Muscular strength, appearance, and race

A few more notes from aborted replies to Guy White:
In testing the muscular strength in the south African natives the writer was somewhat surprised to find that these negroes gave rather smaller figures than one could expect with regard to their generally fine physiques.
[. . .]
the average strength is 29.5 for the right hand in men and 23.7 for the same hand in women. These figures, so far as the males are concerned, are decidedly behind those of whites. Hrdlicka,13 in normal “ Old Americans,” using same type of instrument and same method, found the pressure strength in the right hand to average 41.8 kg. in the males and 23.2 kg. in the females.
[. . .]
These differences are noteworthy. [. . .] Every student carefully observing the everyday life of intelligent people will surely have noticed the fact that their physical output of work is often remarkable even with relatively poor muscles. This and observations such as those above render it probable that, other factors being equal, the more intelligence there is, the more physical as well as other efficiency.
[V. Suk. Anthropological and physiological observations on the negroes of Natal and Zululand. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Volume 10 Issue 1, Pages 31 - 64 1927]
Strength has a large CNS component.
The central nervous system (CNS) is of paramount importance in the exertion and development of muscular strength. Muscular strength is determined not only by the quantity of involved muscle mass but also by the extent to which individual fibers in a muscle are activated (by intramuscular coordination).
[Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky and William J. Kraemer. Science and practice of strength training.]
There's a fair amount of evidence whites average greater strength per unit of muscular cross section than blacks.

Among young men in the U.S., blacks are certainly leaner on average than whites. They probably average slightly greater muscle mass -- though, I don't know whether or not the difference would remain after controlling for higher levels of physical activity and greater energy intake in black males. The differences in muscle mass are also not of sufficient magnitude to explain the awe in which certain [1] internet posters hold black male physiques.

[1] Usually, it seems, "ethnic" urban types, as I suspect guywhite is. See also Peter "ironrailsandweights" Rosa, Steve Sailer, and too many Jews to count.


Anonymous said...

"Gay White"

Anonymous said...

Or even "Girl White"

...would be more appropriate for this little troll.

Tod said...

If Europeans and Africans are the result of a different focus for sexual selection in Africa and Europe why there is little or no difference between them now ?

They didn't start from the same physique, 20,000 years ago Africans were far smaller. Europeans were bigger, with modern nutrition they would have been bigger still.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how Europeans went from looking like this to looking like this.

n/a said...

Softer food, for one thing.

Tod said...

The Paleolithic Diet and Its Modern Implications
"Loren Cordain: The way we tend to cook meat these days is very different from the ways of hunters and gatherers who tend to slow-cook meats over a long period of time. A favored cooking procedure was digging a pit and putting in hot stones, putting in the whole animal or portions of it, putting in vegetable matter and other stones above the vegetable matter and cooking the meat all day long. So what is suggested is slow cooking at low heat.

Robert Crayhon: Throw out the microwave and get a crock pot.

Loren Cordain: Well, yes. If you take a lean cut of venison, elk, or buffalo, and throw it on the barbecue, you'll find it's as tough as rubber but if you put it on a crock pot or a Dutch oven and cook it all day long, you'll find that it will come out quite tender"

"Mammoth "luau-style"
(29000 B.C.) Europeans looked like the carving in the link despite the fact they had long beene slow cooking their meat.

"Jiri] Svoboda, a professor at the University of Brno and director of its Institute of Archaeology, and colleagues recently excavated Pavlov VI, where they found the remains of a female mammoth and one mammoth calf near a 4-foot-wide roasting pit. Arctic fox, wolverine, bear and hare remains were also found, along with a few horse and reindeer bones."

The meats were cooked luau-style underground. Svoboda said, "We found the heating stones still within the pit and around."

Luau-style refers to a
Imu - Hawaiian Underground Oven The meat comes out nice and tender.

After 14,000 years of eating slow cooked meat Europeans suddenly start getting jaws so small their last teeth get jammed (which have paid off in a big way as it must have been selected against, being potentally dangerous)
Oldest case of impacted wisdom teeth found. Lo and behold it first occurs when the sexual selection hypothesis predicts -13,000- to 15,000-years ago.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to note that monkeys are 8 times stronger than humans with the same muscle volume and cross-sectional fibre density. This is because of more comprehensive fibre activation in monkeys. The theory is, modern humans gave up muscular strength in exchange for dexterity.

Anonymous said...

But the "five times" figure was refuted 20 years after Bauman's experiments. In 1943, Glen Finch of the Yale primate laboratory rigged an apparatus to test the arm strength of eight captive chimpanzees. An adult male chimp, he found, pulled about the same weight as an adult man. Once he'd corrected the measurement for their smaller body sizes, chimpanzees did turn out to be stronger than humans—but not by a factor of five or anything close to it.

Repeated tests in the 1960s confirmed this basic picture. A chimpanzee had, pound for pound, as much as twice the strength of a human when it came to pulling weights. The apes beat us in leg strength, too, despite our reliance on our legs for locomotion. A 2006 study found that bonobos can jump one-third higher than top-level human athletes, and bonobo legs generate as much force as humans nearly two times heavier.

So the figures quoted by primate experts are a little exaggerated. But it is a fact that chimpanzees and other apes are stronger than humans. How did we get to be the weaklings of the primate order? Our overall body architecture makes a difference: Even though chimpanzees weigh less than humans, more of their mass is concentrated in their powerful arms. But a more important factor seems to be the structure of the muscles themselves. A chimpanzee's skeletal muscle has longer fibers than the human equivalent and can generate twice the work output over a wider range of motion. In the past few years, geneticists have identified the loci for some of these anatomical differences. One gene, for example, called MYH16, contributes to the development of large jaw muscles in other apes. In humans, MYH16 has been deactivated. (Puny jaws have marked our lineage for as least 2 million years.) Many people have also lost another muscle-related gene called ACTN3. People with two working versions of this gene are overrepresented among elite sprinters while those with the nonworking version are overrepresented among endurance runners. Chimpanzees and all other nonhuman primates have only the working version; in other words, they're on the powerful, "sprinter" end of the spectrum.

Anonymous said...

White vs black, Nord vs mulatto clash on December 30th at UFC 141. Brock Lesnar and Alistair Overeem, two of the strongest heavyweights in MMA, collide in a test of strength, skill and wills to see who is the better fighter and whose hand will be raised in victory.

Mitrione vs Kongo is another good one coming this Saturday.

Anonymous said...

I am a 230 lb man I bench press around 400 lbs I squat 800 all free weight mind you I am white orange hair I am northern european decent im stronger than most people i know also any other race same weight and height im naturally stronger its definately genes