London - Marco Rubio may have been mocked for wearing high-heeled boots, but new research suggests the Republican presidential hopeful is on to something if he thought boosting his height could increase his chances in the election.
Being taller really does make a difference in deciding whether you're probably going to be one of life's winners or losers, according to a major study, which will be welcomed by the 6ft ½in Donald Trump if not the 5ft 10in Rubio - or the 5ft 8in Ted Cruz.
People who are short or fat are less likely to have a good education, job and standard of living, according to the paper published in the British Medical Journal. The findings, based on data from 120 000 Britons, are the strongest evidence yet that size matters when it comes to future success.
Being short is said to bring out a determination in some people. The “Napoleon complex” is named after the aggressive attempts of the 5ft 6in French emperor to compensate for his lack of stature - despite him being an average height for his era.
But the results of the new research by British and US experts may explain why more than half of all US Presidential elections have been won by the taller candidate - possibly bad news for the expected Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who at 5ft 7in would be the shorter candidate whoever she faces.
A “genetically determined” single standard deviation in height of 6.3cm increases the odds of working in a skilled profession - and having a degree-level education - by 12 and 25 times respectively, the study found. It is also associated with a £1 130 (about R23 000) increase in annual household income.
Meanwhile, higher body mass index (BMI) resulted in lower income in women. “If you could take the same woman - same intellect, same CV, same background - and send her through life a stone heavier, she would be about £1 500 per year worse off,” said Professor Timothy Frayling, professor of human genetics at the University of Exeter Medical School. “And if you took the same man - say a 5ft 10in man and made him 5ft 7in - and sent him through life, he would be about £1 500 worse off per year,” he added.
Researchers looked at 396 genetic variants associated with height, and 69 with BMI, for the study - which assessed people on education, jobs, income, and deprivation. It drew on genetic data from 120 000 people aged between 40 and 70 who have taken part in the UK Biobank, a database of biological information.
Lead author Dr Jessica Tyrrell, research fellow at the University of Exeter Medical School, said: “Because we used genetics and 120 000 people, this is the strongest evidence to date that there's something about being shorter as a man and having a higher BMI as a woman that leads to being less well-off financially.”
Although it does not state why, the research says: “Some of the possibilities include complex interactions between self-esteem, stigma, positive discrimination, and increased intelligence.”
Discrimination against overweight people is cited as a possible reason. “Very thin women are idealised and more socially valued, compared with their normal-weight and overweight peers. In contrast, a very different set of social standards exists regarding men's weight, so discrimination based on body size could well be different in men and women,” it says.
The Independent