NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism » Blacks Are Not Stronger Than Whites

Blacks Are Not Stronger Than Whites

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 72 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

1950 words

Blacks being stronger than whites (on average) is one of the most common misconceptions around. People assume that since blacks are, on average, more muscular and have less fat mass they are stronger than whites and East Asians. However, when looked at physiologically, the frequency of muscle fiber types (Type I, Type II and Type II A) differ between the races. The differing somatypes (mesomorph, ectomorph and endomorph) also show how there are differences in strength between races due to leverage.

Some people, like PumpkinPerson, fall prey to this simplistic, yet with great explanatory power for a lot of things, Rushton’s Rule. Rushton’s rule dictates that there is a gradient of traits that some races perform statistically better or worse on with Mongoloids at the top, whites in the middle and blacks on the bottom. PP assumes that blacks should be stronger than whites who would be stronger than East Asians due to this rule. He also assumes that since blacks have slightly more testosterone on average that they would be the physically strongest race. This, however, is not true.

PP says:

One reason they believe this is because of Allen’s Rule, a theory claiming that body types evolve to become more linear in warm climates and more rounded and compact in cold climates. Round forms, having smaller surface area to volume ratios, are thought to freeze less easily. There’s also Bergmann’s Rule which asserts, for similar reasons, that body size evolves to be large in cold climates and small in warm climates.

Somatype has more to do with it than Allen’s Rule. Blacks are more mesomorphic whereas whites are more endo.

One reason Allen’s rule makes sense to people is their image of black physiques comes from Third World African countries where malnutrition is rampant. Of course people in those countries are especially skinny, but when you compare blacks and whites reared in the same country, blacks are heavier, despite being a bit shorter.

On the contrary. As I’ve covered here before, black American men with more African ancestry are less likely to be obese. Still, racial differences in strength come down to leverage as well as muscle fiber typings which I’ve discussed a few times here.

Of course weight and strength are not the same thing.  In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job.  The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6).  In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men.  If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.

Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained.  Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.

From the discussion of the study:

“The literature suggests that increases in body mass correspond with increases in
lean mass by as much as 44% (11). The officers in this study gained a significant amount of body mass and correspondingly, a significant amount of lean mass. Lean mass is associated with increases in strength (11, 25, 27). Therefore, we would expect to see an increase in absolute bench press strength related to lean mass gain alone. However, the strength gains were negated when dividing the body mass of the officers into their bench press scores. This pattern was not seen in the black males, where they actually decreased in the bench press/body mass ratio. Even though the bench press/body mass measure did not increase over the 12.5 years for black males, it also did not decline as indicated in cross-sectional research (42).”

It seems this is anomalous. The researchers say this is the only study looking at this, and from what I can tell, they didn’t ask about dietary and or exercise habits, correct me if I’m wrong. They also say that blacks were heavier in BMI at the onset, but not in the follow-up.

I’d like to see another study like this before any conclusions are drawn. Because what I see in actual powerlifting competitions from people who go above and beyond their genetic potential when everyone is using, Caucasians (whites, MENA people) and East Asians are consistently always stronger than blacks.

Moreover, it seems PP didn’t read the full paper because they say in the discussion that blacks had a greater weight gain over the ten-year period. They had a greater body mass gain which corresponded to a loss in bench press as well as a loss in lean mass. However, even with these losses in the black subjects in this cohort, they were still stronger than whites, but the difference was not significant. Further, blacks decreased in strength in the 12.5 year period while the whites increased in strength. Blacks were STILL stronger than whites at the end of the study, but this difference was not statistically significant.

This study was anomalous and goes against everything I’ve personally seen in my time lifting and my career as a PT. Caucasians and East Asians are stronger than blacks. The differences come down to muscle fiber typing as I’ve said numerous times.

There is a correlation between strength and mortality. With a sample of 8762 men between the ages of 20 and 80, it was found that muscular strength was inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other possible confounders. From the discussion of the paper:

The analysis on the combined effects of muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness with all cause mortality showed that the age adjusted death rate in men with high levels of both muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness was 60% lower (P<0.001) than the death rate in the group of unfit men with the lowest levels of muscular strength. These results highlight the importance of having at least moderate levels of both muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness to reduce risk of death from all causes and cancer in this population of men.

The point of bringing this paper up is that Caucasians and Asians are stronger than blacks, and also live longer. This is just like the correlation between IQ and life expectancy. Since men with higher levels of strength live longer than men with lower levels of strength, this strengthens my hypothesis for strength-based competitions and the racial mix of the competitions. Caucasians and East Asians, who have higher IQs than blacks, are also stronger than them on average, which also correlates with life expectancy.

I already covered the above here.

PP says:

2) The average white is weaker than the average black, but there might be certain white ethnic groups that are especially strong

Northern Europeans dominate in Strongman. Blacks are more lanky, yet they are also more mesomorphic which correlates with strength so it cancels out. From what I see at my own gym I go to, which is a powerlifting/bodybuilding gym, Caucasians and East Asians are consistently stronger than blacks. I’ve been lifting going on ten years and this is my personal observation. I’ll see the outlier here and there, but the whites and East Asians are consistently stronger. Southern Europe does do bad in Strongman, so it may be that only Central and Northern Europe are more strength oriented, probably coinciding with Rushton’s Rule.

3) whites have lower mean strength but might have a greater standard deviation; however the police study above did not find this, and it fails to explain why black dominate body building

No way do whites have a lower mean strength. From what we can see from the genetic freaks of nature, the best of the best, Caucasians and East Asians dominate in these types of competitions.

Strength doesn’t matter in bodybuilding, PP.

This is the perfect example of one who thinks that blacks are stronger because of their domination in bodybuilding. BUT, actual strength competitions tell us the opposite.

4) whites dominate strongest man competitions because they’re not athletic enough to do anything else, while the strongest blacks play lucrative sports like boxing, football and basketball instead.

You’re right; whites dominate Strongman because of a genetic predisposition, Type I muscle fibers. This is why whites aren’t as athletic as blacks, muscle fiber typing and the fact the whites, on average, hold more body fat than blacks, as seen above in the article of mine that I linked.

It’s not about blacks playing the more lucrative sports. Blacks gravitate towards sports where they can showcase their athleticism and people pay to see that.

Here’s a BB.com thread. Of course ‘da socialization!!’ trots out and at least one person says genes and another says ‘speed’. Which is the correct answer. You didn’t bring up muscle fibers either PP. For instance, as I said, Type I fibers lead to more strength and muscular endurance as they are slow to fire off, while Type II fibers fire quicker and tire faster. This is why West African blacks and their descendants dominate in sprinting and other competitions where fast twitch muscle fibers dominate in comparison to slow twitch. The two fibers also fire through different pathways (aerobic and anaerobic) which also dictate the rate of force production, muscle contraction, and whether or not the muscles fire off fast or slow.

Araujo et al (2010) analyzed “racial/ethnic differences and racial/ethnic group-specific cross-sectional age differences in measures of muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function among men.” They obtained the data from the Boston Area Health and Bone survey. There were 1,157 subjects in the cohort between the ages of 30-79, and a mix of blacks, whites and ‘Hispanic’ men from Boston who were randomly selected. They measured upper body strength with a hand dynamometer while lower extremity functioning was measured with walking and chair tests. The only thing, however, was that there was no statistical difference between whites and blacks in the grip strength test, however whites edged out blacks slightly.

The authors state:

In contrast, grip strength/arms lean mass differed significantly by race/ethnicity, with higher estimates observed among white compared to black and Hispanic subjects (p < .01). However, further adjustment for composite physical function score and LMI confounded this association (p = .15).

This proves my point (along with my years of anecdotal experience) that whites are stronger than blacks.

Finally, the authors state in the conclusion:

Further exploration of why higher lean mass in non-white subjects do not appear to translate into higher strength and physical function is warranted.

The difference is muscle fiber typing!!! This, PP, shows that blacks are not stronger than whites, despite blacks ‘looking stronger’.

In conclusion, blacks aren’t stronger than whites. Check out any strength competition or and WSM competition and you’ll see exactly what I’m describing here. The people in those competitions are genetic freaks of nature, the best of the best. If there is a difference between races in these competitions, it would come out at the elite level. Like with footballbaseball, and swimming, there are racial differences in strength which clearly come down to genetics and muscle fiber typing. Everything doesn’t fit into Rushton’s Rule as there are more complicated differences between the races that need more complicated explanations. Strength is one of them. This is just like how the Alternative Hypothesis thinks they “solved Gary Taubes’s race problem in regards to diet“. However, both PP and the guys at TAH don’t know enough about nutrition nor strength training to make these judgements.

Advertisements

21 Comments

  1. Could Allen’s rule also be the reason for Black head shape (narrower, longer)?

    That being as opposed to lack of evolutionary selection for Bigger Brains (warm climate ancestry).

    Like

  2. Santoculto says:

    ”Caucasians and East Asians are consistently stronger than blacks.”

    You repeated it 500 times, it’s a mantra**

    ON AVG, blacks BORN with facility to sculp muscles, superficially speaking, than whites and east asians.

    If blacks are more stronger IN competitions like boxe, so we already know who are on avg stronger at least in this aspects.

    Whites have more outliers, as usual, i thought PP is right.

    On avg, less whites born quasi-muscular shaped than blacks, and east asians tend to born with even less natural facility to sculp muscles.

    Black and mulato adolescents in brazilian favelas without any significative investiment in physical exercises seems naturally become more athletic than white and east asians.

    East asians on avg are shorter, thinner in their traditional diets and have trends to become fat or at least overweight in western diet.

    Because laziness many blacks appear to be less stronger or even weak than whites but i thought it can have a psychological roots.

    i don’t know who are more stronger but based on stereotypes about ”smarter” people in western world, seems nerdies are not more naturally stronger than black thugs.

    If stereotypes are quasi-always right, east asians will be less muscular-prone and possibly more weaker than whites who are more similar with blacks, but still less muscular-prone and weaker, on avg, of course.

    among outliers, seems the % of whites will be higher

    on avg, whites seems will be relatively to significatively less muscular-prone (relatively= northern europeans, significatively= southern europeans) and strong than blacks.

    just like ”intelligence” comparison but the opposite pattern. Whites are more near to the east asians than with blacks (avg iq ~100 and 103 versus ~85).

    My personal veredict is

    is not absolutely clear how some people are on avg stronger than other.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      You repeated it 500 times, it’s a mantra**

      Because it’s true. I have extensive experience in this field. I’ve watched hundreds of competitions. I know what I’m talking about.

      ON AVG, blacks BORN with facility to sculp muscles, superficially speaking, than whites and east asians.

      Because they have lower fat free body mass. This doesn’t mean they’re stronger than Eurasians, however.

      If blacks are more stronger IN competitions like boxe, so we already know who are on avg stronger at least in this aspects.

      This had to do with reach and muscle fibers.

      Whites have more outliers, as usual, i thought PP is right

      Whites as a whole are stronger than blacks. This is a truism that PP doesn’t know because he doesn’t follow the sports in question and thinks Rushton’s Rule applies everywhere.

      On avg, less whites born quasi-muscular shaped than blacks, and east asians tend to born with even less natural facility to sculp muscles.

      Eurasians are still stronger.

      East asians on avg are shorter, thinner in their traditional diets and have trends to become fat or at least overweight in western diet.

      Right. China is on their way to having the highest rate of childhood obesity by 2050, however .

      Because laziness many blacks appear to be less stronger or even weak than whites but i thought it can have a psychological roots.

      This is not why I think this way. It’s because I’ve seen hundreds of competitions and have trained hundreds of people to know this. I know about muscle fiber typing, which PP doesn’t and is why he believes blacks are stronger.

      just like ”intelligence” comparison but the opposite pattern. Whites are more near to the east asians than with blacks (avg iq ~100 and 103 versus ~85).

      Whites are stronger than East Asians. This is a fact. Watch a few Strongman and powerlifting competitions. Read up on muscle fibers.

      is not absolutely clear how some people are on avg stronger than other.

      Your personal opinion is meaningless because if you knew about human physiology you’d know which race is stronger on average and why.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      There is a REAL conclusive study about it**

      seems NOT.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I don’t need a study to tell me what I’ve seen in my close to a decade experience in this field. I don’t need a study to tell me about what I see know that elite powerlifters and Strongmen are overwhelmingly Eurasian. Watch some competitions and you’ll see.

      What I’ve written in these series of articles proves my point that Eurasians are stronger than Africans. My arguments on muscle fibers and somatype in these articles show that Eurasians are stronger. Learn some human physiology and you’ll understand what I’m saying.

      PP is wrong.

      And check this out.

      Like

  3. Corvinus says:

    In typical fashion, RaceRealist88 uses pseudo-science to hock his wares by linking to studies, taking the results of those studies, and drawing conclusions completely unrelated to those studies.

    Here is a study that counters his “findings”.

    http://www.techyville.com/2013/06/news/study-finds-that-blacks-are-genetically-stronger-than-whites/

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      First if all, I don’t need studies to tell me anything about racial strength differences as I have personal experience working with hundreds of people.

      Second, do you think that “genetically stronger” means “muscular strength”?

      After testing 10,000 genes and analyzing the genetic makeup of 15 Americans of African descent and 20 Americans of European decent, researchers found that the Euro-Americans showed less variation than their African American counterparts.

      Says nothing about muscular strength. It does talk about how European Americans have less genetic variation than African Americans, though.

      I can’t find the paper at the moment so here’s the abstract of the paper you linked to. Do you see anything about muscle strength? Or was the article talking about genetic diversity as “genetic strength”, meaning that whites are “less diverse” genetically due to being descended from a small band of about 3000 people who left out of Africa?

      If you knew anything about muscle fiber typing and even competitions where the genetic freak of nature’s go, Eurasians are always stronger than blacks. Blacks are naturally better bodybuilders. Learn about muscle fiber typing then watch a few strongman and powerlifting competitions and get back to me.

      Like

  4. reezy says:

    PP is such a hack who endlessly uses ad hoc and post hoc arguments to fit his preconceived conclusions. An example that jumps to the top of my head is when he was trying to estimate the average IQ of Indian Americans, he stated “But because the IQ correlation between a parent and his adult offspring is about 0.45”, when he should know full well (if he doesn’t, then he’s simply a terrible hereditarian to begin with) that it is actually only that low in children, but closer to 0.8 in adulthood. He then went on to use a totally non-rigorous and hand-wavey assertion “This suggests that first world nutrition adds about 13 IQ points (and several inches of height) to people of third world ancestry” to come up with an average Indian American IQ of 112, which just so happens to corroborate with the figure given in some Forbes article. Pure cringe.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      when he should know full well (if he doesn’t, then he’s simply a terrible hereditarian to begin with) that it is actually only that low in children, but closer to 0.8 in adulthood.

      He’s in the right range:

      IQ correlations for parents and child in the general population are approximately .42 [16], which is similar to what we found for child IQ to maternal IQ (r=.38 across all 4 AEDs) but greater than paternal (r=.23 across all 4 AEDs) IQ.

      You’re talking about individual heritability, which I fully agree with, though I say closer to 85-90 percent.

      He then went on to use a totally non-rigorous and hand-wavey assertion “This suggests that first world nutrition adds about 13 IQ points (and several inches of height) to people of third world ancestry” to come up with an average Indian American IQ of 112, which just so happens to corroborate with the figure given in some Forbes article. Pure cringe.

      It’s not just nutrition that has the effect on height and IQ. Parasitic load and disease also play huge factors. Parasites mostly exist near the equator where there is less food to begin with. Poorer people have less food to begin with and they also have to fight the parasites and disease which more well-off people don’t. In turn, what sustenance the body does get, a lot of it is diverted to fighting the diseases and parasites, diverting energy from growing the brain, muscles, bones, etc. I believe that in places where these variables are severe that by correcting these measures that IQ could jump from 10-13 points, more conservatively, 7 points at the lowest. African-Americans in America with low to no white admixture have IQs of around 80. This shows that by getting rid of the aforementioned variables that IQ will jump at least that high. It’s not just nutrition.

      PP shouldn’t talk about race and strength, nutrition or evolution. He’s just plain wrong. He loves Rushton’s simple three-race model, when a five-race model makes more sense, adding ‘Native’ Americans and Melanesians and Australoids, PP believes they are negros based on their phenotype. Another huge misconception, an Afrocentric one at that.

      Like

  5. whateverman says:

    I think some of the questioning in the comments could have been avoided if you’d mentioned “pound for pound”. I think this might have also something to do with CNS efficiency as well, rather than just fiber type %s and levers. Blacks have more, ‘showy’ muscle compared to whites and east asians who have less but more efficient muscle mass.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The more “showy muscles” arise due to lower fat free body mass. CNS adaptations occur when beginning any new regimen, but quickly subside as your body becomes accustomed to heavy lifting. That’s where the noob gains come from.

      I’m positive that the variations between racial groups come from muscle fiber typing. Like the Kenyans, they lived in high altitude places and evolved for that. So they, genetically, have a higher Vo2 max. They of course train like crazy. Along with genetic proclivities for high Vo2 max and rigorous training, this is why they are amazing distance runners. Slow twitch muscle fibers also play a huge role as well.

      Bodybuilders aren’t necessarily the strongest athletes. It’s a huge misconception. Though, I shouldn’t expect laymen to understand intricate differences between strength and muscle fiber typing as well as somatypes. People think they look big, they’re strong. Mark Rippetoe says “a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle”. This is true, to a point. However, Strongmen and powerlifters are above and beyond them in terms of strength. Seeing the genetic freaks of nature shows the racial differences.

      I’ve trained average Joes and Janes to competition bodybuilders and physique competitors and powerlifters. I’ve been in the scene for almost 10 years and benefits training people for going on 5 years. I’ve seen a lot. I know how this works, and people have huge misconceptions because they don’t look into the science aspect of it.

      Like

    • whateverman says:

      By “showy muscles”, I meant greater FFM which however isn’t as efficient as that of whites or east asians, i.e. muscles for show. This could be explained by sexual selection in sub-Saharan Africa.

      There have been some studies about that sort of thing on bodybuilders too, where testosterone seems to have some sort of ceiling with regard to the efficiency of the muscle you build – after certain dosages, you just build extra muscle that just doesn’t perform as well strength-wise. We’re talking supraphysiological doses in this case though so I’m not sure how well it’d apply to normal testosterone levels.

      Considering that blacks have higher reaction times on average, it isn’t unlikely that they overall have a less efficient CNS on average than whites and east asians.

      CNS efficiency differences in lifting seem to exist within populations too with overtraining/burnout apparently coming much harder to some people than others.

      Levers, insertions and fiber type % obviously play the most important role and this is perfectly evident in the less technique-dependent sports like running, as you mentioned, but I don’t want to discount the above factor either.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      There have been some studies about that sort of thing on bodybuilders too, where testosterone seems to have some sort of ceiling with regard to the efficiency of the muscle you build – after certain dosages, you just build extra muscle that just doesn’t perform as well strength-wise. We’re talking supraphysiological doses in this case though so I’m not sure how well it’d apply to normal testosterone levels.

      Makes sense. Have any cites? Increases in normal testosterone for the average person can increase strength noticeably, but when you get to those high, elite levels they are already genetic freaks of nature and freakishly strong and have crazy muscle insertions.

      CNS efficiency differences in lifting seem to exist within populations too with overtraining/burnout apparently coming much harder to some people than others.

      Considering that blacks have higher reaction times on average, it isn’t unlikely that they overall have a less efficient CNS on average than whites and east asians.

      Again, makes sense. Though at the individual level, the CNS adapts to the stress from weight training on the body which accounts for the noob gains in strength and muscle size. I'd wager you're right.

      Levers, insertions and fiber type % obviously play the most important role and this is perfectly evident in the less technique-dependent sports like running, as you mentioned, but I don’t want to discount the above factor either.

      I see where you’re coming from. I wonder if there is any type of dataset or study done so we can disentangle the data and observe what you’re talking about. But fiber type, levers and muscle insertions are the ultimate cause for racial differences in strength.

      Like

  6. SophicDrippins says:

    Have you considered other reasons why blacks may not have dominated in bodybuilding? Could there be political or economic reasons?

    This guy asserts blacks have taken over bodybuilding https://www.theshadowleague.com/story/newsflash-black-men-have-taken-over-bodybuilding

    Is the claim true that blacks are trending higher in bodybuilding? If so, that may indicate some other reason than genetics for their lagging in the past.

    I think you’ve done a great job with this blog, but this idea seems so counterintuitive to me. In the US, the blacks were bred to be big by the slave owners. Or, that’s what I’m told. If true, that would indicate that blacks should be stronger than whites if whites did a good job in breeding them to be that way. Also, I’m sure only the biggest were taken from Africa in the slave trade, leaving the weakest behind. That could contribute to your observations in Africa today. The Africans should be weak if the strong ones were taken away and the weak were left with limited resources to boot. I’m curious of your comments to that idea.

    Also, I’m curious what you’d think about the lack of vitamin D blacks suffer as a result of being at such high northern latitudes in the US and how that may relate to strength.

    I’ve been fascinated by the Strongman competitions (Bill Kazmaier, Magnús Ver Magnússon, et al) and noticed they are always white men, but figured it’s a European sport.

    When I see a group of people in public, it seems the blacks tower over the whites on the streets. Perhaps the blacks are not as motivated as whites to train themselves and that could explain why more whites go to the gym. Maybe the blacks are naturally strong and aren’t worried about bulking-up. Conversely, the whites may feel inferior and desire to work at becoming stronger. Maybe that could help explain why you see less blacks in bodybuilding. Blacks generally do have quite the ego compared to whites (check out rap music lyrics).

    That is different from NBA and NFL where blacks are incentivized to workout. Bodybuilding may not have enough incentive for them.

    Blacks tend to excel in every sport involving strength while seeming non-existent in sports not involving strength. Bodybuilding seems a curious outlier.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Blacks do dominate bodybuilding, I never said otherwise. I did say that Eurasians dominate in Strongman and other powerlifting competitions.

      Is the claim true that blacks are trending higher in bodybuilding? If so, that may indicate some other reason than genetics for their lagging in the past.

      Yes it is true. Blacks are better bodybuilders than Eurasians on average. It comes down to muscle type, insertions, size, fat-free mass, etc. The obvious explanation is better nutrition.

      Also, I’m curious what you’d think about the lack of vitamin D blacks suffer as a result of being at such high northern latitudes in the US and how that may relate to strength.

      Good question. They would be getting less vitamin D (a steroid hormone) and thus would feel the effects. But even Africans (other than Kenyans) don’t excel to the top 5 even, and genetics and muscle fiber typing have to do with it. This difference is largely genetic.

      Milk consumption also helps with attaining the vitamin D not absorbed from the sun’s rays.

      I’ve been fascinated by the Strongman competitions (Bill Kazmaier, Magnús Ver Magnússon, et al) and noticed they are always white men, but figured it’s a European sport.

      Nope it’s a worldwide sport. The only African country to even place in the top ten is Kenya, and they have the same muscle fiber type distribution as Eurasians. This proves my hypothesis.

      Blacks tend to excel in every sport involving strength while seeming non-existent in sports not involving strength. Bodybuilding seems a curious outlier.

      West African-descended blacks have the fiber typing for speed, while Kenyans and Eurasians have the typing for endurance. Those fibers also help with strength sports as well.

      Blacks tend to excel in every sport involving strength while seeming non-existent in sports not involving strength. Bodybuilding seems a curious outlier.

      They excel in sports where they can show off their athleticism. Eurasians dominate strength competitions, and the difference between races is largely genetic.

      Like

  7. SophicDrippins says:

    I don’t know how to reply to your comment as there is no “reply” button on your comment or that branch on the tree. I’ve tried firefox and chrome. Is it just me or is that the way it is supposed to be?

    Sorry, I misunderstood you with the distinction between bodybuilding and strongman. Thanks for taking the time to clear it up.

    Milk is a very poor source of vitamin D. The USDA shows 124 IU of D per cup of whole milk (with added D). To get the RDA of 600 IU, one would have to drink 5 cups of milk per day. But 600 is far too low according to the foremost expert on vitamin D, Dr. Holick

    “However, in the absence of any exposure to sunlight, there is mounting evidence that at least 800 to 1,000 IU of vitamin D is required daily to prevent vitamin D deficiency.2,12,13” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495109/

    In truth, he would recommend much more than that. Grandpa takes 50,000 IU as a prescription (403 cups of milk).

    Vitamin D is difficult to find in food, especially today. Lard used to contain some, but who uses lard anymore. Even if we do use lard, pigs don’t see the sunlight they used to. I searched the USDA database and found only *wild* salmon (and some oddball foods) containing decent levels of vitamin D. So, unless one is eating salmon or fists full of pills or cod liver oil, he is not getting the proper vitamin D in lieu of the sun. Check it out https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfrm?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=324&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=0&sort=c&measureby=g

    One can of salmon is 2834 IU and is equivalent to about 23 cups of milk. (USDA 15087, Fish, salmon, sockeye, canned, drained solids)

    Adequate vitamin D from normal food seems impossible.

    In northern latitudes (ie Boston, home to Dr. Holick), there is no UVB making it to the ground during at least 6 months of the year. So, it’s hard even for a white person and a very alien environment for a black person, indeed.

    I can’t find the study I’m looking for, which shows in obvious fashion the geographical differences in the occurrence of cancer and heart disease in blacks in the north vs the south, but here are some others:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Schwartz5/publication/20915179_Schwartz_G_G_Hulka_B_S_Is_vitamin_D_deficiency_a_risk_factor_for_prostate_cancer_Anticancer_Res_10_1307-1311/links/565f4a4008aefe619b2881bc.pdf

    “inverse correlations between solar UVB and mortality rates for black Americans for breast, colon, esophageal, gastric, lung and rectal cancers.” http://www.journalnma.org/article/S0027-9684(15)31441-3/abstract

    “Studies have shown that that since 1985, colon cancer rates have dipped 20% to 25% for Whites, while rates have gone up for African-American men and stayed the same for African-American women. Overall, African-Americans are 38% to 43% more likely to die from colon cancer than are Whites.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726450/

    Blacks are less adapted than whites for living in northern latitudes and their persistence in living there probably explains the differences in cancers and heart diseases between whites in those locations and blacks in the south.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I don’t know how to reply to your comment as there is no “reply” button on your comment or that branch on the tree. I’ve tried firefox and chrome. Is it just me or is that the way it is supposed to be?

      Comments only nest one time after the main one, the reply button is at the top of the first comment in the specific thread.

      Milk is a very poor source of vitamin D. The USDA shows 124 IU of D per cup of whole milk (with added D). To get the RDA of 600 IU, one would have to drink 5 cups of milk per day. But 600 is far too low according to the foremost expert on vitamin D, Dr. Holick

      It’s not like blacks don’t get UV light. The ‘black belt’ (stroke belt, not coincidentally because it’s majority black and blacks are more likely to have hypertension) is in the South, so they do get some UV.

      Vitamin D is difficult to find in food, especially today. Lard used to contain some, but who uses lard anymore. Even if we do use lard, pigs don’t see the sunlight they used to. I searched the USDA database and found only *wild* salmon (and some oddball foods) containing decent levels of vitamin D. So, unless one is eating salmon or fists full of pills or cod liver oil, he is not getting the proper vitamin D in lieu of the sun.

      Cod liver oil, eggs, milk, fatty fishes, mushrooms, pork, etc. I’ve worked with people with a vitamin D deficiency, it’s easily solvable. Take a few vitamin D supplements, drink more milk and eat more fish as well as get more sunlight (vit D is more important to supplement in the Winter).

      I can’t find the study I’m looking for, which shows in obvious fashion the geographical differences in the occurrence of cancer and heart disease in blacks in the north vs the south, but here are some others:

      Blacks are less adapted than whites for living in northern latitudes and their persistence in living there probably explains the differences in cancers and heart diseases between whites in those locations and blacks in the south.

      Lack of vitamin D is a risk factor for prostate cancer, as you linked. But blacks already have a higher chance of getting prostate cancer already, though this is an environmental trigger that exacerbates an already preexisting genetic problem.

      I do agree, obviously, that blacks are less adapted to living in northerly climes. However, even with adequate vitamin D consumption they’d still be weaker than whites. Muscle fiber typing matters more.

      Like

  8. SophicDrippins says:

    “It’s not like blacks don’t get UV light. The ‘black belt’ (stroke belt, not coincidentally because it’s majority black and blacks are more likely to have hypertension) is in the South, so they do get some UV.”

    The blacks in the belt get the same light as the whites, but they have higher hypertension? That illustrates that blacks are not making the same vitamin D as whites. Blacks need more light than whites.

    And even the Southern US is a higher latitude than most of Africa.

    “Cod liver oil, eggs, milk, fatty fishes, mushrooms, pork, etc.”

    I painstakingly illustrated how that isn’t true. Cod liver oil, yes. Fatty fishes, yes. But not eggs, milk, pork and there is no “etc”. Mushrooms, yes, if grown under UV light. Vitamin D is hard to find. Check the USDA site I linked. A meal that we would consider “usual” or “normal” would not contain RDA amounts of D.

    “But blacks already have a higher chance of getting prostate cancer already”

    Yes, because they are black, which causes them to need more UV light than a white person for the same amount of vitamin D produced. Blacks could need 5-10 times more time in the sun than whites to produce the same amount of D.

    Vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (blacks) than other Americans and, in North America, most young, healthy blacks do not achieve optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at any time of year. This is primarily due to the fact that pigmentation reduces vitamin D production in the skin. Also, from about puberty and onward, median vitamin D intakes of American blacks are below recommended intakes in every age group, with or without the inclusion of vitamin D from supplements. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full

    Like

  9. TruthSeeker says:

    Just to let you know, anecdotes don’t mean jack shit

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      You wasted one comment to me writing nothing instead of showing me how am I am wrong. Show me how my logic is wrong. Something. Instead of your waste of a comment.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 128,229 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: