Who Has The Best Genetics?

Training Powerlifting
161

I didn’t read through the entire thread, but I’m going to shed some evolution on this:

You’ll notice that people of northern european descent (Russians, Poles, some Germans, etc.) Seem to dominate in powerlifting style sports. This is because they evolved in a climate where they need to kill big game, move it, pile up wood, etc. This environment selected not for the fastest men, but the strongest men who could sustain this strength. This why these men are what we call “brawny”

As for best athletes, look at the environment that africans evolved in; a incredibly rich and diverse fauna with some actual predators in the wild (lions, some wild animals in africa, etc. pose a threat to humans) and had to evolve with the ability to evade threats in the environment while also evolve with the ability to be quick and fast, strength helped, but the main genetics of quickness is what was selected for in this hunter-gather environment.

Put this into thousands of years and pop, what do you know: Big Brawny white men from northern europe win all the strongman events and africans are the best athletes, dominating football(american and european), track and field, etc.

162

We can try to argue the point of “what is black or white”, but people with black skin seem to jump higher and run faster on the elite level.

If you take a look at the strength sports, white guys seem to do pretty well there. There are certainly no shortage of black weightlifters, and there are some impressive ones, but all the raw and geared lift records are held by whites, and strongman is almost dominated by whites. Olympic weightlifting is largely dominated by Europeans, although the record for both the C&J and the Snatch is held by an Iranian, as I am sure everyone on here knows.

All the 100m dash records, as well as 40s in the Combine and the vert records in the NBA are all held by blacks. There is too much of a pattern there to simply dump on “upbringing”. Why are there almost no elite black swimmers? I understand that the percentage of the poor black population can’t get to pools, but the amount of elite black swimmers is not represented even by using the percentage of affluent black people.

Check out the last census numbers in the US. Average black and white height is almost identical, with the slight advantage actually going to whites, and still blacks hyper dominate basketball.

As someone stated earlier in this thread, blacks have different hair. Only whites can naturally be blonde. Mexicans and asians ARE on average shorter. It is largely the reason why the average male height globally is like 5’6", but here in America it is 5’10".

These race discussions always make people uneasy, but it is foolish to believe that the races being separated for 1000s of years did nothing to alter them from one another. We aren’t talking huge differences here.

If talking about physical differences seems like thin ice, someone bring up brain development. That should be interesting.

163

[quote]optheta wrote:
Wtf is the point of this thread? Everything involving Genetics to evolution is RANDOM.[/quote]

No, it’s not. Useful traits are embraced by the species over time, and useless traits are discarded.

164

[quote]timeformegaman wrote:
optheta wrote:
Wtf is the point of this thread? Everything involving Genetics to evolution is RANDOM.

No, it’s not. Useful traits are embraced by the species over time, and useless traits are discarded. [/quote]

Are you sure? That’s to presume that evolution is intelligent to know what exactly is useless and what is not. Or that with every stage of evolution the animal gets better but that’s a guess at best.

Anyway, who stirred up this old dead thread? Thanks bud.

165

[quote]Invictica wrote:
whoa, thought I was in stormfront for a second.[/quote]
It is.

Watch your back, boy. >:/

166

The diff. between the very fastest 100meters race black person and fastest white person is less than half a second. And it’s like that w. most sports.

Black people are faster (bursts of speed) and white people are stronger (weight lifting and so on) But the diff. between first place and second is so minimal that it almost wouldnt make a diff. in real world applications.

As for who has the best genetics it is determined by this…

Northern Europeans have the best genetics, and blacks have the worst with asians not far behind whites…
Blacks have the worst lungs ( 1 out of 2 blacks have some sort of asthma), highest obesity, MUCH MUCH higher rates of heart disease, way more diabetes, most cancers are much worst and deadlier in blacks, most genetic diseases ( and diff. genetic diseases which only occur in blacks), blacks also have a much higher rate of mental problems, much higher rates of problems w. newborns. Blacks also score much lower on average on IQ scores compared to whites, blacks have a much higher rate of criminals in society… and the list goes on and on… Most of the problems above have some kind of enviormental influence but it is a fact that genetics determines most of those problems in society…

167

All I have to add is NewBatman is maybe the most ignorant and ill-informed poster on this site.

168

And dont just take my word for my comments above just google it. It is also a fact that over 90% of women which choose to get impregnated with donated sperm always choose a tall blond hair white genetics person as their donor.

Main Reason is white people (northern europeans usually) have the very best genetics with the least ammount of problems, least ammount of all kinds of genetic diseases including some of the longest life spans lowest ammount of problems stated above in my last post and usually do much better in life.

Black people on the other hand have the worst genetics with more problems overall than any other ethnicity and most of the time the numbers arent even close.

169

[quote]Tank53 wrote:
timeformegaman wrote:
optheta wrote:
Wtf is the point of this thread? Everything involving Genetics to evolution is RANDOM.

No, it’s not. Useful traits are embraced by the species over time, and useless traits are discarded.

Are you sure? That’s to presume that evolution is intelligent to know what exactly is useless and what is not. Or that with every stage of evolution the animal gets better but that’s a guess at best.

Anyway, who stirred up this old dead thread? Thanks bud. [/quote]

No, it’s not. Animals that have a new useful adaptation thrive, whilst animals with undesirable traits stuggle to pass their genes as frequently as their successful competitors. Absolutely nothing intelligent about it. I honestly don’t see what is that hard to understand about that. And yet, there is still much misinterpretation of it, especially by those who choose to misinterpret it.

How was this an old thread? It was a day old, and still on the first page? Sounds pretty old to me.

170

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
All I have to add is NewBatman is maybe the most ignorant and ill-informed poster on this site.[/quote]

these things come back on your head…

you are still mad that you looked stupid last time we argued…

we all remember that is when I called you a “white Uncle Tom”…

to the non-americans: an “uncle Tom” is a term african americans use to describe an african american that worships whites (I called whiteflash a “white uncle Tom” because he worships blacks)(look at his name…he degrades himself in his black obsession…very strange)

171

1.) the fact is that skin color hair type dermal combinations are not correlated with necessarily any other gene…

2.) the “black” myth it is a cultural phenomenah influenced purposely by the media…

3.) “black” children in Philadelphia are 50% Irish and Native American OR MORE but outsprint the african nations

4.) the breeding theory of americans or natural selection is idiotic bro science disproven by countless principles of actual science…

5.) the IQ test study a few post above on this page I posted is priceless – when the “black” children were questioned in the fourth group that scored low on the IQ test they always said they thought “blacks” had low IQ’s and didn’t want to try because it hurts more to try and fail – this is why whites in the USA do not try track or “black” things…

6.) the youtube video of the 100 meters olympic finals since 1950 shows that whites won multiple times and even in 1980 with social pressure peeking against white track athletes later since global culture finally began…

172

everyone is mixed…

and your skin color and dermal genes are not necessarily correlated with any other gene you have people…

some swedish guy here may have an asian spleen phenotype for example and south african big toe phenotype…

and the phenotype differences across africans are diverse too…

your sports are cultural guys…

if you greco roman wrestled your whole life because you loved it chances are you will be awesome at it regardless of genes

173

[quote]newbatman wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
All I have to add is NewBatman is maybe the most ignorant and ill-informed poster on this site.

these things come back on your head…

you are still mad that you looked stupid last time we argued…

we all remember that is when I called you a “white Uncle Tom”…

to the non-americans: an “uncle Tom” is a term african americans use to describe an african american that worships whites (I called whiteflash a “white uncle Tom” because he worships blacks)(look at his name…he degrades himself in his black obsession…very strange)[/quote]

All I remember is everyone telling you you were wrong and you exiting the thread 'cause I kept shutting you down. I change my mind, there’s no maybe about it: YOU’RE AN IDIOT.

174

tongan with a mixture of african american , perfect athlete…easily a 400 pound mass monster with speed and strength.

175

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
scottiscool wrote:
I thought I posted on this topic this morning but maybe not. I basically said what Phil did, different sports favor different genetics.

undeadlift wrote:
I wouldn’t be suprised if African-Americans had the best genetics. Their ancestors were used to work after all.

And then this sort of comment comes out and the thread will spiral totally out of control. Joking or not which I hope you are.

Well, I hope nobody here’s too sensitive. It was just an objective comment.

Let me expound anyway as to avoid any misunderstanding. If you and your children and their children and their children’s children, etc. become gym lovers and lift heavy, chances are that your descendants will inherit genes conducive to heavy lifting. It’s simply an adaptive response that has shaped the genetics of many people.[/quote]

Are you serious? You fail.

176

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
scottiscool wrote:
I thought I posted on this topic this morning but maybe not. I basically said what Phil did, different sports favor different genetics.

undeadlift wrote:
I wouldn’t be suprised if African-Americans had the best genetics. Their ancestors were used to work after all.

And then this sort of comment comes out and the thread will spiral totally out of control. Joking or not which I hope you are.

Well, I hope nobody here’s too sensitive. It was just an objective comment.

Let me expound anyway as to avoid any misunderstanding. If you and your children and their children and their children’s children, etc. become gym lovers and lift heavy, chances are that your descendants will inherit genes conducive to heavy lifting. It’s simply an adaptive response that has shaped the genetics of many people.

Actually heredity doesn’t work that way. Unless the genetics were already there and/or throughout the lineage people were procreating with people who had better genetics for lifting. If its just something they do in the family there is no guarantee they would be any good at it no matter how far back it goes.[/quote]

Well, I think racial genetics do play a part. The study of marathoners for instance, despite long-distance running being popular throughout the western world, the stereotype of Kenyans being better suited for it isn’t without merit. In fact, an anthropologist found that people from one specific area and one tribe in particular have like an order of magnitude odds or better of being elite marathoners.

Speaking for myself, I am purebred warrior caste. I haven’t done any significant pressing or triceps work in over a year and a half due to various injuries. Haven’t done direct biceps work in 5 years. And have a 16+ unpumped arm circumference and bust out of a size 48 suit coat. i find it hard to believe genetics don’t play a role in that.

The simple truth through archaeological surveys is that the more agricultural and/or civilized (i.e. division of labor) a society is, the smaller (body mass index wise) they tend to be. Until very recently in history.

The demands of being a hunter (hurling a spear, sprinting, carrying a heavy carcass) certainly would select for those who had more muscle. The demands of being a warrior would likewise select for those who had more muscle.

It would thus make sense that the more recently those evolutionary pressures were still extant, the more frequency we’re going to find muscle/athleticism gene alleles in.

As for the issue of working out or otherwise being engaged in muscular activities passing down, it’s actually possible that it might through a process called DNA methylation.

Probably the most famous example is the thrifty phenotype (google it), but examples are being found all over the place relating to metabolism, immunity, and even intelligence. Why not strength?

177

[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
scottiscool wrote:
I thought I posted on this topic this morning but maybe not. I basically said what Phil did, different sports favor different genetics.

undeadlift wrote:
I wouldn’t be suprised if African-Americans had the best genetics. Their ancestors were used to work after all.

And then this sort of comment comes out and the thread will spiral totally out of control. Joking or not which I hope you are.

Well, I hope nobody here’s too sensitive. It was just an objective comment.

Let me expound anyway as to avoid any misunderstanding. If you and your children and their children and their children’s children, etc. become gym lovers and lift heavy, chances are that your descendants will inherit genes conducive to heavy lifting. It’s simply an adaptive response that has shaped the genetics of many people.

Actually heredity doesn’t work that way. Unless the genetics were already there and/or throughout the lineage people were procreating with people who had better genetics for lifting. If its just something they do in the family there is no guarantee they would be any good at it no matter how far back it goes.

Well, I think racial genetics do play a part. The study of marathoners for instance, despite long-distance running being popular throughout the western world, the stereotype of Kenyans being better suited for it isn’t without merit. In fact, an anthropologist found that people from one specific area and one tribe in particular have like an order of magnitude odds or better of being elite marathoners.

Speaking for myself, I am purebred warrior caste. I haven’t done any significant pressing or triceps work in over a year and a half due to various injuries. Haven’t done direct biceps work in 5 years. And have a 16+ unpumped arm circumference and bust out of a size 48 suit coat. i find it hard to believe genetics don’t play a role in that.

The simple truth through archaeological surveys is that the more agricultural and/or civilized (i.e. division of labor) a society is, the smaller (body mass index wise) they tend to be. Until very recently in history.

The demands of being a hunter (hurling a spear, sprinting, carrying a heavy carcass) certainly would select for those who had more muscle. The demands of being a warrior would likewise select for those who had more muscle.

It would thus make sense that the more recently those evolutionary pressures were still extant, the more frequency we’re going to find muscle/athleticism gene alleles in.

As for the issue of working out or otherwise being engaged in muscular activities passing down, it’s actually possible that it might through a process called DNA methylation.

Probably the most famous example is the thrifty phenotype (google it), but examples are being found all over the place relating to metabolism, immunity, and even intelligence. Why not strength?[/quote]

everything you said was incorrect…

and the studies you referred to were ridiculous media pleasers…

the differences you spoke of are all cultural and environmental…

anyone with any genetics or biology understanding knows that no gene is linked to any other gene and this is really the end of all arguements on racial differences OR EVEN RACE BEING LINKED SKIN / DERMAL / HAIR PHENOTYPE

(example: “black” man in chicago turns out to be mostly siberian anscestory when tested on discovery channel)

178

oh yeh…

ask about one gene being dominant…

such as “black” skin / hair dermal combinations being expressed when “white” is present too…

this explains many things world wide about different populations expressing different phenotypes (example Nigeria even though other genotypes abundant they are rarely expressed)

179

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
newbatman wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
All I have to add is NewBatman is maybe the most ignorant and ill-informed poster on this site.

these things come back on your head…

you are still mad that you looked stupid last time we argued…

we all remember that is when I called you a “white Uncle Tom”…

to the non-americans: an “uncle Tom” is a term african americans use to describe an african american that worships whites (I called whiteflash a “white uncle Tom” because he worships blacks)(look at his name…he degrades himself in his black obsession…very strange)

All I remember is everyone telling you you were wrong and you exiting the thread 'cause I kept shutting you down. I change my mind, there’s no maybe about it: YOU’RE AN IDIOT. [/quote]

you honeslty degrade yourself for racists enjoyment with the name “whiteflash”…

you worship the black man and think the black man is God

180

[quote]newbatman wrote:

everything you said was incorrect…[/quote]
Really. Guess I wasted all that time getting a graduate degree in human evolution and was taught and have spoken with many of the people who’ve done these ‘wrong’ studies.

[quote]
and the studies you referred to were ridiculous media pleasers…[/quote]

Back that up. I’ve read thousands of pages on the subject, been educated by some of the most prominent human evolutionary biologists in the world, and talked with many more.

[quote]
the differences you spoke of are all cultural and environmental…[/quote]

Really, so the environment and culture of being a lifelong nerd predisposed me to be a lean 180 5’10 before I ever touched a weight? lol

Environment and culture are the sole determinants of fiber type distribution, muscle attachment and insertion points, and skeletal robusticity?

Environment and culture are the sole reason that northern europeans are much less likely to be lactose intolerant?

[quote]
anyone with any genetics or biology understanding knows that no gene is linked to any other gene and this is really the end of all arguements on racial differences OR EVEN RACE BEING LINKED SKIN / DERMAL / HAIR PHENOTYPE[/quote]

I did not talk specifically about race. But if your’e going to tell me that someone from the Savannah like the Maasai had identical evolutionary pressures placed on them as my tropical forest-dwelling and military-bred ancestors then you have got to be kidding me.

I am not talking about issues of race but of evolutionary pressures placed on people in certain living environments. A jungle-living african had the same evolutionary pressures placed on them as a jungle-living indian. Which is one of the reasons descendants of both of these groups are classic mesomorphs. A savannah living individual from Africa has similar pressures placed on them as a native american in the arid climates of north america. And they have similar body types.

That is what I’m talking about. It’s called convergent evolution. This is real basic stuff here.

As for no gene being linked to any other gene are you serious? Really? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Because any basic genetics course spends a good deal of time talking about genetic linkages.

I guess all mtDNA studies are garbage too. Obviously broad groups like ‘black’ or ‘asian’ or ‘white’ are too inclusive and muddy. Anyone with the most basic understanding of evolution could tell you that, because within europe there’s a range of different climates and ecologies, same for asia and africa. But the idea that different groups, with relatively limited genetic flow, exposed to different environmental and evolutionary pressures, woudl not show significant genetic differences at the population level is more retarded than anything else I’ve read in this thread.

Our evolution is shaped by our environment. People who evolved in different areas will have different adaptations.