[quote]Kalle wrote:
My thinking mirrors Sentoguys to a large extent there might be MORE on average genetic freaks that are black but there are white genetic freaks to.
[/quote]
I think Africans have the most diverse genetic pool so you might be right.
I think Africa produces the tallest groups of people as well as the shortest.
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
I think I do better lifting real heavy with lower volume than doing endless bodyweight exercises; I don’t even like to do sets of 10. I could get much bigger with bodyweight exercises and lifting random shit but I think access to a bar and plates benefit me a lot. I don’t need a squat rack or bench, though.
Oh, and various definitions of race:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/03/shapes-of-human-variation.php[/quote]
I think lifting weights is more efficient use of training time. You can add mass and strength if you do hours of bodyweight stuff but I would rather lift weights for an hour.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
will to power wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
Sentoguy,
Although you are very intelligent, I disagree with you on the “we are all one human race” thing that is so PC these days. We are all of one human species. But, we are of different races: Asian, White, and Black. Within these races are sub-races as well. The whites are composed of Alpines, Mediterraneans (real mediterraneans, not middle easteaners who are really asian or asian-white mixtures), Nordics, Dinarics, and East Baltics. There are other divisions and names given to the mixture of these peoples as well. I am just not a racial anthropoligist so I do not know the whole deal.
There are approximately 300 genetic differences between blacks and whites. That alone tells me that we are of different races. Personally, I believe races differ in stature, intellect, cognitive ability, physical strength, emotionality, behavior, aptitude, inclination and so on and I will most likely never be convinved otherwise nor do I care to argue this point.
Genetic variation between classical races is very small relative to within them, and the usual statistical analysis shows that there is no species separation. There are obviously different populations with greater gene flow within rather than between them, which is what results in the variation between races.
Right. Plus, even at the mitochondrial DNA level, you have as much likelihood of finding a close match in Botswana as you do in your home town (family members not included). You could “look” nothing like the person you find a match with and very much like the people who you have very little similarity to. Looks, aren’t an accurate judge of genetic similarity.
And no, “race” means subspecies. There are no subspecies of humans. Like I said, from a cultural standpoint there are different “races”, but from a biological one, there aren’t. Many of the ideas that you are quoting are outdated. Yes, scientists used to believe that there were actually different “races” of humans. But exhaustive studies have pretty much proven otherwise.
Here’s a fun little exercise, why don’t you try defining what makes up the specific “races” of humans. Remember that in order for the definitions to be true all characteristics must be concordant (they must always manifest themselves equally in all members of that “race”). That’s not my definition either, it’s biology’s.
I already have a biological view on race.
Your argument doesn’t convince me otherwise.
I live in the most racially diverse community in the USA, perhaps all of North America. I do not have to really engage in logical or scientific or theoretical debate to understand that we are in fact VERY different. All I have to do is walk outside my house and use my five senses coupled with co-existing, sometimes up close and personal with the people who live in this borough. I do not need studies.
[/quote]
Great, but understand that how you interpret your five senses is influenced by the cultural concepts that you hold to. This isn’t an easy subject for people to accept. Mostly because, as you stated, the idea of “race” seems extremely apparent and logical, especially since we have been raised by society to believe in the concept’s validity.
That man over there has a different color skin than me, he must be different. That woman over there has different shaped eyes than me, she must be different. All of these apparent physical differences between people must mean that they are different. Right? Wrong.
Just observing things with your five senses is only the first step in determining their validity. From that you make a hypothesis about what you observe. Then come up with ways to test that hypothesis. Then draw conclusions based on the results of those tests. That’s the scientific process and what biologists have been doing in regards to race for quite a long time now.
Your five senses do not outweight literally decades (and possibly close to a century’s) worth of research and testing of the validity of the biological concept of “race” when it comes to humans. Besides, what good does holding to that concept of “race” do for you anyway?
As far as living in Queens (which is the most racially diverse community in all of North America to the best of my knowledge), my gf would disagree with you that this validates the concept of race. She was born and raised in Jamaica Queens and, like you, growing up she held the concept of race to be a biologically valid one as well.
That is, until she graduated from Queens college and moved up to MA, to pursue a Masters in Anthropology, and then a PhD. in Anthropology. Now, she diligently de-constructs the concept of “race” and is actually the one who convinced me as to it’s lack of biological truthfulness. So, living in Queens isn’t a valid argument for the biological concept of “race”.
In the mean time, check out this video when you get the chance (and there are several parts).
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Kalle wrote:
My thinking mirrors Sentoguys to a large extent there might be MORE on average genetic freaks that are black but there are white genetic freaks to.
I think Africans have the most diverse genetic pool so you might be right.
I think Africa produces the tallest groups of people as well as the shortest. [/quote]
That’s true. Also, even small differences in averages can translate into big differences in the amount of elite “freaks” from each group. For traits which are distributed normally with even a small difference in group averages, the differences become much more visible at the extremes.
Here’s a fun statistical estimate of the average long-distance (again!) running ability of different ethnic groups based on the number of elite performers:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Your five senses do not outweight literally decades (and possibly close to a century’s) worth of research and testing of the validity of the biological concept of “race” when it comes to humans.[/quote]
Recent research looking at large numbers (hundreds or thousands) of SNPs and vector analysis is making it pretty clear, though, that for example Swedes and Greeks are far from identical genetically. Here’s an open access paper on European populations with some nice graphs. If you don’t want to read the whole thing check out figure 4.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1564423
Here’s a transcript from part 1 of the series which actually talks more about the biological argument against race for anyone interested.
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Your five senses do not outweight literally decades (and possibly close to a century’s) worth of research and testing of the validity of the biological concept of “race” when it comes to humans.
Recent research looking at large numbers (hundreds or thousands) of SNPs and vector analysis is making it pretty clear, though, that for example Swedes and Greeks are far from identical genetically. Here’s an open access paper on European populations with some nice graphs. If you don’t want to read the whole thing check out figure 4.
[/quote]
Yes, but “Greeks” (which would be a nationality, not a “race”) wouldn’t be identical to other “Greeks” either. The only identical humans would be clones (or possibly identical twins).
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Yes, but “Greeks” (which would be a nationality, not a “race”) wouldn’t be identical to other “Greeks” either. The only identical humans would be clones (or possibly identical twins).[/quote]
Actually, all Greeks are not only identical twins, all Greek men are in fact all made of straw - that’s essentially what these scientists discovered. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Here’s the deal: the distribution of 5700 SNPs in the Greek population is not identical to the distribution of the same 5700 SNPs in the Swedish population. The implication is that the vast majority of Greeks are more closely related to other Greeks than to Swedes. But the average Greek is more closely related to the average Swede than to the average American Indian. Yeah, shocking!
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Here’s a transcript from part 1 of the series which actually talks more about the biological argument against race for anyone interested.
http://www.newsreel.org/transcripts/race1.htm
[/quote]
i only read some of this as i found the format to be annoying, so maybe you could help answer my question… did they look at epigenetic differences?
You know, just because you keep saying it is so, does not make it so. In fact, my dictionary offers the following as one of several definitions of race: “a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics”. Yes, subspecies is one definition of race, but not the only one.
Separately, this whole genetic variation between and among “races” argument is dumb. How many black couples have white kids? If evolutionary pressures could cause two groups of individuals of the same species to have drastically different color skin, it’s naive to believe evolutionary pressures could not cause two groups to have drastically different ratios of fast- to slow-twitch muscle fibers, or different levels of testosterone, or any number of other characteristics that could make it easier for one group to build muscle relative to the second. The question is whether or not this actually happened, not whether it is possible.
one other question i have sentoguy … how is the idea of amplicfication addressed by this argument… that is the idea that a very small genetic difference can lead to a very large phenotypic difference?
I was just released from prison 2 months ago, so I’ll shed some light on this subject.
Before I say anything: Just remember that being on the outside is NOTHING like being on the inside, and so trying to rely on an inmate’s training is kind of absurd, if you ask me. It’s a completely different environment and state-of-mind fueled by competition and fear, really.
I managed to get released in just over 4 months, but my body changed drastically in that time. I gained some fat before going in, mostly due to drinking my face off every night and going 4 weeks without a gym and not really caring. The day I was incarcerated, I weighed in at 245 lbs and quite a bit weaker than I had been a few months earlier. When I came out, I was 220 lbs with considerable size added to my delts, lats, and arms, mostly. The facility where I was, unfortunately, did not have a weightroom for inmates. Even so, it was possible to add size to most areas…
Legs were definitely the most difficult thing to train… I worked 10+ hours every day in the kitchen on my feet, and immediately afterwards went to recreation for an hour of basketball. By the time I got back to the block to work out, my legs (joints, specifically) were pretty much shot. I did basically the exact same workout routine every night with my cellmate… when using bodyweight for the majority of exercises, overtraining wasn’t really an issue. Plus, it was the only fucking thing there was to do until lights-out, and it helped me get a decent night’s sleep (sleep isn’t easy on a hard surface with no pillow and guards shining flashlights in your cell every hour).
The exercises we did:
A1) 4 sets of hindu-pushups (10-15 reps)
A2) 4 sets of chin-ups (10-15 reps)
B1) 4 sets of hindu-squats (40-50 reps)
B2) 4 sets of Ab-Sock (I invented this one… basically like an ab-wheel except you put socks over ur hands and use friction on the floor instead of a roller- much harder, and extremely effective) -usually 25 reps
C1) 3 sets of hanging situps (off the edge of the bunk, with cellmate holding shins) (10 reps)
C2) 3 Back bridges for 2 minutes each
D1) 3 sets of bicep curls, either using mop stick with waterbags or rolled up mattress tied in a bed sheet, or using a towel and having cellmate provide resistance (8-12 reps)
D2) 3 sets of tricep extensions using towel with cellmate providing resistance. (8-12 reps)
As far as nutrition, the food there was horrible. The first few weeks are rough if you don’t have any money on ur books and can’t order commissary, during that time I just stomached everything and tried as much as possible to trade pudding for meat/vegetables with other inmates. Once I had enough money to order commissary, it was all about the tuna… from that point on, I would only eat the meat and vegetables off whatever meal was served, and supplement with pouches of tuna. It was gross, but it did my body good.
Having said all this, I think it would be relatively easy to put on a large amount of mass in a prison with weights. It’s one of the only productive things there is to do in jail, and if you eat the grossly calorific meals they serve and supplement with commissary tuna, you can pack on some serious muscle. My cellmate and I measured our arms on a regular basis using headphone wire and then scraping a mark into the bricks in our cell, and we both put on close to an inch in those 4 months without even having a weightroom… not too bad.
The downside of doing the whole bodyweight thing is that almost all my lifts have gone down quite a bit. I’ve been back in the gym for 2 months and I’m about where I was before jail, but it has taken a lot of work, especially for squats and deadlifts.
The upside? I haven’t touched a drop of alcohol since before jail, I feel the healthiest I’ve ever been, and I have the most overall LBM I’ve ever had, along with the lowest body fat I’ve had since high school, and it’s dropping still.
Oh and to address the T-level theories:
After a couple weeks in jail, you become kind of a different person. You have to be aggressive, you have to challenge anyone and everyone who even looks at you wrong… you basically have to show as much strength of character as possible. I think this does, in fact, help the intensity and consistency of workouts. People are more likely to respect someone who has his own serious routine and doesn’t fuck around.
Hope this helped!
Sometimes I think you guys need to worry about your own bodies, then everyone else’s, and who might have an easier time getting bigger and whatnot
[quote]monteitis wrote:
I was just released from prison 2 months ago, so I’ll shed some light on this subject.[/quote]
Thanks. Very good post.
[quote]toddthebod wrote:
And no, “race” means subspecies.
You know, just because you keep saying it is so, does not make it so. In fact, my dictionary offers the following as one of several definitions of race: “a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics”. Yes, subspecies is one definition of race, but not the only one.
[/quote]
It does indeed have many definitions. I was referring to the biological one, which is what this discussion is about. Subspecies is the only definition for race that biologists use.
First, define for me what “black” means. What defines someone as black? Skin color? Ok, so then you are saying that Ghandi was black? Nope, you’d most likely classify him as “Indian”. How about Native Americans? Many of them have at least as dark skin as many “African Americans”. Would you say that they’re black too? If not, what shade of brown distinguishes between “black” and “not black”?
Hair color? Ok, so what about “Aboriginals”? Some of them have blonde hair (and some even have blue eyes), yet I doubt you’d call them “white”.
So, what you’re saying is that you’d classify the girl on the left as “black” and the girl on the right as “white”?
http://www.ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_children_3/Image/au377271.jpg
Second, from the evidence that has been gathered, no it has not happened. Genetic traits are passed down on an individual basis, thus eliminating the concept that there is any correlation between traits like skin color and athletic ability, or muscle fiber distribution.
In order for subspecies to evolve naturally (they can be artificially constructed, as in the case of most dog breeds) there must be both significant isolation and significant time. The human race simply hasn’t been around for long enough for subspecies to evolve, and there hasn’t been enough isolation either.
VS argueing gene theories, or anything else biology based why not try this…
Each person on the thread lift 1 hour a day 7 days a week for 2 months. Eat a good set of 3 meals a day.
Take a week off after 2 months and see how you do.
Then do 3 different 1 hour workouts a day, 7 days a week for 2 months. Eat a good set of 5 meals a day.
See how you look at the end of that and your strength…
Thanks for the information Sento. You have been influenced by some scientists as have I, some of them being modern scientists, not “outdated” ones. Heaven forbid a scientist to come out in public these days or be held up to a high degree if he dare expose evidence that we are different.
Race is more than skin and hair color, as I implied before.
Again, thanks for the information but as stated before, I will NEVER be convinced otherwise. Besides, I ask “what is wrong with being different?” I will not participate in this conversation further.
Bye, all.
That’s entirely missing the point. I’m not arguing that all black people have some certain characteristic. I’m using the example of skin color as a physical characteristic that seems to have taken on drastically different forms in different populations, to the point that there is virtually no overlap between particular ethnically homogeneous populations (ever see a black Inuit? or a white Kikuyu?)
That’s just wrong. Somehow there are large ethnically homogeneous populations throughout the world that all have similar skin color, similar eye shape, similar nose shape, similar hair color, and similar hair texture, yet there can’t be populations with similar muscle fiber distribution?
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Thanks for the information Sento. You have been influenced by some scientists as have I, some of them being modern scientists, not “outdated” ones. Heaven forbid a scientist to come out in public these days or be held up to a high degree if he dare expose evidence that we are different.
[/quote]
The thing is though, that there are greater implications when discussing race than simply the biological efficacy of it. Also, I’m not talking about a single scientist. I’m talking about the scientific community.
What is it then? If you were to try classifying people by other genes (other than skin color and hair color), then you’d find that you’d come up with completely different “races” of people. You’d also find that you could come up with multiple different ways to classify/group the members of that study, and that there would be overlap, no matter what they method of classification.
[quote]
Again, thanks for the information but as stated before, I will NEVER be convinced otherwise. Besides, I ask “what is wrong with being different?” I will not participate in this conversation further.
Bye, all. [/quote]
Well then I’m sorry that you aren’t willing to open your mind.
Good training.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Again, thanks for the information but as stated before, I will NEVER be convinced otherwise.[/quote]
Shame he made you waste all of your time, Sento.