A historical review of anthropometric studies conducted on Turkish children and adults is presented. In view of observed differences in growth status between children of different societies, the need for local reference standards and the methodology to be used for such studies have been stressed. The importance of local studies in reflecting the state of health and nutrition both in children and adults has also been mentioned. While a number of studies in children cited in this paper are designed to compare the growth of children from different socioeconomic levels, other studies aim to establish local reference data for Turkish children. While the historical studies in adults aim to define racial characteristics, the more recent studies aim to bring out nutritional characteristics with emphasis on increasing frequency of obesity.
Conflict of interest: None declared
Received: 24.01.2013 Accepted: 27.01.2013
The first documented growth studies in Europe date back to Buffon’s “Supplements to the Natural History” published in 1777. Montbeillard’s longitudinal measurements of his son from birth to age 19 years, the first growth study of its kind, are also included in this work. However, it was not until the end of the 19th century that the foundation for contemporary growth studies was established with the work of Franz Boas (1), who was the first to point out variations in tempo of growth. Boas, with his subsequent work and use of graphic methods has also inspired more recent studies, such as the Harvard Growth Study (2,3).
For adults, data on height in Western European and North American populations are abundant from 1700 on and show positive and negative trends over time until significant positive secular trends are noted in the first thirty years of the twentieth century in Western Europe and much earlier in the United States (4). While there are some ethnic groups in which mean adult heights differ significantly from the Western European and North American values, presumably due to genetic factors, systematic genetic influences appear to have little impact on mean heights for most population groups. Today, the mean heights of well-nourished Western Europeans, North American whites and North American blacks are nearly identical. The importance of genetic factors has undoubtedly been overemphasized by 19th century scholars and efforts to describe ethnic groups with reference to anthropometric characteristics, so popular in that era, are no longer considered to be as pertinent (5). It is only recently, through studies which account also for the strong impact of environment on growth and maturation, that clear genetically controlled differences between populations have been identified (6,7,8,9).
No anthropometric data on the Turkish population are encountered in the archives prior to the turn of the century. This paper aims to review the available documents on anthropometric measurements, excluding those pertaining to the newborn, on the Turkish population in chronological order, thus also bringing to light the changes in these values as well as in perspectives that have occurred over time. For purposes of clarity, anthropometric studies on children and those on adults will be treated under separate headings.
Anthropometric Studies on Turkish Children
The first published study on the anthropometric measurements of Turkish children was performed by Kansu in 1917 (10). The author measured heights and weights in a group of 281 school children (125 girls and 156 boys) in the city of Bursa. The children were between 7 and 20 years of age, and of middle-class families. In the introductory paragraph of his paper, the author states that the Ministry of Education of the Ottoman Empire attached importance to the assessment of growth and development and had distributed a “Medical Examination Form”, which also included body measurements, to all schools in 1915.
However, probably due to the political upheavals in the country which culminated in the founding of the new Turkish Republic, it was only a decade later that, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, stature, weight and chest circumference measurements were performed on a group 4000 Turkish, 220 Greek, 1600 Armenian, 1340 Jewish and 720 “Levantine (refers to persons of European origin residing in Ottoman/Turkish domains)” children aged 9 to 18 years in Istanbul. It is unfortunate that in this study the results were analyzed for boys and girls together, without any sex differentiation (11).
Starting in 1938, studies based on groups of children whose characteristics were more precisely defined began to be published. Alantar (12), in the introductory remarks to his paper which was also presented as a report at the first National Congress of Pediatrics in Turkey, emphasized the importance in growth studied for adequate sample size, separate evaluation of two sexes, the need for exact calculation of chronological age for each child and the use of standard measurements methods. In Alantar’s study, height and sitting height were measured in 5412 girls and 4888 boys between 1 month and 12 years of age who attended the outpatient clinic of a large pediatric hospital in Istanbul. The results, expressed as mean values, were compared with data from other countries. Another study, in which weight, height, head and chest circumferences were measured in 6774 girls and 6462 boys from birth to 16 years who attended a clinic in a less developed district of Istanbul, was also presented in the same Congress of Pediatrics (13).
During the same years, several studies on school children were undertaken. These included, in addition to height and weight, anthropometric measurements such as limb length, span, sitting height and hand length, as well as assessment of racial characteristics such as cranial and facial measurements, eye shape and color, nose profile, hair and skin color (14,15,16,17,18), These studies revealed that the majority of Turkish children possess a face which is either narrow or of medium width, a long, narrow, straight nose and skin, hair and eyes of medium color. These children were also evaluated by anthropological indices. Kinay (18) reported that children living along the coast were taller than those from inland areas.
Ilbars (19) performed several anthropometric measurements on 200 children between 8 and 13 years in an effort to establish a relationship between body shape and athletic activities. The author reported that children of a macroskelic body type performed better in physical activities such as running and jumping, while the brachyskelics were stronger (better in pulling and similar activities). Thus, the investigator concluded that body shape should be taken into consideration in selection of athletic activities for the individual child.
The first growth study in which the results were expressed as means including standard errors for each chronological age belongs to Yalim (20), who reported height and weight measurements in 12277 (6144 boys, and 6133 girls) children between 7 and 18 years of age, attending schools in various districts of the city of İstanbul. The measurements were performed by the school doctors or teachers. The study showed that with the exception of age groups 11-13 years, the boys were slightly taller and heavier than the girls.
Mean values for heights and weights reported by the above authors at all ages are close to the 5th percentile lines of the international standard based on the United States National Child Health Study (NCHS) (21). The retardation is less marked for weight values.
Eckstein et al (22) assessed weight gain in 66 boys and 59 girls in the first year of life. At one year of age, weight was essentially comparable in all infants, regardless of birth weight. It was shown that weight gain in infancy is higher in infants born with relatively lower weights. Boy infants also showed a higher gain compared to girls.
Between 1954 and 1957, Bostanci carried out four studies in Ankara on 1679 school children (832 boys, 847 girls) between 9 and 16 years of age (23,24,25,26). The size of the sample for each sex in each chronological age group varied between 100 and 123. These studies were the first of their kind in Turkey in which the methodology is described in detail; a total of 35 anthropometric measurements were performed on each child and several indices were used in the evaluation. Height measurements showed that the girls were slightly taller than the boys at ages 11-14 years. Starting at age 15 years, the boys became significantly taller. Mean trunk length was also greater in the boys except in age groups 11 to 15. Brachyskely was a feature common to both sexes at all ages. However, the girls had higher trunk indices at all ages except at age 9 and the difference between the two sexes increased with age. These results showed that the girls were relatively more brachyskelic as compared to the males. Foot width and foot length were greater in boys at all ages. The study also showed that cessation of growth in foot width and length occurred at an earlier age as compared to the femur and the tibia. The foot also became thinner with age. Mean values for foot index were higher in boys in all age groups. Hand index was also higher in the boys except for age groups 9 and 10. In both sexes, the lower limb values (leg length, foot length, foot width) were consistently higher than the corresponding measurements of the upper limbs (upper and lower arm lengths, hand length, hand width). Attainment of adult values in limb lengths occurred in the hand, forearm and upper arm in the upper extremity; and in the foot, lower leg and upper leg in the lower extremity, in respective order. The author also reported values on shoulder width, hip width, chest width, chest depth, and chest circumference measurements.
Soysal et al (27) stressed the importance of nutrition and other environmental factors on growth and the need to select groups of children growing under optimal conditions in establishing the local growth standards of a community. These authors reported height and weight measurements in infants and children from birth to 8 years of age who were seen in private pediatric practice. The study was based on 4973 measurements in the girls and 6260 measurements in the boys. The results of this study showed that the mean values were almost identical to those of North American white children and higher than height and weight measurements reported for Turkish children in previous studies. Other workers in the 1960’s reported data showing differences in anthropometric measurements in school children of different socioeconomic background and stressed the importance of socioeconomic level and nutrition on growth performance (28,29,30,31).
Koksal et al (32) studied a group of children between 2 months and 5 years attending a factory day care center. In this mixed longitudinal/cross-sectional group, height measurements conformed to international standards until 6-9 months of age and showed a downward trend thereafter, falling between the 3rd and 10th percentiles at age 5 years. Weight measurements were closer to the 50th percentile during and after infancy.
Oral (33) reported measurements on children living in a rural area in the vicinity of Ankara and who were followed by a University team. The author reported retardation in growth in all parameters starting at age 3 months. However, after the first year of life, growth tempo in weight and head circumference followed a line parallel to standard curves, while height velocity remained subnormal for another year.
Neyzi et al (34,35) determined the anthropometric parameters in children aged 9 to 17 years of different socioeconomic groups and reported large differences.
In 1975, Onat (36) reported the results of a longitudinal study on height and weight performed on two groups of girls. One group consisted of girls attending a school in a semiurban district of İstanbul, while the girls in the second group were of higher socioeconomic level. Both groups, starting at ages 86/12 and 911/12 years, were followed for 7 years. A significant retardation in growth relative to children from higher socioeconomic levels was noted in the girls from a lower socioeconomic background. The author also compared height and weight values in the total group with those reported by Yalım in 1940 and found a height increase of 4.4 cm at age 8, indicating an important secular trend over a period of 30 years. While some increase was noted also in weight, the secular trend in weight was not significant. The girls in Onat’s study were also 2 cm taller than their mothers.
In 1979, Neyzi et al (37) reported data on growth in infants and children from 1 to 36 months of age and of low socioeconomic level, attending a maternal and child health center (MCH) in İstanbul. Despite regular attendance to the Center, increase in head circumference as well as in weight and height showed a lag at 6, 9, and 12 months of age, respectively.
Genetic variations relating to both size and tempo of growth are known to exist among different populations, indicating a need for local growth standards. On the other hand, it is also well known that poor nutrition and other unfavorable environmental factors have an important impact on growth. Since a significant proportion of children in the developing regions of the world cannot escape the effect of a suboptimal environment on growth, the anthropometric reference standards in such regions need to be derived from selected samples of the population who provide their children with the requirements for optimal growth. With the above considerations and aiming to establish local norms for Turkish children, Neyzi et al (38,39) reported heights and weights in 3606 healthy Istanbul children of ages between 1 month and 18 years (1755 girls and 1851 boys) of high socioeconomic level born between the years 1955 and 1965. For infants, another criterion for inclusion in the series was periodic visits to a pediatrician. Longitudinal data for children up to 8 years were collected retrospectively from the files of two pediatricians. Data on children from 9 years on were based on measurements obtained in schools and were cross-sectional. Exact chronological age was known in all these subjects and all measurements were performed using standard equipment and methodology. Since the means and standard deviation (SD) values were derived from measurements taken at exact ages or within negligible distances from exact chronological ages, correction of the SD was not attempted. The percentile curves fitting the points obtained as described above were assessed in three different ways: a) hand fitting; b) 3rd and 4th degree polynomial regression analysis applied to all age groups; and c) regression analysis after classifying the subjects into three age categories (0-3 years; 4-10 years; 11-18 years). A good fit could be obtained by applying a second degree polynomial curve to the 0-3 year’s age group, a first degree (a line) to the 4-10 years age group, and an exponential curve to the 11-18 years age group. The growth charts prepared by Neyzi et al (38) have been in use in the assessment of Turkish children living in Turkey or in Europe for nearly three decades.
In a study (40), children of Turkish emigrant workers in Sweden who were born and reared in Sweden were compared with those who were born in Turkey and emigrated in childhood, as well as with Swedish children and with Turkish children of well-off families in Turkey and it was found that Turkish children who were born and reared in Sweden were shorter than Swedish children, but also shorter than the children of well-off families in Turkey. Those who had emigrated to Sweden in childhood were short on arrival but showed significant catch up. This study demonstrates the importance of environmental effects on growth.
Several other studies on anthropometric measurements, including foot measurements, head length/stature ratios, pelvic width and determination of height velocity on Turkish children of different socioeconomic level and living in different parts of the country have been published in the years prior to 2000 (41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60). Most of these studies were performed by pediatricians and aimed to show differences in body size in children of different socioeconomic levels or in those living in urban as opposed to rural settings.
Studies on secular trend in Turkish children are limited. Neyzi et al (61), by reviewing available data on Turkish children in the past 50 years, reported significant differences in height for age in Istanbul city children. As also observed in other countries, secular trend is mainly due to improved growth performance of children from lower socioeconomic classes (62,63,64). Simsek et al. (65) and also Ozer (66,67), in their studies on school children in Ankara, also reported significant increments in height during the past decades. Ozer’s results demonstrate increments in height, leg length, and weight, which are more prominent in boys. No significant change in sitting height was found.
Among the several studies on heights and weights conducted on the Turkish pediatric population since 2000, studies by two groups of researchers, those working in Istanbul and in Kayseri, deserve mention, since both groups worked on study groups of adequate size and composition to constitute a reference sample, and both groups applied standard and up-to-date methodology for measurements and analysis of the results.
The İstanbul study was based on 11 664 height and 11 635 weight measurements on 2129 (1100 boys and 1020 girls) school children (of ages 6 to18 years) (68) and also included height, weight and head circumference measurements on 2391 boys and 2102 girls followed at the Well Baby & Child Clinic of the Pediatric Department from birth to age 5 years (69). The results of the two age groups were combined to derive the updated reference percentile growth charts for weight, height and head circumference and for body mass index (BMI) in Turkish children (70). The height results compare well with the North American white children included in the NHANES III study (71). Weight measurements and BMI results indicate that Turkish children are prone to be become overweight from an early age on and that obesity reaches significant proportions starting in prepubertal years. Another noteworthy finding was the relatively increased head circumference values as compared to western standards, which were thought to reflect a genetic characteristic, since the study group included only healthy and well-nourished subjects.
The studies on Kayseri children were conducted on healthy children and consisted of 2785 boys and 2942 girls aged 6 to 18 years and of 1472 boys and 1491 girls aged 0 to 84 months (72,73). Height and weight measurements were taken, and percentile growth charts to serve as references were constructed. The results, compared with those obtained for İstanbul children, revealed that in the first year of life, Kayseri boys and girls had lower weight and height values, but that they became slightly taller and heavier than İstanbul children between ages 4-12 years. In older age groups, they were slightly shorter and of lower weight than the Istanbul children. Some members of the Kayseri group, Malkoc et al (74), studied the effect of altitude on height, weight and BMI of children aged 6-14 years and reported that children residing at higher altitudes were shorter and leaner than their Istanbul or Kayseri counterparts. However, the authors considered socioeconomic level also as a possible factor influencing the results.
The Turkish Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) data also provide anthropometric information on Turkish infants and children under age 5 years (75). Since 1968, TDHS has been conducted every 5 years and provides data on samples representative of the whole of the Turkish population. These data show very significant improvements in social as well as in health indicators over time. The latest TDHS report, the proportion of stunting (height <-2SD) is given as 13% and that of underweight infants/children as 1.7% (weight <-2SD). Frequency of low weight-for-height ratio is given as 0.8%. Compared to previous years, a significant decrease is noted in frequency of low weight-for-age and in low weight-for-height figures in young Turkish children, revealing a potential increase in obesity. Proportion of low birth weight infants (birth weight <2500 g) is given as 11%. A recent Ministry of Health nationwide survey conducted on 11 387 school children aged 6-10 years revealed that the frequency of underweight children (Z score <-2SD) was 2.4%, while that of overweight (Z score >+2SD) was 4.9%. Frequency of stunting (Z score <-2SD) was reported as 5.0%. Figures for BMI, waist circumference (WC) and WC/Ht ratio are also given in the report.
Most other recent reports on measurements are local studies with limited numbers of subjects (76,77,78,79,80,81,82, 83,84,85,85,87,88,89,90,91). Of these, two studies (86,88), by measuring height and weight in children working as industrial workers, document the negative effect of child labor on growth. Reports on head circumference have also been published in recent years (89,90). Of these, Elmali et al (90) have produced percentile charts for head circumference in Kayseri children aged 0 to 84 months. In another study, heights and weights of primary school children from three different regions in Turkey were measured and the results revealed significant differences which were attributed to differences in socioeconomic conditions (91).
In the past decade, several groups of investigators have reported BMI and body composition values in Turkish children from various regions of the country (70,92,93,94,95,96,97,98, 99,100,101). Of these, the studies on İstanbul children and those from Kayseri (70,74,92,100) are based on samples of adequate size, and the BMI percentile charts produced in these studies can be advocated to be representative of the population. It should be noted that as compared to NHANES III data (71), obesity stands out as an important problem in Istanbul children, starting in prepubertal years and reaching high proportions after puberty (overweight: 25% in boys and 15% in girls; obese: 4.0% in males and 1% in girls) (70,92). The study on Kayseri children however revealed different results. While BMI values in Kayseri children were higher compared to WHO standards in the first 5 years of life and frequencies for overweight and obesity were reported as 10% and 4.9% respectively (97,100) in this age group, BMI values in older children were shown to be relatively low as compared to European, North American and Istanbul children. These results indicate that in Turkey, children of high socioeconomic groups and possibly those growing up in a big city are more prone to become overweight/obese in adult life.
There are also studies on measurements of body segments and relationships between arm span and height in Turkish children (102,103,104,105). Studies aiming to establish reference values for WC and also for neck circumference, measurements which would serve as indicators for central obesity, have also been realized, and percentile charts for these values in boys and girls have been constructed (106,107,108,109) for these measurements. Several studies on skinfold thickness, upper midarm circumference (UMAC) and the relationship of these values to undernutrition and overnutrition have also been realized by pediatricians in Turkey (110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117). Measurements of interpopliteal distance and reference values for this indicator, which would serve in the diagnosis of rickets syndromes in young children, have also been reported (118).
Studies on skeletal maturation and growth at puberty in Turkish children also need to be included in this review. Findings related to age and progression of sexual development in Turkish girls and boys have been reported by Neyzi et al (119,120). Neyzi et al (121) have also analyzed the relationships between age at menarche and height, body weight, weight/height ratio, skinfold thickness and bone age and have reported significant relationships between age at menarche and body weight and also between age at menarche and skeletal age. In a subsequent study, it was shown that while BMI continued to be a significant factor influencing age of menarche, differences in menarche age among socioeconomic classes disappeared with improvement in socioeconomic conditions over time (122). Kinik et al (50) have reported a significant relationship between height and skeletal age in boys of pubertal ages. Onat and Ertem (123) reported no significant relationship between menarche age and final height or weight in the 114 girls they have followed for 7-9 years, but when height at menarche was expressed as a percentage of final height, it was found that this value was significantly lower in girls who had menarche at a younger age. Onat and Iseri (124) also studied relationships between skeletal maturation in the digital bones of the hand and development of secondary sex characteristics and reported a lower growth potential in girls who had more advanced bone maturation. This same author, using his longitudinal data on girls, also evaluated the efficacy of different methods used in estimation of final height and reported that both Bayley-Pinneau and Tanner-Whitehouse methods were reliable (125,126,127). Bundak et al (128), who investigated the relationships between onset of puberty, progression of puberty and final height in 1112 boys between ages 8-18 yrs, reported age of onset of puberty as 11.6±1.2 yrs, height at onset as 146.1±7.7 cm, peak height velocity (PHV) as 10.1±1.6 cm/year, total height increment at puberty as 26.4±4.3 cm, and duration of puberty as 4.9±0.6 yrs. Significant relationships were found between height at onset of puberty and final height and between duration of puberty and final height, while BMI at onset and age of onset of puberty and duration of puberty were negatively correlated. In a second study by the same team conducted on 1020 girls of ages 8-18 yrs, 101 of whom reached their final height, age of onset of puberty was 10.1±1.0 yrs, height at onset 141.7±7.6 cm, duration of puberty 4.9±1.2 yrs, menarche age 12.2±0.9 yrs, PHV 8.5±1.0 cm/yr and total height gained 16.0±3.9 cm. A positive correlation was found between height at onset of puberty and final height. Age of onset of puberty was negatively correlated with height and body weight at onset (129).
Anthropometric Studies on Adults
The Turkish Anthropometric Survey (130,131,132) initiated with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s orders, organized by Professor Afet İnan and designed with contributions from a number of researchers, stands out as the largest and most comprehensive anthropometric study on the adult Turkish population. Prior to this survey which was reported in 1937, a number of studies aiming to establish the racial origin of the Turkish population and the links between the Turkish and European populations had been performed on small groups living in Anatolia, in Thrace and in the Balkans. Pittard (133), in his paper entitled “Les peoples de Balkans”, gives data on stature in Ottoman Turks. He also mentions that in previous anthropological texts, mean stature in Turks was reported to be around 167-168 cm, with 63% of the population being taller than the normal mean of 165 cm suggested by Topinard in 1885 (cited in Pittard’s paper) for European men. Also citing the measurements performed by Chantre on Ottomans living in Asia Minor, who found a mean stature of 171 cm, the author states that the Ottomans living in Anatolia represent a less mixed population than those on the European side and therefore are taller. Pittard explains the variability in stature in Ottoman Turks by emphasizing the fact that the Turkish population represents a heterogeneous mixture of racial groups. He also states that a similar variability is encountered in cranial structure. The author found a mean cephalic index of 82.2 in the Ottoman population. According to this index, 49% of the study group was classified as brachycephalic, 26% as dolichocephalic, and the remainder as mesaticephalic. Pittard claims that the Asian Turks tend to be more brachycephalic compared to the European Turks and therefore it is plausible that this group originated from the brachycephalic communities in Central Asia.
Pittard et al (134), in a subsequent study, measured 210 Turkish soldiers in Anatolia, using 20 different anthropological parameters. He reported a mean stature of 171 cm in this group, a higher value than those he had reported previously. He also found that 93.3% of the individuals were taller than the accepted normal mean. Pittard also found a mean cephalic index of 85.1% (73.3% of the subjects were brachycephalic) in this group. Mean values for other parameters were: trunk length 89.3 cm; trunk/height ratio 52.0%; leg length 81.7 cm, leg/trunk ratio 91.1%; and span/height ratio 102.4%. The author also reported that the Anatolian Turks had straight or aquiline noses and 75% could be classified as leptorhinian and that they had small ears, with eyes and hair which were generally of dark color. The author goes on to state that features such as short stature, a long head, and flat nose were rare in these individuals.
Kansu (135,136), aiming to establish the differences between Asian and European Turks, compared 53 anthropometric parameters in 100 male subjects of ages 24-28 years in each group. Mean supine length was 167.9 cm and 167.3 cm in the Asian and European subjects, respectively. The author, referring to the Topinard classification which accepts 165 cm as the normal mean for male stature, concluded that the Turks were a population with a stature above the mean. Cephalic, facial and nasal indices, in respective order, were 84.2, 87.3, 65.8, in the Anatolian Turks and 82.6, 87.9 and 66.8 in the European Turks. The author also reported more brachycephalic individuals and relatively shorter leg lengths in the Anatolian Turk group. Kansu is also the author of “A Guide for Anthropological Investigations” (137) in which he gives a detailed description of instruments used in physical anthropology and the measurements used in man.
Inan (138) reported measurements on 200 Turkish women living in a district near Ankara. Mean values were 155 cm for stature, 82.6 cm for sitting height, and 78.9 cm for lower limb length. Of these subjects, 20.5% were within the normal range for stature (155 to 159.9 cm), 30% were tall (>160 cm), and 49.5% were below the stated normal range (<154.9 cm). By skelic index, the women subjects were defined as mesatiskelic and brachy-hypsicephalic. The nose was concave in shape in 62%, the eyes were of intermediary color in 63%, and the hair was intermediary in color in 56%. Mongolic eye contour was not observed in any subject. This author also gives a review of early anthropometric studies on the Turkish population, mentions that these were restricted to male subjects and refers to the works of Weissbach (44 subjects), Bossanovitch (42 subjects in Bulgaria), Eliseff (288 subjects in Asia minor), Chantre (288 subject in Asia minor), Von Luschan (40 subjects of the Bektaşi religious order), and Hauschild and Wangenseil (272 Anatolian Turks). Mean statures reported by these authors were 162.2 cm, 166.2 cm, 167 cm, 171 cm, 166 cm, and 167.2 cm, respectively. Inan also refers to the works of Pittard and of Kansu.
The Turkish Anthropometric Survey (130,131,132) can be cited as an important contribution to anthropological sources on the Turkish population. The study was carried out on adult subjects living in cities, small towns, and villages in ten regions in Anatolia and in Thrace. The data were collected over a period of four months by a team of twenty-three persons consisting of doctors, male nurses, and teachers of physical education. The team was exposed to one full week of training by Kansu. The tools for the anthropometric measurements were supplied by a Swiss firm and the design of the classification tables was done by Pittard. The physical characteristics of the study group which consisted of 39465 males and 20263 females can be summarized as follows: mean stature was 165.2 cm in Turkish men and 152.2 in the women. In both sexes, stature was relatively greater in the Eastern Anatolian regions. Fifty-two percent (49.6% in the Western and 53.6% in the Eastern regions) of Turkish men were taller than 165 cm, which, by Topinard’s definition (1885), was considered the mean for normal stature in males. On the other hand, 55.7% (57.9 in the western and 51.8% in the eastern regions) of the women were below the normal mean, when this same author’s figure of 153 cm was taken as the normal mean stature for women. Mean values for skelic index were 93.9 for the men and 83.3 for the women, thus the men were classified as macroskelic, while the women were mesatiskelic. Mean values for cephalic index were 83.3% in the men and 83.8% in the women. The proportion of brachycephalics was 63.9% in the men and 65.5% in the women according to Deniker’s classification. By Topinard’s criteria, these proportions were 75.6% and 77.7%. Mean values for nasal index were 65.0 for the men and 64.0 for the women, the proportion of leptorhinians being 71.2% and 76.7%, in respective order. The nose shape was defined as straight in the majority of the subjects. The frequency of a mongoloid slant in the eyes was 5%. Skin and eye colors varied between medium and fair. Hair was generally of chestnut color.
Gungor in 1939 (139) published the results of his anthropometric study on 40 male and 40 female adult Yörük (pastoral nomadic Turks) subjects living in the proximity of Denizli (a town in the Aegean region). These subjects were taller than those in Kansu’s and Inan’s series (135,136,138). Mean stature of the men was 170.0 cm and that of the women was 158.5 cm. The subjects were also described as leptorhinian and hypsicephalic. By cephalic index, most men were classified as dolichocephalic and the women as mesaticephalic. By skelic index, the women were generally mesatiskelic, while the men were macroskelic. By facial index, hyperleptoprosopy was the most frequent typology, leptoprosopy occupying second rank. Eye and hair color was dark or brown in these subjects.
Hertzberg (140) measured 915 Turkish, 1084 Greek and 1357 Italian soldiers in an effort to establish standards for the design of such items as oxygen masks, helmets, clothing and seats. He took 150 measurements on each individual and compared the three groups. Mean values for stature, weight, and sitting height were 169.3 cm, 64.6 kg, and 89.7 cm in the Turkish, 170.5 cm, 67.0 kg, and 90.2 cm in the Greek, and 170.6 cm, 70.3 kg, and 90.2 cm in the Italian subjects, in respective order.
In later years, Saatcioglu (141,142), analyzing the results of Inan’s survey data, showed a positive correlation in both sexes between stature and both head length and head width. This investigator also reported a study on 568 male and 556 female subjects, assessing stature, chest circumference and cephalic index in these subjects who were classified as university students, skilled workers and unskilled workers. The author reported significant variations in stature by socioeconomic level.
Emekli (143,144), in a study performed in 1966 on a randomized sample of 1865 adult young men from various regions in Turkey and of different occupational groups, reported a mean stature of 166.6 cm and a positive secular trend of 14 mm from 1937 values (130,131,132). Mean skelic index was 87.6 in this group and in contrast to the 1937 study results, typology in the majority of the subjects was mesatiskelic and tended to be brachyskelic in some. Mean cephalic index was 83.9, the proportion of brachycephalics being 70.6%. In this study, similar to previous publications, frequency of tall stature and dolichocephaly was greater in subjects from the Eastern and Southeastern regions of Anatoli. He also reported stature, trunk length, body weight and chest circumference measurements and muscle strength measured by dynamometry in 525 army recruits. In another study (145), the same author reported a significant positive correlation between stature and foot length.
A number of studies, aiming to establish anthropometric norms in the Turkish adult population were published in the 1980s (146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157, 158). Kuran and Sahmay (146) performed 15 anthropometric measurements on 200 women and reported higher head/stature and hand length/stature and lower foot length/stature and shoulder width/stature ratios in Turkish women as compared to European and North American women. A head length/stature ratio of 1/7.08 in adult women was reported by Sahmay (147). Muftuoglu and Gurun also measured some body parts and stature in adult male subjects (148). Gurun and Kuran (149) reported a mean value of 1/7.6 for head/stature ratio in both sexes. Muftuoglu et al (150) measured facial dimensions in 100 adults and 100 newborns and reported a ratio of 1/13.84 for face width/face length in adult males. This ratio was 1/12.11 in adult females, 1/10.05 in male newborns, and 1/9.68 in female newborns. Facial type was reported as mesoprosopic in 85.1% of adult males, and 84.4% of adult women were classified as europrosopic. Arı et al (151, 152) reported that leptoprosopy (ratio between 0.90 and 0.95) was the dominant feature in 232 girls and 336 males between 17 and 25 years of age. Cireli et al (153) reported anthropometric measurements in university students. Cireli et al (154) also measured auricular length in 624 male and 376 female students aged between 18 and 23 years and reported that the ears were of small size in the females and of medium size in the males. Foot measurements revealed that Turkish men and women have shorter and wider feet than many European groups (156,157). Vural (158) measured pelvic dimensions in Turkish women and reported higher values compared to European women.
Twenty different anthropometric measurements were performed on 400 medical students in Istanbul (159, 160). In the women, mean and SD values for stature, sitting height and body weight were 160.2±5.7 cm, 86.6±8.4 cm and 56.6±5.7 kg, respectively. These values were 174.0±1.6 cm, 94.4±34.2 cm and 69.5±9.1 kg in men, in respective order. The majority of the students were brachycephalic, had high trunk/stature ratios and narrow faces. In two other studies on university students, a mean stature of 164.1 cm and 163.8 cm in the women and of 175.9 and 176.4 cm in the men was reported (148,149). These relatively recent studies show an overall increase in stature of approximately 10 cm since the 1937 report. However, this statement can be valid only by comparing groups matched for socioeconomic background. For this, there is a need to perform measurements on a population representing all socioeconomic groups.
In a recent study, Ozer et al (161) report measurements on human skeletons dating as far back as the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the history of man and compare them to more recent measurements. Based on these measurements, the authors report periods of positive and negative secular trends in man’s history. Some other studies have aimed to evaluate the possibility of estimating stature from measurements of other body parts. Of these, studies aiming to assess stature from measurements of knee length are of clinical importance for geriatric and/or incapacitated patients (162,163,164). Some other studies have been conducted to be of guidance to orthopedists, ophthalmologists, radiologists in their clinical practice (165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172). Some studies in Turkish adults have been designed to assess the methods of assessment of obesity (173,174,175,176). Studies on prevalence of obesity have also been reported (177). One such study was conducted in the city of Sivas on 500 men and 500 women of ages 20 to 65 years and shows that women are more prone to be obese. In this study, mean height was 168.0 in the men and 154.3 cm in the women. Mean weight was 78.9 kg in the men and 72.1 kg in the women. Mean values for BMI were 28.0 in men and 30.4 in women. Skinfold thickness values and WC/hip circumference (HC) ratios were also higher in the women (178). Another study covering 26 499 individuals (63% women),conducted jointly by a team from several universities, the State Institute of Statistics and the Ministry of Health and repeated after an interval of 12 years showed that, along with significant increases in frequency of overt diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance, body weight had increased by 8 kg in men and 6 kg in women, WC by 7 cm in men and 5 cm in women, and HC by 2 cm in men and 1 cm in women. Height had increased by 1 cm in both sexes (179,180).
This historical review of the available anthropometric data on the Turkish population provides some insights into the growth status of the children of this region over the past fifty years as well as on various anthropometric parameters pertaining to the adults.
In the early studies, the measurements on children aspired to establish the status quo of level of growth at different ages in the two sexes. In the 1960s, the impact of the environment on growth began to gain much attention, as seen by many studies documenting differences in growth attainment by socioeconomic level. The quality of the data in some of these studies fails to meet the standards required in scientific publications today. Information on methodology relating to sample selection, age grouping, and measurement technique is not given. The results, presented only as mean values, fail to provide information on within group variation and do not allow statistical comparisons. The majority of the studies are limited to children living in cities. Despite these limitations, the data still indicate that a significant positive secular trend has occurred over the past fifty years in the growth of Turkish children, reflecting the improvement in the standard of living which has occurred in this country in the past decades (181). It is also of interest that the secular trend is not noticeable to a significant degree in children of the upper echelons of society. For this reason, the growth charts based on the measurements of high bracket children born four decades ago appear to practically retain their validity for today’s children.
The early studies on adults were directed mainly to document differences among ethnic groups. We believe that in the first half of 20th century, the anthropologists involved in these studies were influenced by concepts prevailing among western scholars of the 19th century, which, following a hereditary viewpoint, concentrated mainly on racial differences. Thus, the impact of polymorphic variation is hardly mentioned and the emphasis is on polytypic variation (5,182,183). Also, in these early studies, there is no mention of the significant secular trend in height which occurred in Europe in the first 30 years of this century (4,184). It is difficult to justify the use of Topinard’s figures as reference points to classify the subjects by stature in the studies performed in the late thirties. In many of these publications, Turks living in Eastern Anatolia are reported as being taller than those in the western European parts of the country. Whether this biological difference can be attributed to “less mixing”, without mention of other factors, is debatable. Particularly in cranial measurements and the indices derived from these measurements, there is no mention in the early studies of the relation of head size and shape to body size, nor of nutritional and other environmental factors influencing both head and body size. As early as 1899, Boas showed that the cranial index was not a dependable standard in classifying individuals, since this index varied widely both among adults of a single group and within the life of an individual (2). He also wrote that head shape could change in a single generation of altered environment. Today, it is well known that undernutrition interferes with cell proliferation throughout the body including the brain and that organ size as well as stature are affected by environmental factors, as shown by smaller head size in low socioeconomic groups (185). Despite these critical remarks, the 1937 Turkish Anthropometric Survey in particular retains its value as an important document which can be used as a baseline to assess changes in body size and shape that must have occurred over time. Considering the paucity of published work on measurements on representative groups of adults in recent years, there is a need to define with greater precision the anthropometric characteristics of the present adult population in Turkey.
The authors acknowledge the support of Professor Nuran Yıldırım, a staff member of the History of Medicine and Ethics Department of the Istanbul Faculty of Medicine and that of Professor Zuhal Özaydın, a staff member of the History of Medicine and Ethics Department of the Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, in finding and interpreting the Ottoman sources cited in this paper. in this paper.
Address for Correspondence
Olcay Neyzi MD, İstanbul University İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, Pediatric Endocrinology, İstanbul, Turkey
Gsm: +90 533 556 49 67 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
©Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology, Published by Galenos Publishing.
1. Boas F. The cephalic index. American Anthropology 1899; 1:448-461. Epub 2009 Oct 28
2. Boas F. Changes in the bodily form of descendants of immigrants. American Anthropology 1912;14:530-562.
3. Tanner JM. A concise history of growth studies from Buffon to Boas. Human Growth 1979;3:515-593.
4. Fogel RW. Physical growth as a measure of the economic well-being of populations: The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Falkner F and Tanner JM (eds), Human Growth, 2nd edition. New York: Plenum 1986;3:263-281.
5. Gould SJ. The Mismeasure of Man. Nurton and Co, New York, 1981.
6. Van Wieringen JC. Secular growth changes. In Falkner F, Tanner JM (eds). Human Growth, New York: Plenum, 1986;3:307-331.
7. Tanner M, Eveleth PB. Variability between populations in growth and development at puberty. In Berenberg SR, ed. Puberty, Biologic and Psychosocial Components. Leiden: HE Stenfert Kroese, 1975:256-273.
8. Eveleth PB and Tanner JM. Worldwide Variations in Human Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976.
9. Tanner JM, Hayashi T, Preece MA. Increase in length of leg relative to trunk in Japanese children and adults from 1957 and 1977: Comparison with British and with Japanese Americans. Ann Hum Biol 1982;9:411-423.
10. Kansu NA. “Hıfzıssıhha-I Mekatip” (okulların hijyeni). Şakirdlerimizin nüma-yı nedenesi (Öğrencilerimizin bedensel gelişimi). Muallim Mecmuası 1917:348-351.
11. Noureddin Bey, Nechet Eumer bey, Mouchet et al. Etude comparative de la race Turque et de quelques autres races vivant a Stamboul. (İstanbuldaki Türk, Rum, Ermeni ve Musevi Çocuklarının neşvünemaları üzerine tetkikler). Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1927;2:3-4.
12. Alantar İH. Türk çocuklarında antropometrik ölçüler. Birinci Türk Çocuk Hekimliği Kongresi, Ekspres Basımevi, Ankara, 1938:3-31.
13. Tumay SB. Üsküdar süt ve mektep çocukları dispanseri çalışmasından: çocuklarda büyüme nisbetleri. Birinci Türk Çocuk Hekimliği Kongresi, Ekspres Basımevi, Ankara 1938:60-70.
14. Kansu SA. Kız ve erkek Türk çocukları üzerinde antropometrik araştırmalar (Recherches anthropometriques sur des enfants turcs des deux sexes). Belleten 1939;9:69-79.
15. Gokcul N. Ankara İsmetpaşa İlkokulu talebelerinden 422 kız ve erkek Türk çocuğu üzerinde antropometrik araştırmalar ve neticeleri (Recherches anthropometriques sur les eleves des deux sexes, d’une ecole primaire d’Ankara). Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1939;15:36-46.
16. Cinar N. Ankara Devrim İlkokul talebelerinden 433 kız ve erkek çocuk üzerinde antropometrik bir tetkik ve neticeleri. (Recherches anthropometrique sur 242 garçons et 201 filles, eleves d’une ecole primaire d’Ankara. Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1939;15:247-271.
17. Kokten K. Samsun ilkokul çocukları üzerinde antropometric araştırmalar (Recherches anthropometriques sur les eleves des ecoles primaries de Samsun). Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1939;15:247-271.
18. Kinay M. Ankara Gedikli Ortaokulu talebelerinden 200 erkek çocuk üzerinde antropometrik bir tetkik ve neticeleri (La croissance chez les eleves de sexe masculine d’une ecole secondaire). Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1939;15:176-186.
19. Ilbars N. Ankara ilkokul çocuklarının bedeni kabiliyetleri üzerine araştırmalar. Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Antropoloji ve Etnoloji Enstitüsü Neşriyatı, Ankara 1940;26:529-541.
20. Yalim Z. Türkiye’de mektep çocuklarının boy ve ağırlıkları. Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 1940;3:1546-1558.
21. Hamill PV et al. NCHS growth curves for children from birth to 18 years. United States, DHEW Publ.No. (PHS) 78-1650. Vital Health Stat 1977;165:1-74.
22. Eckstein A, Eppenstein F, Akademir G. Normal Türk meme çocuklarının birinci yaştaki ağırlık artışı. 1947; Başbakanlık İstatistik Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Hüsnü Tabiat Basımevi, İstanbul 1947:1-41.
23. Bostanci EY. Ankara’da Türk okul çocuklarında boy büyümesi üzerinde bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1954;12:41-75.
24. Bostanci EY. Ankara’da Türk okul çocuklarında bust ve alt taraf kısımlarının büyümesi üzerinde bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1955;13:69-136.
25. Bostanci EY. Türk erkek ve kız çocuklarında kol, üst kol, ön kol ve el büyümesi ile bedeninin diğer kısımları arasındaki korrelasyonlar üzerinde bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1956;14:103-203.
26. Bostanci EY. Türk erkek ve kız çocuklarında bedenin genişlemesine büyümesi ile proporsiyonların değişmesi üzerinde bir araştırma. (A Research on the growth and changing proportions in body width in Turkish boys and girls from nine to sixteen). 1957; Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1957;15:1-96.
27. Soysal SS, Gurson CT, Neyzi O. İstanbul çocuklarında fizik gelişme normları. Onaltıncı Milli Türk Tıp Kongresi, Çelikcilt Matbaası, İstanbul, 1960:181-190.
28. Gurson CT, Neyzi O. İstanbul’un Rami Gecekondu Bölgesinde Çocuk Sağlığı Konusunda Araştırmalar. Kağıt ve Basım İşleri AŞ, İstanbul, 1966.
29. Ozgur S, Ozgur T, Savran S. İzmir il ve ilçelerinde okul çocuklarında sosyo-ekonomik faktörler ile gelişme ve fizik bulgular arasındaki münasebet. Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1966;5:422-430.
30. Nashed S, Bertan M. Growth and physical development of primary school children in Etimesgut, Turkey. Turkish J Pediatr 1968;10:101-115.
31. Neyzi O, Gurson CT. Physical measurements on two groups of Istanbul children: Normal and undernourished. Compte Rendu de la IIIe Reunion des Equipes Charges des Etudes sur la Croissance et le Developpement de I’Enfant Normal, Stockholm 1966:123-134.
32. Koksal O, Yilmazsoy H. Growth rates of preschool children in Bursa, Turkey: A pilot study. Turkish J Pediatr 1961;3:153-159.
33. Oral SN. Köysel bölgede süt çocuklarının boy, ağırlık, baş çevresi ortalamarı ve büyüme hızı. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi, 1973;16:100-120.
34. Neyzi O, Tanman F, Saner G. Physical measurements on children of different social background in Istanbul. Reports of VIIIth International Congress of Nutrition, Hamburg 1966;4:224-231.
35. Neyzi O, Yalcindag A, Alp H. Heights and weights of Turkish children. Trop Pediatr and Environm Child Health 1973;19:5-13.
36. Onat T. İstanbul Kızlarında Ergenlik Çağında Büyüme, Seksüel Gelişme ve Kemik Olgunlaşması ve Bunların Birbirleriyle İlişkileri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Cerrahpaşa Tıp Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1975.
37. Neyzi O, Alp H, Yalcindag A, et al. Kentsel ve kırsal iki AÇS merkezi materyalinin PEM yönünden değerlendirilmesi. Doğa 1979;3:93-98.
38. Neyzi O, Binyildiz P, Alp H. Türk çocuklarında büyüme - gelişme normları 1.Tartı ve boy değerleri. İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 1978;41:1-22.
39. Neyzi O, Binyildiz P, Alp H. Growth standards for Turkish children: Heights and weights. Courrier 1979;29:553-558.
40. Mjönes S. Growth in Turkish children in Stockholm. Annals of Human Biology 1987;14:337-347.
41. Tumerdem Y. Growth and physical development in primary school children in north-east part of Turkey. Med Bull İstanbul 1978;11:122-132.
42. Erem T, Gulesen O, Kan et al. Bursa il merkezinde ilkokul çocuklarında boy ile baş gelişmesi arasındaki ilişkilerin antropometrik ölçüler yöntemi ile incelenmesi. Bursa Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1979;6:17-25.
43. Erem T. Bursa il merkezinde antropometrik ölçümlerle ilkokul çocuklarının fiziksel gelişmesinin incelenmesi. Bursa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Yayınları 1979; Suppl 6.
44. Korkmaz T. Türk erkek ve kız çocuklarının doğumdan dokuz yaşma kadar ayağın biyometrik yapısı üzerinde bir araştırma. Antropoloji, Ankara Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1980;9:93-137.
45. Baki A, Tezic T. Physical growth measurements of primary school children living in Trabzon. Turkish J Pediatr 1986;28:31-45.
46. Erefe I, Kocaman G, Bahar Z. Büyüme, beslenme ve genel sağlık yönünden kentsel ve kırsal çevre okul çocuklarının farkları üzerinde araştırma. Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1982;21:456-470.
47. Aytekin AH, Dirican MR. Gemlik bölgesinde 6-12 yaş çocuklarda fiziksel büyüme ve gelişme I.Ağırlık. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1983;3:269-276.
48. Aytekin AH, Dirican MR. Gemlik bölgesinde 6-12 yaş çocuklarda fiziksel büyüme ve gelişme II.Boy, ağırlığa gore boy. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1983;3:277-284.
49. Yalaz K, Epir S. Physical growth measurement of preschool urban Turkish children. Turkish J Pediatr 1983;25:155-165.
50. Kinik E, Buyukgebiz A, Karaman O. Erkek adolesanlarda biyolojik matürasyone gore antropometrik ölçümler. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi 1988;31:17-27.
51. Sidal M, Darendeliler F, Akar U, et al. 0-7 yaş grubu çocuklarda antropometrik ölçümler ve ölçümlere gore beslenme durumu. Doğa Sağlık Bilimleri 1989;13:242-255.
52. Hatipoglu ES, Kavak V. Çocuklarda boy uzunluklarının yöresel karşılaştırması. Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1989;16:64-67.
53. Hatipoglu ES, Kavak V. Diyarbakır merkez ve kırsal alan ilkokul çocuklarının fiziksel gelişmelerinin cinsiyetlere gore karşılaştırılması I.Ağırlık. Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1990;17:81-87.
54. Hatipoglu ES, Kavak V. Diyarbakır merkez ve kırsal alan ilkokul çocuklarının fiziksel gelişmelerinin cinsiyetlere gore karşılaştırılması II.Boy, boya gore ağırlık. Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1990;17:48-59.
55. Gunay U, Sapan N, Salih C. Determination of arm fat area and arm muscle area norms in children 6-12 years of age in Bursa. Turkish J Pediatr 1990;32:93-100.
56. Oygucu IH, Gulesen O, İkiz I, et al. Gemlik ilçesi ilkokul çocuklarında antropometrik ölçümlerler pelvis genişliklerinin incelenmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1992;19:167-176.
57. Ackurt F, Wetherilt H. Türk okul çağı çocuklarının büyüme - gelişme durumlarının Amerikan normlarına göre değerlendirilmesi. Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi /J Nutr and Diet 1991;20:21-34.
58. Duyar I. 10 yaş grubu çocuklarının antropometrik ölçülerinde eşeysel ve sosyo-ekonomik konuma gore görülen farklılıklar. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1990;34:69-79.
59. Ozkus K, Muftuoglu A, Pestemalci T, et al. Baş uzunluğu/boy uzunluğu oranının fiziksel gelişim ölçütü olarak kullanılabilirliği irdelenmesi. Cerrahpaşa Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1993;24:1-16.
60. Neyzi O, Bundak R, Molzan J, Günöz H, Darendeliler F, Saka N. Estimation of annual height velocity based on short- versus long-term measurements. Acta Paediatr 1993;82:239-244.
61. Neyzi O, Bundak R, Gunoz H, Darendeliler F, Saka N. Social class differences and secular trend in height in Turkish school children. In: Bodzar BB and Susanne C (eds). Studies in Human Biology. Eötvös Univ Press, Budapest, 1996:139-146.
62. Ljung BO, Bergsten-Brucefors A, Lindgren G. The secular trend in physical growth in Sweden. Ann Hum Biol 1974;1:245-256.
63. Cameron N. The growth of London schoolchildren 1904-1966: an analysis of secular trend and intra-county variation. Ann Hum Biol 1979;6:505-525.
64. Roche AF. Secular trends in human growth, maturation, and development. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1979;44:1-120.
65. 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;31:441-447.
66. Ozer BK. Growth reference centiles and secular changes in Turkish children and adolescents. Econ Hum Biol 2007;5:280-301. Epub 2007 Apr 1
67. Ozer BK. Secular changes in height and leg length among Turkish children during the last century. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 2007;47:95-113.
68. Neyzi O, Furman A, Bundak R, Gunoz H, Darendeliler F, Bas F. Growth references for Turkish children aged 6 to 18 years. Acta Paediatr 2006;95:1635-1641.
69. Gökçay G, Furman A, Neyzi O. Updated growth curves for Turkish children aged 15 days to 60 months. Child Care Health Dev 2008;34:454-463. Epub 2008 Apr 3
70. Neyzi O, Gunoz H , Furman A, Bundak R, Gokcay G, Darendeliler F, Bas F. Türk çocuklarında vücut ağırlığı, boy uzunluğu, baş çevresi ve vücut kitle indeksi referans değerleri. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi 2008;51:-14.
71. Ogden CL, Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Mei Z, Guo S, Wei R, Grummer-Strawn LM, Curtin LR, Roche AF, Johnson CL. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts for the United States: improvements to the 1977 National Center for Health Statistics version. Pediatrics 2002;109:45-60.
72. Hatipoğlu N, Kurtoğlu S, Oztürk A, Mazıcıoğlu MM. The weight and height percentiles in 6-18 year old children in Kayseri and comparison with Istanbul data. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2009;1:129-135. Epub 2009 Feb 3
73. Altunay C, Kondolot M, Poyrazoğlu S, Öztürk A, Mazıcıoğlu MM, Kurtoğlu S. Weight and height percentiles for 0-84- month-old children in Kayseri--a central Anatolian city in Turkey. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2011;3:184-191.
74. Malkoç I, Mazıcıoğlu MM, Özkan B, Kondolot M, Kurtoğlu S, Yeşilyurt H. Height, weight and body mass index percentiles of children aged 6-14 years living at moderate altitudes. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2012;4:14-20.
75. Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye, 2008.
76. Tuncer I. Konya il merkezindeki ilköğretim okulu öğrencilerinde bazı antropometrik ölçümler ile büyüme ve gelişmenin değerlendirilmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fak Derg 2004;11:233-236.
77. Akdogan I, Özdemir B, Hasutsa A, Akyer P, Akdoğan D, Akdağ B. Denizli merkez ilköğretim 1. sınıf (7 yaş) öğrencilerinde antropometrik vücut çevre ve üst ekstremite uzunluk ölçümleri. SDÜ Tıp Fak Derg 2005;12:14-18.
78. Güler D. Burdur’daki 6-10 yaş grubu çocukların boy uzunluğu, vücut ağırlığı, vücut yağ düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi ve yüzdelikleri. 1. Burdur Sempozyumu, Sempozyum Kitabı 2005:954-957.
79. Ayçiçek A. Şanlıurfa ilindeki 0-8 yaş çocuklar için boy ve ağırlık referans değerleri. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi 2005;48:234-238.
80. Bektaş Y, Akın G. Ankara’da üst sosyoekonomik düzey 10-17 yaş grubu çocukların boy ve ağırlık değerleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 2005; 45:97-113.
81. Özdemir O, Erçevik E, Çalışkan D. Farklı sosyoekonomik düzeye sahip iki ilköğretim okulunda öğrencilerin büyümelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fak Mecm 2005;58:23-29.
82. Çınar M, Uskun E, Öztürk M, Kişioğlu AN. Isparta il merkezinde 0-5 yaş grubu çocukların beslenme ve malnütrisyon durumu. Erciyes Tıp Dergisi 2007;29:294-302.
83. Erkan T, Yalvaç S, Erginöz E, Çokuğraş F, Kutlu T. İstanbul Üniversitesi Cerrahpaşa Tıp Fakültesi çocuk yuvasındaki çocukların beslenme durumlarının antropometrik ölçümlerle değerlendirilmesi. Türk Pediatri Arşivi 2007;42:142-147.
84. Tuncer I. Konya il merkezindeki 11-16 yaş grubu kız öğrencilerde sosyoekonomik durum, antropometrik vücut ölçümleri ve menarşla büyüme ve gelişmenin değerlendirilmesi. SDÜ Tıp Fak Derg 2007;14:25-28.
85. Kutlu R, Çivi S, Köroğlu DE. Fatih Sultan Mehmet ilköğretim okulu öğrencilerinin antropometrik ölçümlerinin değerlendirilmesi. TAF Prev Med Bull 2008;7:205-212.
86. Tomak L, Coskun M, Elmacıoğlu F, Pekşen Y. Samsun çıraklık eğitim merkezindeki çırakların antropometrik ölçümlerinin saptanması. Fırat Tıp Dergisi 2009;14:186-192.
87. Gün İ, Yılmaz M, Şahin H, Aykut M, İnanç N, Günay O, Özturk A, Çicek B, Özdemir M, Horoz D, Balcı E, Öztürk Y. Kayseri Melikgazi Eğitim ve Araştırma Bölgesinde 0-5 yaş grubu çocuklarda malnütrisyon durumu. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi 2010;53:107-113.
88. Etiler N, Çağlayan Ç, Yavuz CI, Hatun Ş, Hamzaoğlu O. Çalışmanın çocuk bedeni üzerine etkisi: İzmit’te yapılan iki araştırma sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması. Türk Pediatri Arşivi 2011;46:111-117.
89. Karabiber H, Durmaz Y, Yakinci C, Kutlu O, Gumusalan Y, Yologlu S, Yalaz K. Head circumference measurement of urban children aged between 6 and 12 in Malatya, Turkey. Brain Dev 2001;23:801-804.
90. Elmali F, Altunay C, Mazicioglu MM, Kondolot M, Ozturk A, Kurtoglu S. Head circumference growth reference charts for Turkish children aged 0-84 months. Pediat Neurol 2012;46:307-311.
91. Kayıran PG, Taymaz T, Kayıran SM, Memioğlu N, Taymaz B, Gürakan B. Türkiye’nin üç farklı bölgesinde ilköğretim okulu öğrencilerinde , kilo fazlalığı, obezite ve boy kısalığı. ŞEEAH Tıp Bülteni 2011;45:13-18.
92. Bundak R, Furman A, Gunoz H, Darendeliler F, Bas F, Neyzi O. Body mass index references for Turkish children. Acta Paediatr 2006;95:194-198.
93. Gültekin T, Akin G, Ozer BK. Gender differences in fat patterning in children living in Ankara. Anthropol Anz 2005:427-437.
94. Çamurdan MO, Cinaz P, Bideci A, Demirel F, Bakar C, Bumin MA. 6-16 yaş arası çocuklarda vücut kitle indeksi değerlerinin dağılımı. VIII: Ulusal Pediatrik Endokrinoloji Kongresi, Erzurum, 2003.
95. KarasaliIhoğlu S, Oner N, Ekuklu G, Vatansever U, Pala O. Body mass index percentiles among adolescent girls living in Edirne, Turkey. Pediatr Int 2003;45:452-457.
96. Sivaslı E, Bozkurt Aİ, Özçırpıcı B, Şahinöz S, Coskun Y. Gaziantep yöresinde 7-15 yaşındaki çocuklarda vücut kitle indeksi referans değerleri. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi 2006;49:30-35.
97. Ozturk A, Mazicioglu MM, Hatipoglu N, Budak N, Keskin G, Yazlak Z, Balci N, Yildiz H, Yildiz K, Ustunbas HB, Kurtoglu S. Reference body mass index curves for Turkish children 6 to 18 years of age. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2008;21:827-836.
98. Cizmecioglu FM, Etiler N, Hamzaoglu O, Hatun S. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in schoolchildren and adolescents in Turkey: a population-based study. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2009;22:703-714.
99. Etiler N, Cizmecioglu FM, Hatun S, Hamzaoglu O. Nutritional status of students in Kocaeli, Turkey: a population-based study. Pediatr Int 2011;63:231-235.
100. Kondolot M, Balci E, Ozturk A, Mazicioglu MM, Hatipoglu N, Kurtoglu S, Ustunbas HB. Body mass index percentiles for Turkish children aged 0-84 months. Ann Hum Biol 2011;38:676-680. Epub 2011 Sep 29
101. Duyar İ. Ergenlik çağında şişmanlık: Üst sosyoekonomik düzeyde yer alan çocuklar üzerinde antropometrik bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1993;36:79-88.
102. Neyzi O, Uzel T, Gunoz H, Cagal B, Yilmaz M, Uzel N, Saka N. Growth of body segments in Turkish children. Abstracts of free Papers of the XVIIth International Pediatric Congress, Manila 1983;1:66.
103. Turan S, Bereket A, Omar A, Berber M, Ozen A, Bekiroglu N. Upper segment/lower segment ratio and armspan-height difference in healthy Turkish children. Acta Paediatr 2005;94:407-413.
104. Mazicioglu MM, Hatipoglu N, Ozturk A, Gun I, Ustunbas HB, Kurtoglu S. Age references for the arm span and stature of Turkish children and adolescents. Ann Hum Biol 2009;36:308-319.
105. Yabanci N, Kiliç S, Simşek I. The relationship between height and arm span, mid-upper arm and waist circumferences in children. Ann Hum Biol 2010;37:70-75.
106. Hatipoglu N, Ozturk A, Mazicioglu MM, Kurtoglu S, Seyhan S, Lokoglu F. Waist circumference percentiles for 7- to 17-year-old Turkish children and adolescents. Eur J Pediatr 2008;167:383-389. Epub 2007 May 9
107. Hatipoglu N, Mazicioglu MM, Poyrazoglu S, Borlu A, Horoz D, Kurtoglu S. Waist circumference percentiles among Turkish children under the age of 6 years. Eur J Pediatr 2013;172:59-69. Epub 2012 Sep 27
108. Mazicioglu MM, Kurtoglu S, Ozturk A, Hatipoglu N, Cicek B, Ustunbas HB. Percentiles and mean values for neck circumference in Turkish children aged 6-18 years. Acta Paediatr 2010;99:1847-1853.
109. Hatipoglu N, Mazicioglu MM, Kurtoglu S, Kendirci M. Neck circumference: an additional tool of screening overweight and obesity in childhood. Eur J Pediatr 2010;16:733-739. Epub 2009 Nov 20
110. Kurtoglu S, Hatipoglu N, Mazicioglu MM, Kondolot M. Neck circumference as a novel parameter to determine metabolic risk factors in obese children. Eur J Clin Invest 2012;42:623-630. Epub 2011 Nov 30
111. Gunoz H, Neyzi O, Binyildiz P. Skinfold thickness and middle upper arm circumference values in Turkish infants. Proceedings of III. International Congress of Auxology, Growth and Development. Brussels 1982:125.
112. Neyzi O. Nutritional assessment - standards and deviations. Pediatriki 1983;Suppl 46:314-326.
113. Ozturk A, Budak N, Cicek B, Mazicioglu MM, Bayram F, Kurtoglu S. Cross-sectional reference values for mid-upper arm circumference, triceps skinfold thickness and arm fat area of Turkish children and adolescents. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2009;60:267-281.
114. Cicek B, Ozturk A, Mazicioglu MM, Elmali F, Turp N, Kurtoglu S. The risk analysis of arm fat area in Turkish children and adolescents. Ann Hum Biol 2009;36:28-37.
115. Cicek B, Ozturk A, Mazicioglu MM, Inanc N, Kurtoglu S. A novel cut-off for abdominal obesity derived from various anthropometric indices to predict body composition: arm fat area. Turk J Med Sci 2010;40:515-523.
116. Mazıcıoğlu MM, Hatipoğlu N, Oztürk A, Ciçek B, Ustünbaş HB, Kurtoğlu S. Waist circumference and mid-upper arm circumference in evaluation of obesity in children aged between 6 and 17 years. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2010;2:144-150. Epub 2010 Dec 10
117. Yuca SA, Cesur Y, Yilmaz C, Mazicioglu MM, Kurtoglu S. Assessment of nutritional status: Triceps and subscapular skin-fold thickness in Turkish children and adolescent. Pak J Med Sci 2011;27:115-119.
118. Kurtoglu S, Mazicioglu MM, Ozturk A, Hatipoglu N, Balci E, Ustunbas HB. Interpopliteal distance percentiles to diagnose bowleg in 0-84 month-old Turkish children. Eur J Pediatr 2011;170:1143-1150.
119. Neyzi O, Alp H, Orhon A. Sexual maturation in Turkish girls. Ann Hum Biol 1975;2:49- 59.
120. Neyzi O, Alp H, Yalcindag A, Yakacikli S, Orphon A. Sexual maturation in Turkish boys. Ann Hum Biol 1975; 2:251-259.
121. Neyzi O, Alp H. Relationships between body build and age of menarche in a group of girls of heterogenous socioeconomic background. Nutr Rep Int 1975;12:27.
122. Ersoy B, Balkan C, Gunay T, Onag A, Egemen A. Effects of different socioeconomic conditions on menarche in Turkish female students. Early Hum Dev 2004;76:115-125.
123. Onat T, Ertem B. Age at menarche: relationships to socioeconomic status, growth rate in stature and weight and skeletal and sexual maturation. Am J Hum Biol 1995;7: 741-750.
124. Onat T, İseri H. Rate of skeletal maturation in relation to secondary sexual development during female adolescence. Am J Hum Biol 1995;7:751-755.
125. Onat T. Prediction of adult height of girls based on the percentage of adult height at onset of secondary sexual characteristics, at chronological age and skeletal age. Hum Biol 1975;47:117-130.
126. Onat T. Multifactorial prediction of adult height of girls during early adolescence allowing for genetic potential, skeletal and sexual maturity. Hum Biol 1983;55:443-461.
127. Onat T. Validation of methods for predicting adult stature in Turkish girls. Am J Hum Biol 1995;7:757-767.
128. Bundak R, Darendeliler F, Gunoz H, Bas F, Saka N, Neyzi O. Analysis of puberty and pubertal growth in healthy boys. Eur J Pediatr 2007;166:595-600. Epub 2006 Nov 11
129. Bundak R, Darendeliler F, Günöz H, Baş F, Saka N, Neyzi O. Puberty and pubertal growth in healthy Turkish girls: no evidence for secular trend. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2008;1:8-14. Epub 2008 Aug 2
130. Turkish Anthropometric Survey. Başvekalet İstatistik Umum Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Statistics). 1927; Hüsnü Tabiat Basımevi, Ankara, 1927.
131. Inan A. Recherches anthropologiques sur 59, 728 Turcs des deux sexes. Arch Suisse Anthrop Gen 1940;9:79-91.
132. Inan A. Türkiye halkının karakterleri ve Türkiye tarihi, Türk ırkının vatanı Anadolu. Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1947.
133. Pittard E. Les peoples des Balkans, Recherches Anthropologiques dans la Peninsule des Balkans, Specialement dans la Dobroudja George and Cie et Leroux, Paris, 1920;86-95.
134. Pittard E, Donici A. Contribution a I’etude anthropologique des Turcs d’Asie Mineure. Revue Turque d’Anthr, İstanbul, 1929.
135. Kansu SA. Anadolu ve Rumeli Türklerinin antropometrik tetkikleri, birinci muhtıra: Boy ve gövde nispetleri. Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1931;12:3-39.
136. Kansu SA. Anadolu ve Rumeli Türklerinin antropometrik tetkikleri, ikinci muhtıra: Etraf ve baş nispetleri. Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1931;12:97-107.
137. Kansu SA. Antropometri Tetkikleri için Rehber. Sıhhat ve İçtimai Muavenet Vekaleti Neşriyatı, Ankara 1937;4:3-39.
138. Inan A. Une etude anthropometrique sur 200 femmes Turques. “En Turquie”, İstanbul 1937:1-15.
139. Gungor K. Denizli mıntıkası yörükleri üzerinde antropolojik bir tetkik ve neticeleri. Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1939;19-22:189-206.
140. Hertzberg HTE, Churchill E, Dupertuis CW, et al. Anthropometric Survey of Turkey, Greece and Italy, Pergamon Press, 1963.
141. Saatcioglu A. Türk kadınları ve Türk erkeklerinin boy uzunlukları ile başlarının en büyük uzunluğu ve en büyük genişliği arasındaki korelasyonun biyometrik izahı. Antropoloji 1965;3:163-194.
142. Saatcioglu A. A biometrical investigation on the three anthropometric characters and their changes according to the socio-economic groups in Turkey. Antropoloji ADTC 1975;7:175-206.
143. Emekli Y. Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Kara Ordusu erlerinin beden yapıları üzerinde bir araştırma. Antropoloji, ADTC 1969;4:353-369.
144. Emekli Y. Yirmi yaş içindeki Türk erkeklerinin ortalama boyları, baş ve skelique endisleri. Antropoloji, ADTC 1971;5:203-229.
145. Emekli Y. Boy ile sağ ayak uzunluğu arasındaki bağıntının istatistiksel incelenmesi. Antropoloji, ADTC 1973;6:277-280.
146. Kuran O, Sahmay S. Yetişkin Türk kadınlarında bazı vücut ölçümleri. Edirne Tıp Fak Der 1980;1:121-137.
147. Sahmay S. Boy uzunluğu ile baş uzunluğu arasındaki ilişkinin yetişkin Türk kadınlarındaki durumu. Trakya Tıp Fak Der 1980;2:109-120.
148. Muftuoglu A, Gurun R. Yetişkin Türk erkeklerinde bazı vücut ölçümleri ve aralarındaki oranlar. Yeni Symposium 1990;28:54-59.
149. Gurun R, Kuran O. Yüzle ilgili anatomik ölçümler ve orantılar. Yeni Symposium 1991;29:59-66.
150. Muftuoglu A, Tuna Y, Terzi R. Erişkin ve yenidoğanlarda “Splanchnocranium” yüzölçüm ve oranları. Okmeydanı Hastanesi Bülteni, 1987;4:173-178.
151. Ari Z, Sahinoglu K, Koldas T. 17-25 yaş grubu 568 tıp öğrencisinde cranial ve fasial indisler. Tıp Fak Mecm 1991;54:91-98.
152. Ari Z, Usta A, Birvar K. Basis cranii’de kalitatif sonuçlara ulaştırılan antropometrik bir araştırma. Tıp Fak Mecm 1992;55:551-556.
153. Cireli E, Tetik S. Ege Üniversitesi öğrencilerinde vücut ve baş normları üzerinde araştırmalar. Ege Üniv Tıp Fak Derg 1984;23:1379-1390.
154. Cireli E, Ozgur T, Okatan T, et al. Türk kökenli üniversite öğrencilerinde auricular normal varyasyonlarının morfolojil ve antropolojik değerlendirilmesi. Ege Üniv Tıp Fak Derg 1987;26:1143-1156.
155. Soyluoglu AI, Ozkus K, Akkin SM, et al. Erişkin Türk insanında cranium’un antropometrik irdelenmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi 1992;3:65-67.
156. Yildirim M. Yetişkin Türk kadın ve erkeklerinde ayak (pes) ölçüleri. Trakya Üniv Tıp Fak Der 1986;3:45-58.
157. Yildirim M, Taskinalp O, Kahraman G. Yetişkin Türk erkeklerinde boy ile bazı el ve ayak ölçüleri arasında somatometrik ilişkiler. Trakya Üniv Tıp Fak Derg 1988;5:75-81.
158. Vural F. Türk kadınlarında pelvis tipleri ve çapları üzerine anatomic ve radiopelvimetrik araştırma. Uzmanlık Tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Cerrahpaşa Tıp Fakültesi Anatomi ve Klinik Anatomisi Kürsüsü, İstanbul, 1977.
159. Erkmen G. Türk erişkin kızlarının antropometrik değerleri. MSc Thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Child Health, İstanbul, 1989.
160. Balaban S. Türk erişkinlerde antropometrik ölçümler, MSc Thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Child Health, Istanbul, 1989.
161. Ozer BK, Sağır M, Ozer I. Secular changes in the height of the inhabitants of Anatolia (Turkey) from the 10th millennium B.C. to the 20th century A.D. Econ Hum Biol 2011;9:211-219. Epub 2011 Jan 15
162. Pelin IC, Duyar I. Estimating stature from tibia length: a comparison of methods. J Forensic Sci 2003;48:708-712.
163. Sağir M. Estimation stature from X-rays of metacarpals in the Turkish population. Anthropol Anz 2006;64:377-388.
164. Celbis O, Agritmis H. Estimation of stature and determination of sex from radial and ulnar bone lengths in a Turkish corpse sample. Forensic Sci Int 2006;158:135-139. Epub 2005 Jun 28
165. Ozer BK, Gültekin T, Sağir M. Estimation of stature in Turkish adults using knee height. Anthropol Anz 2007;65:213-222.
166. Pelin C, Zağyapan R, Yazici C, Kürkçüoğlu A. Body height estimation from head and face dimensions: a different method. J Forensic Sci 2010;55:1326-1330.
167. Karadag B, Ozturk AO, Sener N, Altuntas Y. Use of knee height for the estimation of stature in elderly Turkish people and their relationship with cardiometabolic risk factors. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012;54:82-89.
168. Bozkir MG, Karakas P, Oguz O. Vertical and horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Turkish young adults. Surg Radiol Anat 2004;26:212-219. Epub 2003 Nov 19
169. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:366-372.
170. Oztürk F, Yavas G, Inan UU. Normal periocular anthropometric measurements in the Turkish population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2006;13:145-149.
171. Uzun A, Akbas H, Bilgic S, Emirzeoglu M, Bostanci O, Sahin B, Bek Y. The average values of the nasal anthropometric measurements in 108 young Turkish males. Auris Nasus Larynx 2006;33:31-35. Epub 2005 Jul 21
172. Coskun N, Karaali K, Cevikol C, Demirel BM, Sindel M. Anatomical basics and variations of the scapula in Turkish adults. Saudi Med J 2006;27:1320-1325.
173. Gulec E, Duyar I. Fiziksel yapının bir göstergesi olarak “boyun çevresi”: Yükseköğretim gençliği üzerinde antropometrik bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 1992;35:131-138.
174. Onat A, Sansoy V, Uysal O. Waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio in Turkish adults: interrelation with other risk factors and association with cardiovascular disease. Int J Cardiol 1999;70:43-50.
175. Uzunlulu M, Oğuz A, Aslan G, Karadağ F. Cut-off values for waist circumference in Turkish population: Is there a threshold to predict insulin resistance? Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars 2009;37(Suppl 6):17-23.
176. Onat A, Hergenç G, Yüksel H, Can G, Ayhan E, Kaya Z, Dursunoğlu D. Neck circumference as a measure of central obesity: associations with metabolic syndrome and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome beyond waist circumference. Clin Nutr 2009;28:46-51. Epub 2008 Nov 17
177. Gültekin T, Ozer BK, Akin G, Bektaş Y, Sağir M, Güleç E. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in Turkish adults. Anthropol Anz 2009;67:205-212.
178. Başibüyük GÖ, Akın G. Sivas il merkezinde yetişkin kadın ve erkeklerde obezite değerleri. Turkish Studies 2007;2:1239-1261.
179. Satman I, Yilmaz T, Sengül A, Salman S, Salman F, Uygur S, Bastar I, Tütüncü Y, Sargin M, Dinççag N, Karsidag K, Kalaça S, Ozcan C, King H. Twelve year trends in the prevalence and risk factors of diabetes and prediabetes in Turkish adults. European Journal of Epidemiology DOI : 10.1007/s10654-013-9771-5.
180. Satman I, Omer B, Tutuncu Y, Kalaca S, Gedik S, Dinccag N, Karsidag K, Genc S, Telci A, Canbaz B, Turker F, Yilmaz T, Cakir B, Tuomilehto J. Twelve-year trends in the prevalence and risk factors of diabetes and prediabetes in Turkish adults. Eur J Epidemiol 2013 Feb 14. Epub ahead of print
181. Statistical Year book of Turkey. State Institute of Statics, Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey, 1991.
182. Staski E, Merks J. Evolutionary Anthropology. Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publ, Fort Worth, 1992:336.
183. Gross D. Discovering Anthropology. Mayfield Publ. Co, Mountain View, Calif, 1992.
184. Floud R. The heights of Europeans since 1750. A new source for European economic history, Birkbeck College, London, 1983.
185. Balazs R, Jordan T, Lewis PD. Undernutrition and brain development. In Falkner F and Tanner JM (eds), Human Growth, New York: Plenum 1986;3:915-973.