Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I don’t know why everyone is so worked up. There are statistics that’s how differences in lots of areas for different races, ethnicities, etc. People from west Africa, or of west African origin, have more fast twitch muscles overall so they would have a better ability to build muscle. I believe I’ve read that East African and Middle Eastern people have poor genetics overall for building muscle. And this is just about muscle building. I mean, there’s tons of differences like average IQ or height. You can think of a million things. And if you think it’s racist to acknowledge differences, you’re probably on the lower end of the intellectual spectrum.
I don’t know why everyone is so worked up. There are statistics that’s how differences in lots of areas for different races, ethnicities, etc. People from west Africa, or of west African origin, have more fast twitch muscles overall so they would have a better ability to build muscle. I believe I’ve read that East African and Middle Eastern people have poor genetics overall for building muscle. And this is just about muscle building. I mean, there’s tons of differences like average IQ or height. You can think of a million things. And if you think it’s racist to acknowledge differences, you’re probably on the lower end of the intellectual spectrum.
The usual strawman: criticizing the racial approach = pretending that differences don't exist. I already said why this approach has been abandonned by the vast majority of the scientific community. And no it's not the product of a political agenda, actually clinging to it is the political stance. And you've given an exemple yourself as to why the racial approach is flawed: where does a race starts and ends? You mention differences between West Africans and East Africans, so are they two different races? How about Zulus in South Africa, Pygmies and other ethnies in Africa, all different races? So if your mother is from Sudan and your father from Senegal you're mixed race? Race is too generic and vague to encompass the complexity of human diversity. For instance, the majority of "African" Americans have white ancesters in their family tree, and their African ancesters come from regions with a high degree of intermingling between ethnies. Are Scandinavians, Slavic, Western and Mediterranean European different races? Are Mediterranian Europeans closer to North Africans or Scandinavians? Science has departed from the racial approach not because differences don't exist but because it fails to produce a consistent model that can accurately describe and encompass human diversity. TLDR: race is too simple and inaccurate of an approach, as a term race may work in casual conversations for convenience's sake but it quickly shows its limits when a deeper understanding is desired.
Now to get back to the opening post. The height between white women can vary a lot between regions. randomdude123 mentionned Scandinavians which are noticeably taller than the average Spanish women for instance. So, could most women from India have a genetic disadvantage for building muscles? Maybe, but it's hard to tell. Because that's just one factor (that not even all Indian women may share), unlike height that you have absolutely no control over you can inluence the developement of your muscles, and the number of parameters to have an influence beyond plain genetics is quite large. A lot of Indian men exhibit the "skinny fat" body type, which could be genetic, but Indian bodybuilders are proof that it can be overcome.
I’ve read that East African and Middle Eastern people have poor genetics overall for building muscle.
It's not like we've ever had a Middle Eastern Mr. Olympia... Oh, wait! Iranian native Hadi Choopan, known by his nickname "The Persian Wolf", became Mr. Olympia in 2022. Particularly impressive because they've got a relatively small bodybuilding community.
I've noticed that a rather large percentage of black women (provided they're not overweight) have at least some visible muscle.
Part of that has to do with the fact that light on dark skin makes the muscle “pop”, it’s the same reason even pale bodybuilders get dark tans and stage lights are so bright. Also given that academic pursuits and “nerdy” hobbies are gatekept away from most black people in the US, sports are one of the only paths to economic success whether it be professional sports or to get a scholarship for college.
But ultimately really fit women are almost exclusively upper middle class and higher and in the developed world, there’s a reason why white people are only 8% of the world’s population but the overwhelming majority of women on this site. The only outlier seems to be Brazil where fitness is so trendy, even then it’s not like you see a bunch of mass monsters from the favelas or anything.
The average woman in Sweden is 5'7 147 lbs, while the average woman in India is 5' and 121 lbs. If genetics didn't matter then we would all look the same, including our skin, hair, and eyes. But that's obviously not the case, so yes genetics matter.
Genetics matter, and they play a role, which is why there is a continual “nature/nurture“ debate.
There’s an old saying that goes: “genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.“
In terms of bodybuilding, a person can be blessed with incredible individual genetics for muscle development, but if that person comes from a culture that discourages or sanctions the diet and exercise needed to maintain a muscular physique, the likelihood is much higher the person would just appear fat.
But ultimately really fit women are almost exclusively upper middle class and higher and in the developed world, there’s a reason why white people are only 8% of the world’s population but the overwhelming majority of women on this site. The only outlier seems to be Brazil where fitness is so trendy, even then it’s not like you see a bunch of mass monsters from the favelas or anything.
And as a part of environment, only ochodabit has addressed resources. Access to food, proper nutrition, and free time. These things are not a given in any culture, but they are more easily available in some areas of the world compared to others.
I think the main question posed by OP is an innocently loaded question that seeks a “nature” answer for what is essentially a “nurture“ type of result. That is, fitness/muscularity is driven by individual diet and exercise behavior, which in general is resisted or supported in varying degrees by the dominant culture.