PDA

View Full Version : Differences In Muscle Tone/Muscle Mass/Bone Density Between Races



Northern Paladin
Friday, September 9th, 2005, 05:14 PM
If I'm not mistaken Negroids have the most muscle tone/bone density followed by Caucasians and than Mongloids.

Often times Mongoloids seem somewhat physcially degenerated. With big round heads but a frail bone frame and weak muscle tone.

What factors are responsible for the differences in muscle tone/Bone Density and density between the races?

Huzar
Friday, September 9th, 2005, 11:27 PM
If I'm not mistaken Negroids have the most muscle tone/bone density followed by Caucasians and than Mongloids.

Often times Mongoloids seem somewhat physcially degenerated. With big round heads but a frail bone frame and weak muscle tone.

What factors are responsible for the differences in muscle tone/Bone Density and density between the races?



Very good, Paladin. Interesting. I think that depends more from the sub-race than the race in the complex ; European meds are rather short and gracile, but Nordids atlantids and dinarids could be very strong and heavly builded

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, September 10th, 2005, 12:14 AM
What factors are responsible for the differences in muscle tone/Bone Density and density between the races?

You are talking about gracilisation through the reduction of stress on the skeleton and muscles, so the differences are related to subsistence.

Agrippa
Saturday, September 10th, 2005, 02:26 AM
Negrids dont have GENERALLY so strong muscles anyway, especially West African Negrids have more explosive muscle power and higher hormonal levels though, but thats not really the same.
East African Negrids on the other hand, have rather long-thin muscles and are more like the Europid muscle type.

There was already a thread about that topic made, especially about the relations in sports and I have written my opinion down there.

But its true, subsistence pattern, climatic factors etc. are very important. More muscles mean usually a more energy lost, but at the same time a better heat control, together with more fat, in the cold climate = boreal types.
F.e. both Neandertalids and Tungids were/are extreme cold types with short extremities, very strong muscles and more subcutaneous fat etc. Not just because they were hunter-gatherers, but also because of the extremely cold climate.
As I said in other threads, thats the reason why strong-muscular Cromagnids dominated especially during the LGM of Europe.

Glenlivet
Saturday, September 10th, 2005, 04:23 AM
Have you noticed that there aren't many fat Somalians. Some look as if they are going to break soon. Long and narrow faces are common among them. Noses tend to be long and quite narrow. Lips are not particularly thick.

Most of the males I have seen, even younger ones, simply love to wear a 70's style jacket (with shoulder pads) which is usually a few sizes too big or it just looks that way on them ;) I get the impression the jacket will fall of their body.

These guys look as if they are going to break, all bones, little fat and muscles, and a lot of them are tall (over 6'1, approx. 186 cm). They are not mature looking either.

It is not because they are starving, especially not the ones living in Europe or USA. They would not be that tall either. They are simply skinny.

Agrippa
Saturday, September 10th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Thats a type for hot-dry regions and herder warriors = double effect = extreme. Sometimes its too extreme, but usually not if they are healthy and dont suffer from malnutrition.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005, 05:30 AM
I did some research on bone density in college (long ago) and it was usually said then that Negroes had the highest bone density. This seems to be accepted even today. The problem, even then, is occupation. Gravity and shock/stress increase bone density so if you are carrying bricks for a living, you bone density will be higher than your identical twin who works at a desk. Blacks in America were historically assigned manual labor and that factor could not be controlled in a racial study.

Every time a person receives some short of shock or impact the bone resonds by either enlarging or densifying. Sometimes it is even possible to guess a long dead person's occupation by his bones. For instance, I remember some Chinese remains which had enlarged heads of the humerus. It was said that they must have had heavy shoulders and may have done quite a bit of paddling in a canoe.

My little bone density project involved the study of heel bones, the calcaneus. We had hundres of body boxes from one Indian burial. We went into each box, sexed and aged the individual and then measured the bone density of the heel bone by finding the volume and weight and dividing. It was found that young teenage females had the hightest bone density. We though this may have been because they were active and gathering every day, hauling back vegetable material and fire wood while the young men hunted occasionally. One problem was differential minerialization which soiled our results so this conclusion is only tenative.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, December 30th, 2009, 07:37 PM
The evidence I've seen suggests that in the US, black men average similar or very slightly greater muscle mass than white men.

Multiple-regression analysis in the present study demonstrated no significant differences in the SM/ATFM [skeletal muscle / adipose tissue-free body mass] ratio among Asian, Caucasian, and Hispanic healthy groups. In contrast, African-Americans had a significantly larger SM/ATFM ratio than the other groups, although the difference was very small. According to Equation 4, for example, the mean SM/ATFM ratio is 0.524 for a 30-year-old African-American man weighing 70 kg, while the mean ratio is 0.522 for Asian, Caucasian, and Hispanic men of the same age and body weight.
[Wang et al. Muscularity in adult humans: proportion of adipose tissue-free body mass as skeletal muscle. Am J Hum Biol. 2001 Sep-Oct;13(5):612-9.]
Blacks probably carry a greater proportion of their muscle in their arms and legs (which is unsurprising considering they have relatively longer limbs), but total skeletal muscle mass is similar.

Overall, the matched Black and White men had similar fat, FFM, TBW, and TBK. Thus there were no major absolute differences in body composition between the two ethnic groups beyond that of skeletal mass.

In agreement with our findings, Schutte et al. (1984) found that Black and White males of equivalent height and weight had a similar absolute TBW. Slaughter et al. (1990) also found no significant ethnic differences in TBW adjusted for height among adolescent Black and White boys.

[. . .] Total body potassium is an indirect marker of skeletal muscle mass and results are therefore difficult to interpret. One possible explanation for the varied findings is that Black men may have more appendicular muscle and less trunk muscle than White men. According to this hypothesis, Black and White men would have different amounts of skeletal muscle in specific anatomic regions but similar amounts of total skeletal muscle.
[Gerace et al. Skeletal differences between black and white males and their relevance to body composition estimates. Am J Hum Biol 1994;6:25562.]The evidence I've seen also suggests whites tend to have greater strength per unit of muscular cross-section than blacks. (Despite the fact that black males more frequently (http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/07/race-and-physical-activity.html) report lifting weights.)

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/12/racial-differences-in-muscle-mass.html

Ocko
Wednesday, December 30th, 2009, 09:54 PM
If you only measure people who weigh 70 kg you won't find much difference.

The point which is neglected is whether there are more blacks heavier than whites or asians because they have more muscle mass.

Would be interesting whether they gain muscle mass easier than whites and asian.

rainman
Thursday, December 31st, 2009, 08:20 PM
I can say from my experience 100% yes Asians aren't built for big muscles. Then again half the body builders aren't either but they just take supplements, roids etc. to help them.

Some whites like certain Nordics are naturally very strong. Thus your strongest man contests. Most white subgroups though I'd say are below blacks in their ability to gain mass. Whites are a diverse bunch.

Blacks tend to be better at getting big and bulky- fast twitch fiber but not as toned and endurance like.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, December 31st, 2009, 08:50 PM
I have long suspected that the reason there are more mesomorph-type American negroes is that they were bred as animals for 200 years. The skinny, weak ones were no good for working in the fields, so the bulkier ones were given preference by slaveholders in impregnating females.

http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/slave_breeding_in_the_antebellum_south

rainman
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 07:19 PM
yeah I believe we already had a topic on this. Most Africans from Africa are not very strong. Many are small and weak, some are fast runners but American blacks are a lot different from African blacks. American blacks also tend to be more aggressive I guess probably because they were raised being treated like gods- an environment where white people and others fear them and they are given special rights and privledges and told to be angry. Most African blacks I've met are rather docile and somewhat sociable. Whereas American blacks are totally rude and inconsiderate of everyone else around them and quick to try to create a scene or start a fight or something (but when it comes time for fighting unless they have a weapon against an unarmed person or have 5 against 1 or something they usually back down. Mostly they just run their mouths).

Yeah definately though the physical type has been bred to be stronger. I guess though we are getting into over generalizations here. I hate to put all blacks in the same category. Most of the stronger ones I've met weight lifting and such are very friendly.

Agrippa
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010, 01:32 PM
I have long suspected that the reason there are more mesomorph-type American negroes is that they were bred as animals for 200 years. The skinny, weak ones were no good for working in the fields, so the bulkier ones were given preference by slaveholders in impregnating females.

http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/slave_breeding_in_the_antebellum_south

What this article doesnt consider are the subracial/typological differences, which are inside of the Europid and Negrid race oftentimes much larger than the racial and close to the extremes of human individual variation (!), like f.e. if comparing the Niloto-Hamits with the Bambutids.

Most of the Negrids which came from Africa were West Africans, so primarily Southern Sudanid and Palaenegrid variants, both of which are known for being rather of the "explosive" and not the "endurance" type, the later being more common for the more Europoid/Eurasian East Africans.

If you look at the sprinter vs. marathon runners, you clearly see where West Africans are predominant.

The Southern Sudanid and Northern Palaenegrid people are usually long legged, quite muscular and relatively heavier build in comparison to more Northern Sudanids, Sudano-Europids and East Africans (Aethiopoid in the widest sense).

Parallel to this differences inside of the Negroid spectrum, there are basically similar differences for the Europid people if comparing Aurignacoid (leptodolichomorphic) Europid (Nordid + Mediterranid) with Cromagnoids and their derivatives (broad faced variants like Dalofaelid and Alpinoid primarily in the USA).

Obviously the first are more rangy, more often leptomorphic build, the later broader and heavier, meso-pyknomorphic build.

Dalofaelids and Borreby/Cromagno-Alpinoid, Balto-Cromagnoid variants, Cromagnoids in general, are the heaviest builded Europids and among the heavist humans even. Looking at "World Strongest Man" and the like clearly reveals their dominance for weight lifting etc. They are very energy-intensive variants, which is why there are not as many left after the end of the last Ice Age and the shifts which took place afterwards, because in daily life their advantages are limited, but the energy intake being absolute, so only advantageous under specific circumstances, otherwise at best neutral.

The highest numbers of rather unreduced variants survived in colder but not too cold regions, which became sedentary rather late and among people which had a protein rich diet in comparison.

Obviously many bodybuilders and "World Strongest Man" cheat, but even if taking all the pills, you have a significant advantage if starting from a specific genetic variant.

There is of course more or less pathological variant for muscular types too, well known from the animal breeds as well, but even though some of these men might be affected, many others not, because its a very rare condition.

Negroids have the disadvantage for such weight lifting competitions, that they have longer-thinner legs and arms usually, which makes them more problematic with the leverage, which was one of the reasons why unergonomic work favoured non-leptomorphic variants too, because they are not meant to be carriers and lifters all the time.

huntsman
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010, 07:33 PM
The other thing this that american blacks average 12%-20% white ancestry. Actual African immigrants are immediately discernible from the African Americans.
I would argue that this hybridization actually increased size and bulk.

Catterick
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 04:17 PM
Bone density is genetically influenced but it also expresses wear and tear. A fellahin is stockier than a Bedouin for this reason and the coarsest Mediterraneans inhabited rural uplands like Plynlimmon and interior Sardinia.

Gracilisation isn't just hereditary and I suspect epigenetics can reverse human populations back to robusticity fairly quickly if its called for. The reason I say this is because feral livestock revert back to something like the wild- or pariah-types very easily.

hornedhelm
Sunday, April 17th, 2016, 06:39 PM
I can say from my experience 100% yes Asians aren't built for big muscles. Then again half the body builders aren't either but they just take supplements, roids etc. to help them.

Some whites like certain Nordics are naturally very strong. Thus your strongest man contests. Most white subgroups though I'd say are below blacks in their ability to gain mass. Whites are a diverse bunch.

Blacks tend to be better at getting big and bulky- fast twitch fiber but not as toned and endurance like.


Recent studies have shown that african americans and to a lesser extent africans have higher ratios of fast twitch muscle fibers. These allow for more muscular hypertrophy and explosiveness. It can also be said that the darker skin tends to show muscle tone more so than white skin. Northern europeans tend to have more slow twitch fibers which lend themselves to top end strength and endurance. This is part of the reason why you see so many white strongmen and powerlifters.

Catterick
Sunday, April 17th, 2016, 07:13 PM
Recent studies have shown that african americans and to a lesser extent africans have higher ratios of fast twitch muscle fibers.

This only applies for west Africans, though. Not to like Maasai.