White muscle is denser, pound for pound, than black muscle. You don’t see blacks winning weightlifting competitions for a reason.
Do you see many Asians doing the same?
Do you see many Asians doing the same?
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
19 comments:
Yeah black people tend to store more glycogen in their muscles (for speed and power) which is why it looks "fuller" but white muscle is denser and tends to have more contractile fibers.
East asians and whites both have superior strength genetics because of evolution in cold environments. The problem that most east asians have had historically is a diet completely lacking protein and fat, though nowadays they're bucking the trend a bit. Turkic people and Mongolians show the potential that east asians actually have genetically. East asians and whites also have the slowest metabolisms. Northern Chinese people are starting to get quite large nowadays because of better nutrition than they have had since they discovered agriculture, but not all asians have the same height genes as Han chinese or turkics, who stand out in that regard. All northeastern asians are prone to gain weight and muscle quite easily, like whites, however. Provided they have a diet that consists of at least something other than rice, bread, or noodles.
You're being ridiculous and speaking out of your ass with no facts.
> East asians and whites both have superior strength genetics because of evolution in cold environments.
Utterly ridiculous claim.
The time frame is way too short for evolution to do anything.
The entire concept of evolution is ridiculous.
> The problem that most east asians have had historically is a diet completely lacking protein and fat
False. They have always had access to as much fat and protein as they want to eat. Starvation periods did exist, same as for Europe. But they have always been wealthy enough to eat meat and grow strong soldiers and warriors and nobility.
> Turkic people and Mongolians show the potential that east asians actually have genetically.
The only reason they matter to the NE asians is because they raped almost their entire population when they were conquered.
That said, the pure-blooded Koreans, Japanese and Chinese simply don't compare to them. They don't look anything alike.
If you think that those 4 races share any genetic history you're crazy. There is a small possibility that ONE branch of the Japanese are actually Koreans, but the evidence isn't very significant. The Han Chinese have NOTHING to do with the other three either.
> whites
You have to be VERY specific by what you mean by "white" in this context.
It sounds like you are talking about Northern Europeans, the descendants of the ancient Germanic tribes.
You probably aren't talking about the Greeks or Romans or the Basque.
Or maybe you wanted to include others like the Ainu?
> East asians and whites both have superior strength genetics because of evolution in cold environments.
Utterly ridiculous claim.
The time frame is way too short for evolution to do anything.
The entire concept of evolution is ridiculous.
> The problem that most east asians have had historically is a diet completely lacking protein and fat
False. They have always had access to as much fat and protein as they want to eat. Starvation periods did exist, same as for Europe. But they have always been wealthy enough to eat meat and grow strong soldiers and warriors and nobility.
> Turkic people and Mongolians show the potential that east asians actually have genetically.
The only reason they matter to the NE asians is because they raped almost their entire population when they were conquered.
That said, the pure-blooded Koreans, Japanese and Chinese simply don't compare to them. They don't look anything alike.
If you think that those 4 races share any genetic history you're crazy. There is a small possibility that ONE branch of the Japanese are actually Koreans, but the evidence isn't very significant. The Han Chinese have NOTHING to do with the other three either.
> whites
You have to be VERY specific by what you mean by "white" in this context.
It sounds like you are talking about Northern Europeans, the descendants of the ancient Germanic tribes.
You probably aren't talking about the Greeks or Romans or the Basque.
Or maybe you wanted to include others like the Ainu?
>Turkic people and Mongolians show the potential that east asians actually have genetically.
Is that why Turkic tribes took over Anatolia so easily, because anatolians were a farming based society?
Is that why Turkic tribes took over Anatolia so easily, because anatolians were a farming based society?
Well, they didn't take it over very easily at all. They made repeated incursions over several hundred years. Keep in mind that the anatolians themselves came from a warrior culture and that their warriors were given plenty of good food and they had plenty of their own martial prowess. And also by the time they actually took all of Anatolia, the ottomans themselves would have largely been barely any different from an anatolian, they had absorbed an overwhelming amount of gene flow from the native population, plus the fact that they were already half white to begin with. It's why the turks barely even qualify as a turkic group besides the fact that they speak a turkic language.
What was the genetic breakdown of these Anatolians?
Are Anatolians their own race?
Are Anatolians their own race?
Anatolians are one of the oldest distinct indo european cultures. They were originally a mixture of indo european people with anatolian farmers (the same as every other european group). In pre history they were the hittites, the medes, and the Lydians. Lydia was taken over by the Persians, which was then taken over by the Greeks, who were taken over by Rome. Rome split in 2, and eastern Rome was beaten by the ottomans. Anatolia wasn't an independent land for a very long time until after ww1, but it maintained a degree of autonomy in every empire it ended up in (and it had control in the ottoman empire), plus a degree of safety, so it was advantageous overall for them to not be independent.
The anatolians were and were not their own race. A majority of their dna is still from the native inhabitants, but there is a mixture with other closely related people like the Greeks and Persians. The anatolians who fought the ottomans would be culturally greek, but ethnically distinct from Greece
The anatolians were and were not their own race. A majority of their dna is still from the native inhabitants, but there is a mixture with other closely related people like the Greeks and Persians. The anatolians who fought the ottomans would be culturally greek, but ethnically distinct from Greece
I am quite confused about Anatolians being indo-european because I remember there being 2 kinds: Anatolian farmers (Neolithic, ~7000–4000 BCE) and Indo-European Anatolians (Bronze Age, after ~2000 BCE) who were the Hittites, Luwians, and related peoples. I feel people use these interchangeably and it causes some confusion.
The MONGOLIANS destroyed NE Asia (and the rest of the world, until Western Europe) for many reasons.
Among the many reasons they conquered the world "Mongolians are naturally stronger and faster than everyone else" is not one of them.
I'll list some reasons why the Mongolians were very successful in their conquest.
1. They were united in a common cause. Normally, the mongolians behaved like disunited tribes, but that all changed with their new leader.
2. They fought in a unique way that civilizations had never encountered before. They didn't use heavy infantry and they were expert at using harassment techniques to wear down the enemy, as well as lure them into traps and fighting on unfavorable terrain.
3. They used their speed (mounted troops) to their advantage and did not get bogged down in extended sieges. (They'd burn a city down rather than try to take it.) Imagine Blitzkrieg but in the middle ages. How do you stop an army that moves faster than your messengers? How do you pin an army down in pitched battle when they don't want to fight your heavy infantry at all?
4. They didn't need a supply chain to keep them fed and clothed as they were very independent and able to scavenge everything they needed.
5. If people submitted to their rule they were treated really well, almost like equals. In many cases, it was better to live under Mongolian rule than the local rulers, because you got lower taxes and greater freedom and wealth. So oftentimes people would just let them take the city rather than fight them.
Among the many reasons they conquered the world "Mongolians are naturally stronger and faster than everyone else" is not one of them.
I'll list some reasons why the Mongolians were very successful in their conquest.
1. They were united in a common cause. Normally, the mongolians behaved like disunited tribes, but that all changed with their new leader.
2. They fought in a unique way that civilizations had never encountered before. They didn't use heavy infantry and they were expert at using harassment techniques to wear down the enemy, as well as lure them into traps and fighting on unfavorable terrain.
3. They used their speed (mounted troops) to their advantage and did not get bogged down in extended sieges. (They'd burn a city down rather than try to take it.) Imagine Blitzkrieg but in the middle ages. How do you stop an army that moves faster than your messengers? How do you pin an army down in pitched battle when they don't want to fight your heavy infantry at all?
4. They didn't need a supply chain to keep them fed and clothed as they were very independent and able to scavenge everything they needed.
5. If people submitted to their rule they were treated really well, almost like equals. In many cases, it was better to live under Mongolian rule than the local rulers, because you got lower taxes and greater freedom and wealth. So oftentimes people would just let them take the city rather than fight them.
I can speak for Koreans.
The short answer is no.
There is a certain body type in Korea that seems like they'd be really big and strong but they are not that big and strong, especially compared to northern Europeans.
As far as I know none of the Japanese or Chinese compare to the Koreans well. Koreans are about as big and strong as they get.
The short answer is no.
There is a certain body type in Korea that seems like they'd be really big and strong but they are not that big and strong, especially compared to northern Europeans.
As far as I know none of the Japanese or Chinese compare to the Koreans well. Koreans are about as big and strong as they get.
Toast message
jeets are weak.