« Japan's 2-D men | Main | Firefighting test is a disguised IQ test »

July 27, 2009

Comments

Wildly speculative, but muscles undergo a great deal of wear and tear. As a result, more energy is required to consistently repair them than other tissues. This may be a taxing burden on the body, leading to shorter life spans in more muscular races. I don't believe that this is the reason women are less muscular then men, however. Women were selected to store high fat reserves because it improved the fitness of their offspring. Maybe high fat reserves help by providing more nutritious breast milk, or during the development of the fetus.

Here's a hypothesis: Muscle takes a lot of energy to maintain. No doubt our ancestors had to suffer through periodic food shortages. During such a shortage, it might still be worthwhile -- in terms of costs and benefits -- for a man to have a lot of muscle since it will help him in hunting and in contests with other men.

For a woman, that extra muscle might not be so helpful during a food shortage. She might be better off just having a relationship with a man who has extra muscle.

Males indeed often impose their will on others. Here is example of a male.

http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dog-chicken-sex.jpg

Joke or not, it is real.

That "role reversal couple" thing seems like a bunch of BS. Just seems like yet another NYTimes article misrepresenting and exaggerating anecdotes to make generalized claims.

From a recent article from CNN about Japan:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/05/japan.herbivore.men/index.html

"Midori Saida, a 24-year-old woman sporting oversized aviators and her dyed brown hair in long ringlets, said "herbivore men" were "flaky and weak."

"We like manly men," she said. "We are not interested in those boys -- at all.""

As usual, a paralel to our closest relatives, the big primates, helps a lot. Inteligence and strength seem to be inversily correlated. Chimps are much, much stronger than human beings, but obviously less intelligent. It seems that in order to compensate for the higher energy expenditure of the brain the muscles became weaker in humans. Thus it comes as no surprise that the less evolved blacks have a smaller brain and more strength than the more evolved east asians. Generaly speaking, the homo sapiens is a weak mammal, but seems to compensate for it with its high IQ, tool making ability and high endurance.
In mammals, sexual diphormism is higly correlated with polygamy. For examples, gorillas and sea elephants present huge sexual diphormism. The male is three to four times larger than the female, and only a few males monopolize a harem, the biggest and most powerful of them all. However, these big males have lower life spans than the females, it´s obvious that a huge size plus the muscularity puts a lot of aditional stress on the whole organism. The homo sapiens male and female are very homogenous compared to other primates, which indicates that the species is relatively monogamous. That's why plus high male parental investment means that the natural sexual preference of the homo sapiens male is the young teen females with huge reproductive potential. It's not surprising that women are smaller, less inteligent and weaker than men. A woman's main biological purpose is to reproduce and have children, therefore all these biological traits take a second role in order to allow a woman to better reproduce. Now, Half Sigma asked why the standard deviation in muscularity is higher than the deviation of height or intelligence. My guess is that muscles are relatively easy for an organism to create, whereas bigger differences in intelligence or height are more difficult to achieve because it would need bigger fundamental changes in the body.

But statistically speaking, a woman’s boyfriend or husband is far more likely to beat her up than anyone else.

Was our nuclear deterrent useless just because we never used them after WWII?

A large man on a woman's arm is as effective as a pistol on her hip. The predator will look for someone else, a lone female, or perhaps one escorted by a girly man.

"In mammals, sexual diphormism is highly correlated with polygamy. ... The homo sapiens male and female are very homogenous compared to other primates, which indicates that the species is _relatively_ monogamous."

My emphasis added on _relatively_. Gannon beat me to this, then went off the rails later. The moderate dimorphism humans have is itself a strong argument for a genetic history of polygyny, but less pronounced than in many other species. The utility of "game," as well as evo-devo theories of alpha-beta-omega behavior in humans, support that argument.

I think we are very roughly balanced between the capacity for either monogamy or polygyny, and the choice comes down to cultural mores and incentives.

A woman who engages in diligent weight training can be about as strong as a typical untrained man, though she won't compare to a man who weight trains. The gender gap also tends to be significantly greater with respect to upper-body strength as compared to lower.

--

"A man of average strength may never encounter a woman who is stronger than him, unless he happens to bump into a female bodybuilder who cheats by taking anabolic steroids (drugs that reproduce the muscle-building effect of testosterone but are supposed to have fewer masculinizing side effects)."

Actually, 'roids can have msculinizing side effects in women, one of which effects is almost too gross to mention, but trust me, it's awful.

--

"The ideal body type for women is to be skinny which gives off the appearance of weakness. The higher up the social class ladder you go, the more emphasis women will place on being thin."

You can't really blame women for thinking that way. Most men don't find overly muscular women to be attractive and sexy.

Obviously, I'm not "most men."

--

"Do big muscles lower one’s life expectancy? The least muscular race, Asians, have the longest life expectancy, and the most muscular race, blacks, have the shortest life expectancy."

The idea that blacks are the most muscular race is a popular blogosphere meme, but it really has little basis in fact. What's more likely is that because non-obese black men tend to have relatively low bodyfat percentages, their muscularity is more apparent.

"A woman who engages in diligent weight training can be about as strong as a typical untrained man, though she won't compare to a man who weight trains"

I'm pretty much skeptical of this. I'm willing to concede that a woman who is naturally very strong AND who trains might end up as strong as a typical man. But an average woman? I doubt it.

"The idea that blacks are the most muscular race is a popular blogosphere meme, but it really has little basis in fact"

I'm not sure what the blogosphere says, but I agree that whites are naturally stronger than blacks. The easy way to see it is by looking at the extreme tails of the distribution. Look at Olympic sports which require great strength, such as weight lifting, shot putting, discus, and so on.

All of the top performers are white or at least caucasian.

If you wanted to determine the strength difference you would first need to decide whether you're talking about whole-body strength or just upper body strength. As I recall they studied this at West Point - given equal amounts of weight training, how strong will a man and a woman of the same size be? And the ratio for upper body strength ended up being 3:1, but for legs and stomach it was much less.
As for evolutionary reasons... yes, muscle is expensive.

'a woman who is naturally very strong AND who trains might end up as strong as a typical man'

Well, there is the problem of the size difference. I expect that an average woman who strength trains could match the upper body strength and greatly exceed the lower-body strength of a (non-training) man *of the same size*. But the typical woman is quite a bit smaller than the typical man to start with, and that really raises the bar.

"I'm not sure what the blogosphere says, but I agree that whites are naturally stronger than blacks. The easy way to see it is by looking at the extreme tails of the distribution. Look at Olympic sports which require great strength, such as weight lifting, shot putting, discus, and so on."

No I don't think this is true at all. Rushton (who deserves a Nobel prize) reports that when it comes to the salience of muscularity, buttocks, and breasts, Orientals have the least and blacks have the most. Of course salience of muscles is not exactly the same thing as strength but I would expect them to be related.

With respect to whites dominating high strength Olympic sports, I assume this is because white men can't hack it in lucrative sports like boxing, football and basketball and are forced to invest all their effort in these B list sports like weight lifting and shot put. In addition, blacks tend not to have the money to get expensive weight lifting equipment and gym memberships and instead tend to instead dominate the sports that require minimum financial resources to get good at.

[HS: I don't agree with a lot of what "Linda" says, but I think that he/she is spot on here.]

"Women would be a lot safer partnered with a weak man who couldn’t beat her up."

I don't think so.

Even a weak man is still most likey strong enough to beat-up his partner. The problem is that while still a danger to her, he is too weak to protect her from other men.


“strong men make me feel safe” is pretty honest: there's no assertion of actual safety.

Men are stronger than women b/c of sexual selection.

Perhaps this goes hand in hand with the observation that humans likely evolved as a polygynous species, but it seems clear that part of the species' evolution also involved inter-group competition (early warfare) and the spreading of genetic material via forcible sex. The male/female strength difference ensured that males could spread their genes whether they had been "selected" by a female or not.

Also, do women find highly muscular men very attractive? I've heard that the female preference is for a lean, defined male physique rather than massive bulk. Everyone knows the famous 36-24-36 ratio for women, I wonder if there is a similar ideal measurement for men?

It seems that(in the US) weightlifting is more common among blacks than whites:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/07/race-and-physical-activity.html
(...)
more black than white young men in the U.S. report engaging in weight-lifting (44.5% vs. 30.7%) and calisthenics (41.9% vs. 28.9%) [1]
(...)

[1] Dowda et al. Correlates of physical activity among U.S. Young adults, 18 to 30 years of age, from NHANES III. Annals of Behavioral Medicine Volume 26, Number 1 / August, 2003

Very few of those weightlifting blacks make it into the NFL or NBA. Do they just not bother to compete in non-money sports like powerlifting?

P.S. fancy machines won't make you any stronger than a cheap set of free weights, a power rack and a bench

"I assume this is because white men can't hack it in lucrative sports like boxing, football and basketball"

That's just as silly as the arguments for why whites can't sprint at the same level as top black sprinters.

Plenty of white men go into boxing, football, and basketball. And in football, where there are positions which emphasize great physical strength, plenty of whites succeed at the highest levels in such positions.

Take a look at a typical top NCAA track team. The sprints are dominated by blacks and the throwing events are dominated by whites. You think some subtle cultural pressure is causing coaches to channel the blacks into sprinting and the whites into throwing? Or maybe it's just a result of people doing what they do best.

Here's what John Entine said:

"Whites of Eurasian ancestry, who have, on average, more natural upper-body strength, predictably dominate weightlifting, wrestling and all field events, such as the shot-put and hammer (whites hold 46 of the top 50 throws). Evolutionary forces in this northern clime have shaped a population with a mesomorphic body type - large and muscular, particularly in the upper body, with relatively short arms and legs and thick torsos. These proportions tend to be an advantage, particularly in sports in which strength rather than speed is at a premium. "

Perhaps women are smaller in order to inspire men to protect them.

"Very few of those weightlifting blacks make it into the NFL or NBA. Do they just not bother to compete in non-money sports like powerlifting? "

I doubt it. I'm extremely skeptical of these "subtle cultural pressure" arguments. Plenty of people do what they do best, and the best people rise.

If the United States had some huge untapped resource of black people who could kick ass at the olympic javelin throw or shot put, you can bet they would have been recruited by now.

"salience of muscularity"

I'm not sure what the relationship is. If you look at olympic weightlifters, those guys have normal body fat of 12 or 13 percent. Their muscles are not extraordinarily salient.

Anyway, the fact is that whites are stronger than blacks in terms of absolute strength. I realize this goes against the Rushton idea that whites fall in the middle of asians and blacks, but theories must always yield to evidence.

"With respect to whites dominating high strength Olympic sports, I assume this is because white men can't hack it in lucrative sports like boxing, football and basketball and are forced to invest all their effort in these B list sports like weight lifting and shot put."

In part that's true (one point is that boxing is not lucrative except for a very few), another factor is that blacks are less likely to be able to afford to participate in sports that don't offer financial rewards - especially given the cost of training.

--

"Also, do women find highly muscular men very attractive? I've heard that the female preference is for a lean, defined male physique rather than massive bulk."

I've heard much the same. It's not just because they find the look distasteful, it's also that men who are into serious muscle-building tend to be a bit, ahem, narcissistic.

--

"more black than white young men in the U.S. report engaging in weight-lifting (44.5% vs. 30.7%) and calisthenics (41.9% vs. 28.9%)"

In part it might be because black men are more likely to participate in competitive sports, and engage in weight lifting as part of their training regimens.

There's no such thing as a cheap set of free weights. If you want to get really strong you need to constantly increase the amount of weight you lift so one cheap set wont cut it. Further, blacks can't afford the all the high protein diets, nutritional supplements, fitness magazines (a lot of knowledge is required), and personal trainers that are all but essential to maximizing ones potential as a weight lifter.

Sexual division of labor, I suspect. Building muscle and building babies both take a lot of energy. It's more efficient for each sex to specialize in one of the two.

"Plenty of people do what they do best, and the best people rise."

True and that's why blacks rise to the lucrative sports. Weight lifting is only for men who lack the speed, physical coordination, and height to compete in a real sport. Why would blacks bother with it when they have their pick of any sport? If you're a white man however, you know you will never have the speed and coordination to compete with blacks, so it makes sense to invest all your time lifting weights.

"Evolutionary forces in this northern clime have shaped a population with a mesomorphic body type - large and muscular, particularly in the upper body, with relatively short arms and legs and thick torsos."

John Entine is a journalist so I'm not sure why you quote him as an expert on anthropology. And if his theory is correct, then Inuits and East Asians should be the strongest peoples since they were most exposed to a cold climate.

Meanwhile, a scholarly study claims blacks have the most muscle:

"Ethn Health 1996 Dec;1(4):337-47

Ethnic differences in body composition and their relation to health and disease in women.

Gasperino J.

Differences in body composition between black and white women have been well established. Black women have more bone and muscle mass,
but less fat, as a percentage of body weight, than white women, after controlling for ethnic differences in age, body weight, and height.
In addition, black women have more upper-body fat than white women. These ethnic differences in body composition appear to be associated
with disease risk in women. The greater skeletal and muscle mass in black compared to white women appears to protect them from osteoporosis."

"Sexual division of labor, I suspect. Building muscle and building babies both take a lot of energy. It's more efficient for each sex to specialize in one of the two."

True. And there's no reason for women to be strong. Women were taking care of the children; it was the men who had to fight when the tribe gets attacked by a rival tribe. It would be absolutely ridiculous for women to join in on these tribal wars when they had tiny babies in their arms. Much better for the women and children to hide while the men defended the tribe from attack.

"There must be something negative for women about being strong."

The something negative is that a muscular body requires more food to sustain and it takes more time, energy and effort to get that food. And seeing as women did not hunt or fight, the advantage of being strong was not enough to negate the burden of needing more food. But in both men and women, muscle mass began to decline as we evolved from monkeys to humans as earlier hominoids were short and robust and more advanced forms were tall and gracile. I think there was an evolutionary trade off between height and muscle mass. Notice how the short and muscular neandertals were no match for the tall and scrawny modern humans.

"There's no such thing as a cheap set of free weights."

300-lb olympic sets go for about $400 on Ebay and
45-lb plates cost about $50. You can easily build your own power rack cheaply. But the real point is that SWPL gyms with a plethora of machines are unnecessary.

But, unfortunately, powerlifting gyms seem to be dying out.

"another factor is that blacks are less likely to be able to afford to participate in sports that don't offer financial rewards"

Track and field offers very little in financial rewards compared to sports like basketball. And yet plenty of blacks in America compete and dominate the short distance events.

While at the same time, those same blacks (with their supposedly superior strength) don't dominate the throwing events like javelin, discus, and shot put.

FWIW, in Boxing 16 of the 20 champions from middleweight through heavyweight are now white. The heavyweight division is completely dominated by Russians and Ukrainians.

More blacks opting for the NBA and NFL or nothing.

"...fitness magazines (a lot of knowledge is required)"

Just about all the info you need is online. Especially at: http://www.tmuscle.com/index.jsp

On the cheapness of free weights: I just found an olympic bar and 730 lbs of weights for $400 in the NYC area via craigslist.

"There's no such thing as a cheap set of free weights. If you want to get really strong you need to constantly increase the amount of weight you lift so one cheap set wont cut it.

Further, blacks can't afford the all the high protein diets, nutritional supplements, fitness magazines (a lot of knowledge is required)"

It doesn't cost a lot to join a gym. Just go by any urban gym some time. Unlike a golf club or tennis club, you will see there are plenty of black people who pursue weightlifting.

" personal trainers that are all but essential to maximizing ones potential as a weight lifter."

At the upper end of the sport, there are probably a lot of personal trainers. But as with anything, sponsorship is available to people who show a lot of talent.

As noted before, if blacks were really stronger than whites, you would expect the United States to have a huge untapped pool of bulky black guys, some of whom could be world class power lifters. Coaches would not hesitate to recruit such folks.

In any event, the disparity is even starker when you look at sports like track & field where some events emphasize physical strength and other positions emphasize sprinting ability.

In track and field, blacks dominate the sprints and whites dominate the throwing events. There really is no reasonable explantion for disparity besides natural ability.

"True and that's why blacks rise to the lucrative sports"

In your view, is track and field a lucrative sport?

"Why would blacks bother with it when they have their pick of any sport?"

Why do blacks bother with NCAA sprinting?

"300-lb olympic sets go for about $400 on Ebay and
45-lb plates cost about $50."

How is $400 cheap for the poor? That's a months rent for a lot of people.

"As noted before, if blacks were really stronger than whites, you would expect the United States to have a huge untapped pool of bulky black guys, some of whom could be world class power lifters. Coaches would not hesitate to recruit such folks."

Not true. Many coaches are racist and have no interest in working with blacks. Further, many of these bulky blacks don't develop their muscles and instead just become fat. Also, many of the bulky blacks end up in gangs and in jail or dead in their twenties, making it difficult for coaches to recruit them. Lastly, blacks who are interested in sports will not choose weight lifting because it's not valued by American culture compared to other sports.

Keep in mind that for the longest time it was assumed that blacks were physically inferior in all sports. It wasn't until the early 20th century that America discovered blacks had a talent for boxing when Jack Johnson became the heavy weight champion and there was every effort to destroy him, as there often is when blacks become too successful.

'Weight lifting is only for men who lack the speed, physical coordination, and height to compete in a real sport. Why would blacks bother with it when they have their pick of any sport?'

I believe someone already posted data showing that blacks do, in fact, lift weights to a significant degree. But the 'top 50' data mentioned is actually more salient. Even if a lot of blacks were getting pulled in to more lucrative opportunities, we would still expect some remnant to show up on this chart if they had a natural advantage.

'If you're a white man however, you know you will never have the speed and coordination to compete with blacks, so it makes sense to invest all your time lifting weights.'

Unclear. Wouldn't it make even more sense to (say) become a doctor? I guess my point is, you can't explain participation in some competitive area *merely* by noting that these guys aren't competitive in some set of other areas. The question of why they chose weightlifting, rather than cricket or kayaking or tournament backgammon, remains.

'And if his theory is correct, then Inuits and East Asians should be the strongest peoples since they were most exposed to a cold climate.'

Entine doesn't claim simple 'cold->muscularity' as you seem to impute. He merely says that some evolutionary forces in this northern area made people more muscular.

'Meanwhile, a scholarly study claims blacks have the most muscle:'

This study pertains to women. It's probably of very limited relevance to which men would be strongest.

"Many coaches are racist and have no interest in working with blacks."

But most just want to win and will do just about anything to get the best people on the team.

Anyway, you never answered my simple questions from before:

(1) In your view, is track and field a lucrative sport?

(2) Why do blacks bother with NCAA sprinting?

"Why do blacks bother with NCAA sprinting?"

Because it is no bother. It requires no special equipment, no in depth knowledge of physiology, no nutritional supplements, and people can very rapidly reach their potential in this very simple straight forward activity.

"In track and field, blacks dominate the sprints and whites dominate the throwing events."

That's because running is a universal sport which people from every culture have access to so achievement in this domain reflects natural ability. Throwing by contrast requires specific equipment, specific games that only some cultures engage in. To say whites are stronger because they excell in very specific sports that require strength is like saying that Russians were the smartest because they were the best in chess. Only a tiny subset of the world invests in the years of complex training needed to become a great chess champion, weight lifter, or olympic thrower. By contrast, everyone can easily get practice running.

"This study pertains to women. It's probably of very limited relevance to which men would be strongest."

So rather than just admitting that blacks are stronger than whites, you're now arguing for a race X sex interaction. This violates Occam’s razor. It’s also contradicted by studies showing that the superior black muscle mass exists in males too:

“Using anthropometry, 40K counting, and specific gravity measurements, Hampton et al (32) examined the body composition of a racially mixed group of teenagers. These researchers noted that the LBM of black boys was higher when measured by 40K counting and specific gravity than by anthropometry. They concluded that black males might have a greater and denser muscle mass.”

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1392

"Entine doesn't claim simple 'cold->muscularity' as you seem to impute. He merely says that some evolutionary forces in this northern area made people more muscular."

What evolutionary forces does he have in mind, and if they affected whites, shouldn't they also have affected Arctic people and East Asians. If you can't answer these questions, then the theory is empty.

"Throwing by contrast requires specific equipment, specific games that only some cultures engage in."

You might have a point if we were arguing about bobsledding or ski jumping.

But in America, every high school track team has a javelin thrower. Further, outside of high school, white kids don't hang around throwing spears around in large numbers.

"It requires no special equipment"

That's nonsense. NCAA sprinting requires special track shoes and starting blocks. Further, the better sprinters require a gym to work out in.

Of course, NCAA javelin throwing requires a javelin; special shoes; and a gym.

Doesn't seem like a huge difference to me.

Linda, you are full of s**t. Black people train a lot with weights and they are actually more succesfull than whites in bodybuilding. The thing is that there are different kinds of mucle tissues in everyone of us and West-African blacks have naturally more of that fast muscle.
It is very risky to start a career in boxing. Novadays very few whites in West even try.
High testosterone lowers you resistance to diseases. Otherwise human men would be huge.
I personally know a bodybuilder who almost died on pneumonia when he was 25. He was several months in hospital and he just couldn`t recover normally. Now half of his lungs are useless.

"The heavyweight [boxing] division is completely dominated by Russians and Ukrainians."

The top ten heavyweights, according to the authoritative boxrec.com, include two Ukranians (brothers), two Russians, a half-Russian/half-Uzbek Muslim, a British mulatto, a black American, a black Cuban, a Nigerian, and a mostly Caucasian Puerto Rican.

--

[personal trainers that are all but essential to maximizing ones potential as a weight lifter]

"At the upper end of the sport, there are probably a lot of personal trainers. But as with anything, sponsorship is available to people who show a lot of talent."

Competing in power lifting (bench press, deadlift and squat) does not require a trainer. At most, a few sessions with a trainer when starting out might help with one's form, especially for squats.

Competing in Olympic-style weightlifting (clean & jerk, and snatch) generally does require the services of a coach or qualified trainer for a longer period of time, as these lifts are technically very complex.

"Black people train a lot with weights and they are actually more succesfull than whites in bodybuilding. "

That doesn't surprise me, since I regularly see black men who look strong in the sense that their muscles are "cut" looking. I guess that means the same as "salient."

But among the men I see who are just freaking big and strong, I see a lot more whites. For example, this man:

http://www.athletics.com.au/freestyler/files/generated/S_Rendell_@_03_World_Champs_(hr)_457cee7daf672_w430.jpg

Or this man:

http://www.arnoldsstrongestman.com/zydrunasFlag.jpg

Linda makes some stunningly bad points given the good ones she makes.

So running is natural but throwing, boxing and wrestling are unnatural? Running requires no training or equipment, but throwing, boxing and wrestling are prohibitively expensive in these terms? You know original olympic events arose out of the most natural and fundamental competition men engaged in, often for battle?

The vast majority of black sprinters happily compete in anonymity while avoding white track and field events because these events are not sexy? These overqualified blacks would rather opt out of athletics for accounting or government work rather than become natioanlly-sponsored, international and olympic champions in something unsexy?

Of course you see more freaking strong white men because whites outnumber blacks in America by like six to one, and caucasoids outnumber negroids worldwide by a large margin. But it's rare that I see a white at the level of this black man:

http://images.chron.com/blogs/fighting/BobbyLashley.jpg

Well this guy is 3 inches taller than and he weights over hunder pounds (maybe even 150 pounds) more than Lashley. Bobby maybe looks tighter, but part of that look comes from his darker skin tone. Greg Kovacs

Here is the plain url. I don`t know why the link didn`t seem to come to my former post. http://www.musclebearz.com/images/snapsh313.jpg

"Here is the plain url. I don`t know why the link didn`t seem to come to my former post. http://www.musclebearz.com/images/snapsh313.jpg"

Uh. Glasses and muscles don't mix. You can be smart or muscular. But you should never be both. His head looks too smart for his body.

"Of course you see more freaking strong white men because "

Umm, I meant disproportionately more. Duh.

"Linda makes some stunningly bad points given the good ones she makes."

Agreed. In my opinion the worst one (which she seems to have abandoned was the "racist coach" hypothesis.

i.e. that "racist coaches" don't want anything to do with blacks so they won't let blacks throw javelins. And yet those same coaches can tolerate black sprinters, hurdlers, and long jumpers.

Linda, Sapp ain`t bigger than kovacs.
Kovacs had contest weight 355 pounds where his fat percentage was around 5-8%. And he looked like this http://www.sportowiec.org/wp-content/uploads/image/Kulturystyka/Greg%20Kovacs%20e2.jpg
Now Sapp weights 322 pounds and his fat percentage is his last fight was more like 14-20 than below 10. He might have weighted as muchs as kovacs before, but then he had big love handles. Kovacs weights over 400 pounds off season.


"The top ten heavyweights, according to the authoritative boxrec.com, include two Ukranians (brothers), two Russians, a half-Russian/half-Uzbek Muslim, a British mulatto, a black American, a black Cuban, a Nigerian, and a mostly Caucasian Puerto Rican."

All four versions of the heavyweight title are held by a Russian and two Ukrainians(the brothers). That's as close as you can come to an objective evaluation.

I've provided two scholarly studies (one on males, one on females) showing blacks have more muscle mass than whites and you guys have provided no studies showing the reverse. As for photos of super sized breaks, here's another black one:

http://www.steroidtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/260_NewsPGMPHov.jpg

[HS: Uh, I'm not sure if that's real or photoshopped.]

Linda, I didn`t see you giving references to natural muscularity between white and black men. It`s not a suprise that black women are naturally more muscular, white and asian women would be too if they had trationally done most of the physical work for their men.
It might be true that blacks are on average better athletes, but I disagree that basketball and american football or boxing are the best sports. They all demand more physical freakiness than skill, but the majority of the cultures prefer the latter. This is why soccer is so popular *through the world*. Many people who hate soccer but like some other more rougher sport complain that it`s unnatural and too difficult to move the ball with your feets. Duh, that`s the whole point why the hands are not used - it`s too easy. For a majority of the sport fans a true sport is supposed to be techically difficult to master. Most cultures don`t fetish freakiness in the expense of skill.
The lack of techical diffulty is a major thing why track and field events are not popular. The athletic performances are dull.

The comments to this entry are closed.