Pygmies Trade Height For Fecundity

Past theories for pygmies' short stature ranged from nutrition to advantages in forest condition. But new research suggests that it's a question of early child-bearing during a short lifespan. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It’s that time of the year when many of us ponder deep questions, like: What have I done with my life? Where am I going? And, Why are pygmies so small?  Well, you’re on your own with the first two questions. But researchers at the University of Cambridge may be able to help with the third.  They published their conclusions in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 
 
For years, scientists have theorized about the diminutive stature of pygmies—populations where the men never top five feet. The current theories hold that pygmies have evolved to be short in response to a scarcity of nutrients. Or maybe, get this, because it’s easier to make your way through dense forests if you’re not so tall.  But somehow those theories never quite fit. The Masai in Kenya also face famine, and they’re among the tallest people on the planet. And as for ducking under branches—not all pygmies live in the woods.  What the Cambridge researchers find is that pygmies are pygmies because they live fast and die young.  And adolescent years that are usually spent growing taller are instead used to have babies, usually by the age of 15.  So the research confirms what we always knew: pygmies lead short lives.

—Karen Hopkin

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe