Race and Physical Activity

**Nachtengel** · Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Guy White asserts blacks are "physically superior", his proof being:

Their physical ability is obvious when looking at the physique of the average black and white man. Look at all those black men whose bodies look like Greek gods without spending any time in the gym. You can’t argue that they commit more crime due to higher testosterone without admitting that testosterone also makes them stronger.

I was going to reply at Guy White's blog around the time he first posted this, but I must have been overwhelmed by the sheer number of bizarre assumptions underlying the comment and never completed a response.

For the moment, I'll just point out that 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]. How Guy White came to the opposite conclusion, I have no idea. Perhaps he was applying his brand of "logic" and generalizing from something like Herschel Walker's infamous claim of having never lifted weights.

[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

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/07...-activity.html

**Ward** · Sunday, July 26th, 2009

In terms of fast-twitch muscle fibers and the physical advantages that come with them, on average blacks (at least those of the west African variety who comprise most of the black population in the U.S.) are indeed superior to whites.

Fast-twitch fibers are much larger than the slow-twitch kind (also, the muscle fibers undergo hypertrophy as a result of weight lifting are primarily fast-twitch). Consequently, blacks very often look far more muscular and athletic than whites. East Africans, however, are more slow-twitch oriented than their west African counterparts.

I've known blacks who do nothing but sit around getting drunk, smoking weed, and eating fast food, yet they still had toned, muscular bodies like gymnasts.

But us whites make up for our slower moving bodies by having sharper minds. Former basketball star Larry Byrd (a white guy) was one of the slowest players out there, but still one of the greatest players to ever take to the court because of his mind. Also, the quarterback position in American Football (which is somewhat analogous to a field general position) has been clearly demonstrated to be best left in the hands of white men.

On a side note, I once visited a white nationalist forum (C18 I think) where some users had signature panels showing pictures of patently roided up white bodybuilders with "White Power" slogans. Some people just don't get it. God it was embarrassing.

**Segestan** · Sunday, July 26th, 2009

A white person of normal healthy stock, can become mentally and physically balanced. The black cannot become as balanced on an equal level.

**Ward** · Sunday, July 26th, 2009

Originally Posted by Segestan

A white person of normal healthy stock, can become mentally and physically balanced. The black cannot become as balanced on an equal level.

You're absolutely right.

To put it bluntly, blacks are just closer to apes than us, which is where they get their advantage in strength and speed. Just look at how strong chimps and gorillas are.

Also, I forget to mention that negroes tend to put on less subcutaneous fat than whites, which is why the can appear quite toned and chiseled while whites often look relatively soft and flabby in comparison. Negroes tend to store their fat more inter-muscularly, and they generally have greater bone density, too.

Whatever the negroe physical talents though, if we ever decide to impose our will upon them again, they'd be at our mercy before they even knew what happened.

**rainman** · Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Most of these statements are not true. Have you ever met black people from Africa? Even west Africa, or watch a national geographic show on some African tribe. Most of them are smaller than whites and very short, though a few are really tall and skinny. They are not well toned or anything. In America you have a good number (though numerical minority) of blacks who are very large and strong. This comes from slave breeding programs where the larger stronger negro was better. That's where you get a lot of your abnormal NFL players and such from. It really isn't common in Africa, and really among U.S. blacks its only a small minority that are like that.

Blacks do on average have thicker bones which helps with larger muscles and such. Some may be slightly more inclined to athleticism. From my experience though the reason you see a lot of buff blacks walking around in the mall is the same reason you see a lot of buff white people in prison: normal people generally dedicate themselves to going to work, studying in school, reading books etc. many of these people don't work, spend a lot of time in jail etc. thus have a lot of free tme for sports, working out, recreation etc. It is also a more macho culture where people work out to attract women (rather than get a college degree or whatever).

I've notice this from living in predominately black areas. I don't see any large difference between blacks and whites in their ability to put on muscle. I just notice that blacks work out a lot more and have more free time because of their life style. I guess on average there are more feminized weakling whites than there are blacks, but its not a big difference. If you look at UFC, world's strongest man contests etc. you'll notice the strongest people are Nordics. Usually Scandanavian types etc. This is because much like your typical black they don't work and dedicate their whole time to the sport. Similarly with basketball, NFL etc. blacks aren't naturally more talented at the sports. Its just most white people go into a job that they know will pay good (again education oriented). Many blacks from the ghetto say "I'm going to be a basketball player" and they mean it. That is their only hope for ever being successful. Many of them fail at this. That's why most people don't dedicate themselves to being rock stars, football stars etc. because its such a risky thing.

I've never met a black man that sits around all day smoking weed and eating fast food and who never works out but looks buff. I can say some people are naturally larger, more toned etc. than others and can have fairly descent muscle structure without much working out. But its not going to be anything extreme.

Yes blacks also tend to have more fast twitch fibers and whites more slow twitch. Yet this doesn't impact biggness significantly. Unless you got somebody who only maxes out just for sheer hugeness, which a lot of people in the gym do.

The only race with a significant difference is I do believe that Asians are naturally smaller and weaker. Black/white difference is not significant. In the U.S. you might have a bit of a difference because of past breeding programs. So in the U.S. blacks might be slightly stronger on average. In Africa I'd say they are slightly weaker.

One shocker that I learned as well: dark skin doesn't have any significant impact on protecting you from sunburn, cancer etc. A black person will more or less get sunburned about as much as a white person (unless the white is an albino or some abnormal pale person who can't tan). It seems like honestly I can't find one trait in the negro (on average) that seems superior. Unless you consider a thicker skull to be better, but this just means smaller brain. Well maybe music talent I guess I can hand that over to them in regards to having a lot of good singers and such. Though again the music is generally not complex (like symphonies etc.).

**Nachtengel** · Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Muscular strength, appearance, and race

A few more notes from aborted replies to Guy White:

In testing the muscular strength in the south African natives the writer was somewhat surprised to find that these negroes gave rather smaller figures than one could expect with regard to their generally fine physiques.
[. . .]
the average strength is 29.5 for the right hand in men and 23.7 for the same hand in women. These figures, so far as the males are concerned, are decidedly behind those of whites. Hrdlicka,13 in normal “ Old Americans,” using same type of instrument and same method, found the pressure strength in the right hand to average 41.8 kg. in the males and 23.2 kg. in the females.
[. . .]
These differences are noteworthy. [. . .] Every student carefully observing the everyday life of intelligent people will surely have noticed the fact that their physical output of work is often remarkable even with relatively poor muscles. This and observations such as those above render it probable that, other factors being equal, the more intelligence there is, the more physical as well as other efficiency.
[V. Suk. Anthropological and physiological observations on the negroes of Natal and Zululand. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Volume 10 Issue 1, Pages 31 - 64 1927]

Strength has a large CNS component.

The central nervous system (CNS) is of paramount importance in the exertion and development of muscular strength. Muscular strength is determined not only by the quantity of involved muscle mass but also by the extent to which individual fibers in a muscle are activated (by intramuscular coordination).
[Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky and William J. Kraemer. Science and practice of strength training.]

There's a fair amount of evidence whites average greater strength per unit of muscular cross section than blacks.

Among young men in the U.S., blacks are certainly leaner on average than whites. They probably average slightly greater muscle mass -- though, I don't know whether or not the difference would remain after controlling for higher levels of physical activity and greater energy intake in black males. The differences in muscle mass are also not of sufficient magnitude to explain the awe in which certain [1] internet posters hold black male physiques.

[1] Usually, it seems, "ethnic" urban types, as I suspect guywhite is. See also Peter "ironrailsandweights" Rosa, Steve Sailer, and too many Jews to count.

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/07...-and-race.html

**Sigurd** · Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

That race plays an important part in determining at which sporting activities one is more bound to excel should be out of question, that is quite evident.

Generally, Blacks excel at those sports that are well suited to having narrower hips, faster-twitching muscles, and general athletic but muscular build. This is most notable, almost any sport where running is a key part.

But even within these, you notice something: Even in football, which is quickly becoming swamped by Blacks - whilst many defenders and strikers and indeed many fast midfield wing players are of African heritage, the technical midfield virtuosos are without exception White; this even rings true with the French squad, where Ribery is the midfield virtuoso as one of the few Whites to remain in their national side.

Asians obviously tend to excel at anything that requires reasonably agility: Gymnastics, Water Gymnastics, Table Tennis, ...

Other sports are better suited to Whites, of all descriptions. I yet have to come across a notable Black swimmer or Black cyclist. The only African Swimming World Champion of extra-European heritage was from Tunisia, thus still within the wider periphery of (extra-European) Europid/Caucasoid types. The only notable cyclists from Africa hail from South Africa, the only notable cyclist who grew up in a French Overseas Department is Thomas Voeckler, as white as it gets, and of Alsatian heritage.

Motor racing is another one of those fields. We may have an incumbent "Black" F1 World Champion - but let's not forget that he is actually a mulatto. Yet he made a few mistakes that almost narrowly cost him the championship twice in a row. All other notables were of majority Europid heritage of some description - this is because motor racing requires a sharp mind, which most mulattoes or Blacks do not possess. Why Asian racers fail to impress I do not know, but it is most likely a racial difference as well.

But obviously, even between different Europid groups, there are considerable differences: The more robust Cro-Magnid types seem better suited for Weight-Lifting, Shotput/Discus Throw/Hammer Throw, Sprinting and Time-Trialing in Cycling, Wrestling ... generally anything that requires strength, and short peaks of energy release. The less robust and leaner Neolithic types seem better suited for anything where their lesser weight helps: Long-jump and high-jump, Javelin throw, Climbing in Cycling, etc. Swimming favours those who are intermediate between Cro-Magnid and Neolithic description.

**Ward** · Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Originally Posted by rainman

Most of these statements are not true. Have you ever met black people from Africa? Even west Africa, or watch a national geographic show on some African tribe. Most of them are smaller than whites and very short, though a few are really tall and skinny. They are not well toned or anything. In America you have a good number (though numerical minority) of blacks who are very large and strong. This comes from slave breeding programs where the larger stronger negro was better. That's where you get a lot of your abnormal NFL players and such from. It really isn't common in Africa, and really among U.S. blacks its only a small minority that are like that.

If you look at what I wrote, I said AMERICAN blacks of west African descent.

Honestly, do you ever honestly think you'll see a white running back like LaDamian Tomlinson or Ricky Williams? I don't think I've ever met any honest non-blind white American guy who will say that blacks don't have a general speed/strength advantage over whites, or that they are not typically more "shredded." There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking this is common knowledge (even if it is not often discussed as it is un-PC).

I also dispute that blacks workout more than whites. Health clubs seem to be almost always all white. Blacks are too undisciplined for such habits.

A lot of it probably does have to do with breeding practices during slavery, but still, even in Western Africa, I'd bet you'll find that the indigenous populations there are still on average faster and stronger than white Europeans due to having more fast twitch fibers. The two races just evolved differently. Blacks relied more on their physical abilities for survival while whites used their brains.

Here is some info on fast-twitch versus slow-twitch fibers.

As for your comment that blacks might be talented in singing, I beg to differ again. Every I hear their disgusting melodramatic warbling vocals I immediately get the urge to jam an ice pick in my ears.

**rainman** · Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

You are looking at just football players. I live in a city in which our public schools are 70% black and 25% white city wide. Blacks are the majority. Therefore I observe average black people everyday. Your average black person is not born looking like hercules. I notice a lot of buff black people but its because they work out everyday. In fact the majority of black people aren't buff at all.

If we go by your observation that because you see some super human abilities in the NFL we must conclude that blacks are endowed with superior physical strength- how do we explain the Nordic Brock Lesnar (massive wrestler who is a UFC champion, WWE champion, and college wrestling champion)?? Or again watch worlds strongest man competitions. These guys lift two ton boulders and can run a race with a refrigerator on their back (not making this up). It doesn't mean that a normal white person is born like this. You have a few extreme genetic cases which were then nurtured by lots of exercise and probably steroids, supplements etc. Well look at schwarzenegger back in his body building days.

I have to admit though I have been around a lot of people from every race and definately Asians are more gracile than others. They have more agility and control over their movements though overall weaker.

Fast twitch/slow twitch: The muscles are the same. One isn't bigger than the other. It just means fast twitch muscles give a lot of energy quick and then wear out (short distance runner- most black) slow twitch has greater endurance over long periods (long distance running- most whites). However working fast twitch muscles (like power lifting) will generally creat bigness. Working slow twitch will create a lot of tone and definition (in the extreme think of bruce lee). If you look at blacks they often have much smaller legs than whites. So it doesn't seem that the fast twitch really gives a person bigger muscles.