|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 3, 2023 3:08:53 GMT
Is it true that there are strength differences amongst humans?
As in different races?
For example, there are many scientific papers that focus on Black people having higher bone density than White people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 3:41:12 GMT
Is it true that there are strength differences amongst humans? As in different races? For example, there are many scientific papers that focus on Black people having higher bone density than White people. Blacks are pretty strong monkeys, not too surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by lincoln on Jan 3, 2023 9:20:23 GMT
I personally don’t buy it. Humans don’t really use natural selection, pretty much anyone reproduces
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 3, 2023 9:42:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 9:45:55 GMT
I personally don’t buy it. Humans don’t really use natural selection, pretty much anyone reproduces Maybe base your knowledge outside of Washington and visit other areas of the world. Misogynistic asshole. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 3, 2023 12:00:33 GMT
I have dug into research on this topic before. Don't have time to dig up the studies now, but there are actually LOADs of them because it's a medical issue that is relevant to treating different ethnicities.
When it comes to both bone density and muscle mass to body weight ratio, White people are basically in the middle. Below them are east asians and lower still are South Asians (Pakistanis/Indians/Bangladeshis/etc). Latin americans are about equal to whites. Above them are sub saharan africans but even above them are polynesians. It's relevant to doctors in assessing how overweight people are and how at risk of diabetes and heart problems they are. So what they found is Indians can seem like a healthy weight but actually be overweight and suffering ill health. Polynesians can be the opposite, seem overweight and even look overweight and be surprisingly healthy.
I do believe this phenomenon is responsible for the fact sports are dominated by african americans, and polynesians are extremely overrepresented (per head of population) in American football and rugby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 3, 2023 19:33:50 GMT
I have dug into research on this topic before. Don't have time to dig up the studies now, but there are actually LOADs of them because it's a medical issue that is relevant to treating different ethnicities. When it comes to both bone density and muscle mass to body weight ratio, White people are basically in the middle. Below them are east asians and lower still are South Asians (Pakistanis/Indians/Bangladeshis/etc). Latin americans are about equal to whites. Above them are sub saharan africans but even above them are polynesians. It's relevant to doctors in assessing how overweight people are and how at risk of diabetes and heart problems they are. So what they found is Indians can seem like a healthy weight but actually be overweight and suffering ill health. Polynesians can be the opposite, seem overweight and even look overweight and be surprisingly healthy. I do believe this phenomenon is responsible for the fact sports are dominated by african americans, and polynesians are extremely overrepresented (per head of population) in American football and rugby. To be fair, White people do excel in various sports. Outside of that, I agree with many of the things here. For example, South Asian men always seemed small statured to me. They look even smaller than East Asians. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 3, 2023 21:57:16 GMT
They do for sure, and they have their outlier beastly freaks. But they also have the most access to sports, the most opportunity and often the best platform and nurturing to succeed from their parents (rivalled in these departments by East Asians).
I have seen firsthand at a grass roots level how socio-economic disadvantage can really derail promising young athletes and good parenting where money and resources are no object can really elevate ok athletes into becoming much more. My stepdaughter was an elite track athlete, so I'd be going to state and national finals and etc and see the same kids year after year. But I noticed very often the best kids in the younger grades would start disappearing, and kids who were coming 4th and 5th would start coming first. The difference was sadly very clearly racial. The african and aborigine kids who were naturally the fastest in younger grades (sometimes while wearing their big brother's shoes that were too big for them) would often fall out of the sport, you may even hear they dropped out of school or got into drugs or crime or whatever, while the white kids with rich parents would stay and improve.
There's this myth that being poor and disadvantaged is actually an advantage to do well in sports, it's not true, a promising athlete needs a solid stable reliable team nurturing and facilitating their growth or it can all very easily come undone. And it's hard, it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of effort and dedication and discipline to stay competitive at the elite end of sports. From both the athlete and their team. So having parents who themselves are responsible and well organised and etc because their parents were and their parents before them etc etc is actually huge. This is what people mean by "generational disadvantage", sadly it's like an illness that gets inherited down the line and inhibits people from thriving and reaching their potential in all aspects of life (not all, some are super resilient and can't be stopped)
Basically, these sports with lots of african americans and polynesians (and even aborigines) and etc could actually have way way more if they weren't disproportionately suffering disadvantage.
Your point is true, however, white people can be great athletes. The ethnicities with the lowest potential, or lesser natural opportunities to do well in sports due to their anatomy, typically are peoples who have spent a very long time (thousands and thousands of years) being civilised merchants. This has caused a diminishing of their bone density and muscle mass to body weight ratio, as they didn't need to use their bodies for very strenuous activities and have adapted to their new low-physical-intensity lifestyles. This does not apply to white people, who were barbarian steppe herders until pretty recently. We have basically "inherited" civilisation from the middle east and haven't necessarily physiologically adapted to it yet. Hunter gatherers are still a different more cutthroat tier of demands on anatomy, especially when it comes to running and jumping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 4, 2023 6:25:31 GMT
They do for sure, and they have their outlier beastly freaks. But they also have the most access to sports, the most opportunity and often the best platform and nurturing to succeed from their parents (rivalled in these departments by East Asians). I have seen firsthand at a grass roots level how socio-economic disadvantage can really derail promising young athletes and good parenting where money and resources are no object can really elevate ok athletes into becoming much more. My stepdaughter was an elite track athlete, so I'd be going to state and national finals and etc and see the same kids year after year. But I noticed very often the best kids in the younger grades would start disappearing, and kids who were coming 4th and 5th would start coming first. The difference was sadly very clearly racial. The african and aborigine kids who were naturally the fastest in younger grades (sometimes while wearing their big brother's shoes that were too big for them) would often fall out of the sport, you may even hear they dropped out of school or got into drugs or crime or whatever, while the white kids with rich parents would stay and improve. There's this myth that being poor and disadvantaged is actually an advantage to do well in sports, it's not true, a promising athlete needs a solid stable reliable team nurturing and facilitating their growth or it can all very easily come undone. And it's hard, it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of effort and dedication and discipline to stay competitive at the elite end of sports. From both the athlete and their team. So having parents who themselves are responsible and well organised and etc because their parents were and their parents before them etc etc is actually huge. This is what people mean by "generational disadvantage", sadly it's like an illness that gets inherited down the line and inhibits people from thriving and reaching their potential in all aspects of life (not all, some are super resilient and can't be stopped) Basically, these sports with lots of african americans and polynesians (and even aborigines) and etc could actually have way way more if they weren't disproportionately suffering disadvantage. Your point is true, however, white people can be great athletes. The ethnicities with the lowest potential, or lesser natural opportunities to do well in sports due to their anatomy, typically are peoples who have spent a very long time (thousands and thousands of years) being civilised merchants. This has caused a diminishing of their bone density and muscle mass to body weight ratio, as they didn't need to use their bodies for very strenuous activities and have adapted to their new low-physical-intensity lifestyles. This does not apply to white people, who were barbarian steppe herders until pretty recently. We have basically "inherited" civilisation from the middle east and haven't necessarily physiologically adapted to it yet. Hunter gatherers are still a different more cutthroat tier of demands on anatomy, especially when it comes to running and jumping. A lot of your observations are interesting. Some things to note. Your stepdaughter? Is she a native Australian? The poor and disadvantaged trope seems to be glorified in movies. What is your opinion on swimming? Is it true that Africans are worse in swimming due to dense bones? I am not disputing that Whites had a less strenous lifestyle than Africans, bit were they also not powerful warriors for a while before gunpowder? I guess the merchant lifestyle could explain why Jewish people are less athletic than the other Europeans. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 4, 2023 7:29:14 GMT
Yes white people were fairly rugged and savage barbarians, herding semi-wild livestock but also hunting extensively (early livestock management basically IS hunting), and of course engaging in a lot of violent warfare and leading rough and tumble existences. The romans considered them savage animals, and often selected them to be body guards and gladiators because they were definitely superior athletes/warriors to mediterranean, middle eastern and north african people. They basically inherited modern western civilisation from the fall of rome, it's not their natural lifestyle that they are actually adapted to live, so they retain more utilitarian builds than some of the more long-civilised people.
And in just pure brute strength only, they are arguably top contenders with anyone (arguably the best going by strong-man contests, but I stop short of concluding that due to exposure/participation). Obviously they are not as fast or explosive as equatorial west africans, and there is still the bone density and robusticity advantage of pacific islanders (both melanesian/australoids and polynesians). Possibly northern europeans and pacific islanders share some significant adaptation for warfare specifically.
My stepdaughter is a papua new guinean. They are explosive and densely muscled with possibly the most robust bones (there needs to be more research on them). Polynesians officially have the most robust bones out of all the people extensively researched, but polynesians are actually 30% papuan by DNA. They were created by proto-asiatics (think like native americans) hybridising with papuans as they began to embark out into the pacific. So it's possible their robusticity is actually borrowed from papuans and papuans may be even more proportionately robust (or at least equal). Anecdotally this is a commonly observed phenomenon. When people play papuans in rugby, they might win, but they always say the same thing- that their bodies are more sore and beaten up than when they play anyone else. Even Samoans will complain about this. Papuans are extremely dense and hard like short bowling balls made of granite. My wife actually had some physiological characteristics measured when she signed up for a university gym and they said they had never had a woman with the muscle mass to body weight ratio she has, ever in the building. They also were unable to penetrate her back muscles with the epidural needle when she was having our first baby. They asked if she grew up hauling heavy loads or something because her back muscles were incredibly dense and they couldn't get through them (or without causing a lot of discomfort), and this is not the case, she grew up a pampered princess nerd, but just naturally has weird muscles. Her bones are really heavy, her feet are weirdly wide. She's just an ox, lol. So papuans are ... different. But are very understudied.
Aborigines are interesting, related to papuans but leaner and lighter. Still have very dense robust bones. An aborigine was also the first non-west african to break the 100 metres in under 10 seconds barrier (Patrick Johnson). Aborigines have another interesting attribute, which is far superior vision than every one else. They have been tested to have far better than 20/20 vision, and when aborigines have eye problems and then have them fixed and have their vision restored to 20/20, they find it terribly insufficient. I have witnessed in person the incredible visual abilities of aborigines, they can give see minute details in things very far away. They also have incredible hand-eye coordination and reflexes.
The disadvantage I talked about applies to them worse than anyone in the world, and so it is difficult for them to have positive outcomes. They have the worst outcomes of anyone. The highest incarceration rates, lowest literacy rates, highest suicide rates, highest substance abuse rates, highest domestic violence and child abuse rates etc etc etc. So for an aborigine to dig out of their pit of disadvantage is quite a feat. Despite this, they are 2% of the population and 600% overrepresented in the professional rugby league of Australia (NRL), and about 400+% overrepresented in the AFL. They make up 12% of NRL players and 9% of AFL players, at 2% of the population. And the wasted potential stories are endless. This gets more striking when you look at "the greatest players of all time", where they way WAY overrepresent. In the NRL the best forward of all time is an aborigine (Artie Beetson), the best playmaker of all time is an aborigine (Jonathan Thurston), and the best outside back of all time is an aborigine (Greg Inglis). Those are the 3 main categories of player. They have even made it into the NBA and NFL and been world champion boxers (Lionel Rose, Anthony Mundine). Their potential hasn't even begun to be tapped into, really.
It's perhaps no coincidence they are by far the MOST "stone age" of all peoples that remain on earth. Their isolation meant that when europeans landed on Australia the aborigines they found were like a window into humans circa 100 000 BC (which is when they left africa). They built no shelter whatsoever, no clothes, had no bows and arrows and their spears or the most part didn't even have stone tips. They were the most "raw" hunter gatherers to remain on earth, so I think it is no coincidence they have some fairly special attributes. However they are sadly mostly going to waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 4, 2023 7:50:49 GMT
I moved this thread because this is basically exactly the kind of discussion I had in mind when I made this subforum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 4, 2023 8:16:52 GMT
Oh and yeah I believe there is probably merit to the swimming thing.
Checks out with my dogs, funnily enough. They frequently swim side by side for long periods of time. The heavier boned and denser muscled bull arab kind of sinks lower into the water and struggles to keep up with the lighter boned kelpie with lighter muscle and intramuscular fat who kind of floats up higher and buzzes around at speed more effortlessly in the water.
It stands to reason this would impact humans the same way.
There is ALSO a participation/exposure issue, with black people kind of disliking the water culturally, BUT then you have people like polynesians who literally are "one" with the sea and still can't really set the world on fire with swimming feats at all. I'd suggest their bone and muscle probably is too heavy for them to be optimal aquatic athletes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Jan 4, 2023 8:19:12 GMT
Yes white people were fairly rugged and savage barbarians, herding semi-wild livestock but also hunting extensively (early livestock management basically IS hunting), and of course engaging in a lot of violent warfare and leading rough and tumble existences. The romans considered them savage animals, and often selected them to be body guards and gladiators because they were definitely superior athletes/warriors to mediterranean, middle eastern and north african people. They basically inherited modern western civilisation from the fall of rome, it's not their natural lifestyle that they are actually adapted to live, so they retain more utilitarian builds than some of the more long-civilised people. And in just pure brute strength only, they are arguably top contenders with anyone (arguably the best going by strong-man contests, but I stop short of concluding that due to exposure/participation). Obviously they are not as fast or explosive as equatorial west africans, and there is still the bone density and robusticity advantage of pacific islanders (both melanesian/australoids and polynesians). Possibly northern europeans and pacific islanders share some significant adaptation for warfare specifically. My stepdaughter is a papua new guinean. They are explosive and densely muscled with possibly the most robust bones (there needs to be more research on them). Polynesians officially have the most robust bones out of all the people extensively researched, but polynesians are actually 30% papuan by DNA. They were created by proto-asiatics (think like native americans) hybridising with papuans as they began to embark out into the pacific. So it's possible their robusticity is actually borrowed from papuans and papuans may be even more proportionately robust (or at least equal). Anecdotally this is a commonly observed phenomenon. When people play papuans in rugby, they might win, but they always say the same thing- that their bodies are more sore and beaten up than when they play anyone else. Even Samoans will complain about this. Papuans are extremely dense and hard like short bowling balls made of granite. My wife actually had some physiological characteristics measured when she signed up for a university gym and they said they had never had a woman with the muscle mass to body weight ratio she has, ever in the building. They also were unable to penetrate her back muscles with the epidural needle when she was having our first baby. They asked if she grew up hauling heavy loads or something because her back muscles were incredibly dense and they couldn't get through them (or without causing a lot of discomfort), and this is not the case, she grew up a pampered princess nerd, but just naturally has weird muscles. Her bones are really heavy, her feet are weirdly wide. She's just an ox, lol. So papuans are ... different. But are very understudied. Aborigines are interesting, related to papuans but leaner and lighter. Still have very dense robust bones. An aborigine was also the first non-west african to break the 100 metres in under 10 seconds barrier (Patrick Johnson). Aborigines have another interesting attribute, which is far superior vision than every one else. They have been tested to have far better than 20/20 vision, and when aborigines have eye problems and then have them fixed and have their vision restored to 20/20, they find it terribly insufficient. I have witnessed in person the incredible visual abilities of aborigines, they can give see minute details in things very far away. They also have incredible hand-eye coordination and reflexes. The disadvantage I talked about applies to them worse than anyone in the world, and so it is difficult for them to have positive outcomes. They have the worst outcomes of anyone. The highest incarceration rates, lowest literacy rates, highest suicide rates, highest substance abuse rates, highest domestic violence and child abuse rates etc etc etc. So for an aborigine to dig out of their pit of disadvantage is quite a feat. Despite this, they are 2% of the population and 600% overrepresented in the professional rugby league of Australia (NRL), and about 400+% overrepresented in the AFL. They make up 12% of NRL players and 9% of AFL players, at 2% of the population. And the wasted potential stories are endless. This gets more striking when you look at "the greatest players of all time", where they way WAY overrepresent. In the NRL the best forward of all time is an aborigine (Artie Beetson), the best playmaker of all time is an aborigine (Jonathan Thurston), and the best outside back of all time is an aborigine (Greg Inglis). Those are the 3 main categories of player. They have even made it into the NBA and NFL and been world champion boxers (Lionel Rose, Anthony Mundine). Their potential hasn't even begun to be tapped into, really. It's perhaps no coincidence they are by far the MOST "stone age" of all peoples that remain on earth. Their isolation meant that when europeans landed on Australia the aborigines they found were like a window into humans circa 100 000 BC (which is when they left africa). They built no shelter whatsoever, no clothes, had no bows and arrows and their spears or the most part didn't even have stone tips. They were the most "raw" hunter gatherers to remain on earth, so I think it is no coincidence they have some fairly special attributes. However they are sadly mostly going to waste. Ok what would you say about Italians? They seem to have produced good boxers. Also, what are your thoughts about Haiwaiians? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 4, 2023 8:50:09 GMT
They have, in fact lots of pretty good athletes are italian. I guess they have been a cosmopolitan multicultural society for so long so potentially it's hard to know who the "pure" natives are, if they are anywhere. The "barbarians" from the north set up shop in Italy in roman times, many never left and many infused into the population. As probably did other types of people over the millenia.
It seems historically they were smaller than northern europeans, and definitely were one of the earlier "merchant" agricultural societies. Occasionally you see those very classic small brown/olive little old (often bow legged) italian men and I'd say they are products of a diminished need for physicality. But like I said it was the centre of the world, and so it's now like saying "what are new york people like?", can't really generalise. But I suspect originally, before expanding their empire and absorbing other cultures and ethnicities, they probably weren't that physically imposing.
Hawaiians are just polynesians, so same thing really as samoans and tongans and maori and cook islanders etc. I notice they seem to more often be mixed today however, and for whatever reason don't often seem AS physically imposing as tongans, samoans and maori. Not sure why, may need a larger sample size.
|
|
|
|
Post by lincoln on Jan 4, 2023 16:59:26 GMT
Can someone send the tests? I want to read them
|
|
