 |
0.6 |
12 |
146.1 ± 7.4 |
148.5 ± 7.0 |
2.4 |
7.2 |
0.3 |
12 |
146.2 ± 6.2 |
144.8 ± 6.7 |
-1.4 |
6.45 |
-0.2 |
13 |
152.6 ± 7.9 |
155 ± 6.3 |
2.4 |
7.1 |
0.3 |
11 |
150.4 ± 5.8 |
151.7 ± 6.1 |
1.3 |
5.95 |
0.2 |
14 |
163.3 ± 7.7 |
157 ± 7.2 |
-6.3 |
7.5 |
-0.8 |
14 |
160.4 ± 5.1 |
153.8 ± 5.5 |
-6.6 |
5.3 |
-1.2 |
15 |
165.2 ± 6.6 |
162.4 ± 6.8 |
-2.8 |
6.7 |
-0.4 |
15 |
160.8 ± 5.4 |
159.7 ± 4.0 |
-1.1 |
4.7 |
-0.2 |
16 |
169.9 ± 6.4 |
168.3 ± 5.6 |
-1.6 |
6 |
-0.3 |
16 |
163.9 ± 5.7 |
160 ± 5.8 |
-3.9 |
5.75 |
-0.7 |
17 |
173.65 ± 5.4 |
170.4 ± 5.6 |
-3.25 |
5.5 |
-0.6 |
17 |
164.1 ± 5.8 |
163.5 ± 5.1 |
-0.6 |
5.45 |
-0.1 |
Boys |
2010 |
2015 |
2010/2015 |
Girls |
2010 |
2015 |
2010/2015 |
||||
Age, years |
Average ± SD |
Average ± SD |
Average height difference |
SD, Average |
Effect size, d |
Age, years |
Average ± SD |
Average ± SD |
Average height difference |
SD, Average |
Effect size, d |
8 |
128.8 ± 6.0 |
127.4 ± 4.9 |
-1.4 |
5.5 |
-0.3 |
8 |
126.3 ± 4.5 |
126.6 ± 4.1 |
0.3 |
4.3 |
0.1 |
9 |
135.0 ± 6.3 |
131.7 ± 4.6 |
-3.7 |
5.5 |
-0.7 |
9 |
132.1 ± 6.8 |
132.6 ± 4.9 |
0.5 |
5.85 |
0.1 |
10 |
137 ± 5.6 |
134 ± 5.7 |
-3 |
5.5 |
-0.5 |
10 |
137.6 ± 7.0 |
137.6 ± 4.9 |
0 |
5.95 |
0 |
11 |
139.1 ± 5.9 |
144.1 ± 7.5 |
5 |
6.7 |
0.7 |
11 |
139.4 ± 5.2 |
142.5 ± 5.5 |
3.1 |
5.35 |
0.6 |
12 |
146.1 ± 7.4 |
148.5 ± 7.0 |
2.4 |
7.2 |
0.3 |
12 |
146.2 ± 6.2 |
144.8 ± 6.7 |
-1.4 |
6.45 |
-0.2 |
13 |
152.6 ± 7.9 |
155 ± 6.3 |
2.4 |
7.1 |
0.3 |
11 |
150.4 ± 5.8 |
151.7 ± 6.1 |
1.3 |
5.95 |
0.2 |
14 |
163.3 ± 7.7 |
157 ± 7.2 |
-6.3 |
7.5 |
-0.8 |
14 |
160.4 ± 5.1 |
153.8 ± 5.5 |
-6.6 |
5.3 |
-1.2 |
15 |
165.2 ± 6.6 |
162.4 ± 6.8 |
-2.8 |
6.7 |
-0.4 |
15 |
160.8 ± 5.4 |
159.7 ± 4.0 |
-1.1 |
4.7 |
-0.2 |
16 |
169.9 ± 6.4 |
168.3 ± 5.6 |
-1.6 |
6 |
-0.3 |
16 |
163.9 ± 5.7 |
160 ± 5.8 |
-3.9 |
5.75 |
-0.7 |
17 |
173.65 ± 5.4 |
170.4 ± 5.6 |
-3.25 |
5.5 |
-0.6 |
17 |
164.1 ± 5.8 |
163.5 ± 5.1 |
-0.6 |
5.45 |
-0.1 |
In conclusion, the present study has shown that there were both upward and downward changes in height and weight of schoolchildren in Ulaanbaatar city during 1962-2015. An upward change in height and weight were during period of 1962-2010, and then in 2010-2015 downward change was observed in most age groups. Future study is aimed to determine if these secular changes are continuing and to examine possible explanations for and consequences of these changes.
- Malina RM. Secular trends in growth, maturation and physical performance: A review. Anthropological review. 2004;67:3-31.
- Palmert MR, Hirshhorn JN. Genetic approaches to stature, pubertal timing, and other complex traits. Mol Genet Metab. 2003;80(1-2):1-10.
- Hoppa RD, Garlie TN. Secular changes in the growth of Toronto children during the last century. Ann Hum Biol. 1998;25(6):553–61.
- Kuh DL, Power C, Rodgers B. Secular trends in social class and sex differences in adult height. Int J Epidemiol. 1991;20(4):1001–1009.
- Li L, Manor O, Power C. Are inequalities in height narrowing? Comparing effects of social class on height in two generations. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(11):1018–1023. doi: 10.1136/adc.2003.035162
- Prebeg Z. Changes in growth patterns in Zagreb school children related to socio-economic background over the period 1973–1991. Ann Hum Biol. 1998;25(5):425–439.
- Thomas D, Frankenberg E. Health, nutrition and prosperity: a microeconomic perspective. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(2):106–113.
- Padez C. Secular trend in stature in the Portuguese population (1904–2000). Ann Hum Biol. 2003;30(3):262–278. doi: 10.1080/0301446031000064530
- Loesch DZ, Stokes K, Huggins RM. Secular trend in body height and weight of Australian children and adolescents. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000;111(4):545–556.
- So HK, Nelson EA, Li AM, Wong EM, Lau JT, Guldan GS, et al. Secular changes in height, weight and body mass index in Hong Kong Children. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:320. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-320
- LianGuo FU, Li Li SUN, Shao Wei WU, Yi De YANG, Xiao Hui LI, Zheng He WANG, et al. The Influence of Secular Trends in Body Height and Weight on the Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity among Chinese Children and Adolescents. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. 2016;29(12):849-857 .
- Marques-Vidal P, Madeleine G, Romain S, Gabriel A, Bovet P. Secular trends in height and weight among children and adolescents of the Seychelles, 1956–2006. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:166. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-166
- Garcia J, Quintana-Domeque C. The evolution of adult height in Europe: a brief note. Econ Hum Biol. 2007;5(2):340–349. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2007.02.002
- Danker-Hopfe H, Roczen K. Secular trends in height, weight and body mass index of 6-year-old children in Bremerhaven. Ann Hum Biol. 2000;27(3):263–270.
- Krawczynski M, Walkowiak J, Krzyzaniak A. Secular changes in body height and weight in children and adolescents in Poznan, Poland, between 1880 and 2000. Acta Paediatr. 2003;92(3):277–282.
- Zellner K, Jaeger U, Kromeyer-Hauschild K. Height, weight and BMI of schoolchildren in Jena, Germany – are the secular changes leveling- off. Economics and Human Biology. 2004;2(2):281–294. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2004.04.006
- Coe R. It's the Effect Size, Stupid. What effect size is and why it is important. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002.
- Uuganbayar A, Nomindari O, AltannavchTs, Enkhzol M. Study on cardiovascular function in relation to physical development in Mongolian children. Diagnosis. 2017;3(78):48-51.
- Castilho LV, Lahr MM. Secular trends in growth among urban Brazilian children of European descent. Ann Hum Biol. 2001;28(5):564–574.
- Heude B, Kettaneh A, de Lauzon Guillain B, Lommez A, Borys JM, Ducimetière P, et al. Growth curves of anthropometric indices in a general population of French children and comparison with reference data. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60(12):1430-1436. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602474
- Vignerová J, Brabec M, Bláha P. Two centuries of growth among Czech children and youth. Economics and Human Biology. 2006;4(2):237–252. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2005.09.002
- Simsek F, Ulukol B, Gulnar SB. The secular trends in height and weight of Turkish school children during 1993–2003. Child Care Health Dev. 2005;31(4):441–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00531
- Laska-Mierzejewska T, Olszewska E. Anthropological assessment of changes in living conditions of the rural population in Poland in the period 1967–2001. Ann Hum Biol. 2007;34(3):362–376. doi: 10.1080/03014460701317798






