This archived forum used to be called 'Peatarian' (in reference to Ray Peat).

African American people have great thyroid function?

Is there any research on the thyroid health among African American people compared to other races?

It seems like African Americans have this resiliency that most people don't have. The most demanding sports are dominated by African Americans. They seem to have great hormonal profiles because the males are very lean and muscular and the females have well developed, attractive bodies. They also age extremely well. You don't see African Americans with nearly the amount of health problems that everyone else seem to have.

asked Feb 8, 2015 by Ray Peat is a God
edited Feb 9, 2015 by Ray Peat is a God

You don't see African Americans with nearly the amount of health problems that everyone else seem to have.

Uh, they have substantially elevated rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Where did you get this strange idea?

@4a552f55cbb9 Strange idea? It was an observation you prick. Every one of your comments on this forum is meant to challenge and condescend someone. Why don't you fix your own issues you bitter P.O.S.?

African Americans lead whites in incidences of the major diseases and killers in this country. They have higher rates of diabetes, strokes, heart disease and they also get them at an earlier age than whites. Also, African Americans have a higher death rate from diseases like cancer and auto immune conditions even when they don't have a higher population rate of these diseases.

I have read that African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer than white women even when they receive the same medical care. They also get breast cancer at a younger age than white women. One reason is the excess estrogen from the extra body fat many AA women carry. African American men also get prostate cancer earlier than white men and they have a higher death rate from the disease.

African American men dominate in sports because they are motivated to excel; the financial rewards are great and many feel sports are the only way out of poverty. Before the civil rights era, African Americans did not dominate in sports and there are many sports in which AA do not dominate.

In the county where I live, the African American women/girls are so obese it is incredible. And I am not talking just 10 or 20 pounds overweight. I am talking 80 to 200 pounds overweight. They supposedly have an 80% obesity rate, according to a community health program I listened to a few weeks ago.

But I agree that African Americans are very resilient people. They have endured a lot in America and they are still around. I have African American women friends and I admire them very much.

I agree that African American women generally age better than white women. They have nice skin (thanks to more melanin), full lips and nice bone structure, features which withstand aging very well. I have also noticed that they tend to have less acne than whites.

Since America is a predominantly white country, most of the research done involves whites and that is why whites appear to have more diseases than blacks. I have friends who are medical doctors, dentists and nurses and they say that African Americans have more health problems than whites.

4a has been the best poster lately. bflay/Ray Peat is a God has been a trainwreck all along


Blow me.

In a sea of cancerous comments and ideas, Lemonhead stands out as a beacon of hope.

"They have nice skin (thanks to more melanin)"

I disagree with that 100%. If melanin is what gives you better skin, how come Indians age even worse than white people? And Asians (relatively light) age much better than Indians.

I think the aging thing is mostly due to other genes.

Blacks also seem to be very resistant to hair loss, for what it's worth. Indians and whites are not. Asians might be in between, from what I've observed.

There are also some interesting obesity trends among the three "main" races, which follow the ubiquitous rule of black > white > Asian. Blacks are known to develop diabetes and CVD at higher BMIs than whites, basically meaning that black people can be healthier at a higher BMI than a white person.

It's also been recorded that Asians develop diabetes at lower BMIs than whites.

I'm also thinking that the breast/prostate cancer is an issue of estrogen. Blacks have high testosterone and high estrogen. Coupled with the hair loss trend I've noticed, it could be that blacks are less likely to form adaptive protective steroids, like DHT? That might explain both the lower rates of hair loss and the higher rates of prostate cancer.

Where do you get this impression, the tv?

"I disagree with that 100%. If melanin is what gives you better skin, how come Indians age even worse than white people? And Asians (relatively light) age much better than Indians. "

You guys on this forum have serious problems.

You are over analyzing what I said. I meant that their skin is beautiful because of the color. Black women can wear less makeup than white women and still look good because they are darker. They look good wearing colors in fashion and makeup that pale skin women don't look good in. Indian women are also very beautiful because of their skin color. Why do so many white people want to get tan in the summer? Because brown skin can be very attractive.

Of course melanin is not the only contributing factor. I did mention their bone structure and fuller features didn't I? But melanin does protect against sun damage and sun damage can make skin look older.

Some people think brown skin is beautiful. Get over it. It does not mean pale skin is ugly. I like all people and I think there is beauty in every ethnic group. Admitting that melanin has benefits with regard to aging does not take anything away from whites or Asians.

I don't agree that Indians age worse than white people. The ones I see look pretty good. A few years ago, I had an Indian professor who looked like 25. Turns out he was 38 years old. That is only one example but many of the Indian men I encounter turn out to be older than they look. Now if you are referring to Indians in India, maybe they don't age well because of poor nutrition and too much stress (due to poverty) and the extremely intense Indian sun.

Keep in mind that African Americans and other New World blacks are not 100% African. African Americans have an average of 23% Caucasian genes; some have native American genes. Many blacks from the Caribbean have a high percentage of East Indian genes. In my opinion, full blooded African people do not age as well as African Americans. I base that opinion on the ones I see here in America. I can usually tell an African from an African American. So maybe African Americans age better because they are more mixed than other ethnic groups?

"There are also some interesting obesity trends among the three "main" races, which follow the ubiquitous rule of black > white > Asian. Blacks are known to develop diabetes and CVD at higher BMIs than whites, basically meaning that black people can be healthier at a higher BMI than a white person. "

And yet blacks lead whites and Asians in the incidences of all major killers in the United States. So I guess their obesity is not protecting them after all.

Blacks are more likely to be disabled/die from strokes, diabetes, heart disease etc and you think their extra weight is protective? Blacks also suffer more complications from diabetes when they do get the disease. Blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites and you believe the asinine studies that tell you they are healthy even though they are overweight?

It seems racist to me that any researcher can claim that blacks are healthier at their higher weight in light of the high incidences of deadly and disabling diseases among blacks. I don't think the doctors and nurses who treat blacks would agree that they are healthy in spite of their extra weight.

Inequality is the rule both within and between populations, and the distribution of cognitive ability is no different. With that being said, in human beings stupidity is to a large extent a choice, as this thread amply demonstrates.

^ This whole abomination of a thread was worth it just so that comment could be made

6 Answers

I'm of the persuasion that the average intelligence and physical health of a homogenous population is most influenced by epigenetics, developmental nutrition, and environment. Epigenetics definitely being a very strong factor.

I have friends that have 1/8 to 1/4 ancestry from areas of the world that likely were abundant in nutrition, sun, and nature for the last few centuries. They have very robust health despite not thinking about nutrition or exercise at all.

I also have friends that grew up on farms. Daily sun, farm fresh milk, meat, potatoes, exercise, outdoor play in nature every single day of their childhood. One of these friends, who is white, is especially ripped and extremely muscular with very little exercise and just simply eating whatever throughout the day.

Every living human today has common ancestors probably in the last 50,000 years and many within the last 5,000 years. I don't think we are all that different genetically, but epigenetically and environmentally there are some significant differences based on the economics and migrations of the last few hundred years.

Intellectual capacity seems to be largely influenced by how stimulating the early childhood years are. Those who learn several languages before 5 years old have an entirely different mental foundation than those who can barely speak and understand one. In many un-modernized areas of the world it is common for people to have strong ability to think and speak in many languages.

answered Feb 10, 2015 by Brian

Sorry, but this is mostly wishful thinking. The exact genes involved in a great many very clearly quantifiable differences between populations are becoming clear. For example, there is a very clear understanding of some genes in the tibetan population that allows them to thrive at very high altitude better than peruvians do at the same altitudes. The peruvians don't have the genes. What's especially interesting is that the genes in question almost certainly originate from the now extinct denisovan hominids.

Quite similarly, it has been recently established that whites and east asians are genetically about 8% neanderthal (more for whites, less for asians) whereas subsaharan africans are 0% neanderthal.

The idea that we are all the same genetically and differences between groups can be explained by environment and epigenetics is nonsense. The details are getting clearer every year.

The 10,000 Year Explosion goes over some of this stuff and details how genetic evolutionary forces have been accelerating in recent millenia. Groups got more different and changed faster in most recent history.,000_Year_Explosion

Good points, I definitely over simplified, but my point is that recent epigenetics and developmental influences are huge.

The way that Brian frames the issue is much more conducive to meaningful action.

When people think in terms of the things they have some control over (diet, exercise, personal habits, etc.), there is a real possibility for improvement and change.

When people think in terms of the things they have no control over (genetics), there is only the possibility that they become entrenched in racism and bigotry (see posts by John Frusciante and raintree.)

Thank you based Brian for your positive contribution to society.


you’re ignoring that biochemically all humans are 99.9% similar to any other humans, more "genetic" difference between people who are closely related.

even if that is true, the tibetan gene, what the fuck does it matter? its trivial to the big picture. i would also not simply just accept that, and have you, or the people who did the study, define "thrive." there are so many variables. maybe there is something completely different in the environment where the tibetans live vs. where the peruvians live beside altitude. you seem like one of those guys who's hoping that science will come up with a way for you to live longer by way of genetic intervention/manipulation. don’t hold your breath. you’ll be dead long before anything like that happens, if it even will, and if it even will before other things get in the way such as war, climate, crops, water, the sun exploding, etc. science should look at genes for purposes to fix real world problems like the top killers heart disease, cancer, etc. but what does a trivial gene in tibet really mean? a human life is so short. you are not going to see anything that exciting in your lifetime. its too short. thats like talking about genes for blue eyes. ok, that gene exists. but all it is, is a fucking eye color. what is the significance of it? its nothing. its just a color. its not wings to fly.

I can only agree with Kasra here, although I always read his posts with a sarcastic lower voice, but yeah...I thought the thread about Marilyn Vos Savants IQ was already plagued with enough stupidity and racism, but it's not even worth mentioning compared to this one. Of course, genetics or rather the 'base' differs from person to person and people living in the same environment for many, many years are more likely to be similar than people not living together and in different environments. But the obsession with genetics has a completely different purpose, it's only there to spread hate, racism, 'superiority' from certain races compared to other 'inferior' ones, and to 'accept' that you can't change anything about it. "Oh look, that kid has dyslexia, must be genetics. We can't do anything, it just is the way it is". This way of thinking does not only promote racism, but also passive living and denial of the fact that everyone can always change and 'climb'. Especially the mental state of a person is definitely something that can always change very significantly and all I need is personal observation to come to this conclusion.

@PUFAs: Just curious, are you black?

thanks for the support, kiwibro

I wish I was but no, I look like a mix of Chris Martin and Adrien Brody.

How can you wish you were black? You wrote 'humans aren't sub-divided by "race."' By your definition, there are no racial distinction between humans.

The funny thing is that the average "black person" in America is usually about 50% West African and the other 50 being Western European and sometimes Native American. My first generation Mexican American friend is a mix of at least Chinese, Spanish, and Native American. My "Hawaiian" friend is Korean, Japanese, and Native Hawaiian. I have a friend that looks very white/European, but he is 1/4 Burmese.

I'm a British-Scandinavian-French mutt all in the last two hundred years, but I've been asked if I'm Native American, Mexican, Spanish, or Egyptian(by an Egyptian). I just live in a sunny part of the U.S.

It's becoming ridiculous to base your identity heavily on your ancestry and superficial dominant traits like skin color.


Develop a sense of humor.

Racial? No, that word implies that the differences are vast. They are not. The only distinctions are skin color/tone, color of the iris (eye), curly/straight hair, and facial structure, though all four distinctions can cross over. For example some Ethiopians have dark skin and curly hair but their face structure, pointy nose, etc, is different than other "black" people who have a wide nose and big lips, though both share the same skin color and curly hair. Similarly, Mark Wahlberg is not "Asian" but he has epicanthic folded top eyelids. There are "white" people who look like "monkeys" too, such as Ron Perlman.

"I wish I was but no"

Whitest comment ever.

There are "white" people who look like "monkeys" too

My sense of humor seems to have returned.

No, they actually have less IQ and die younger than american whites.

answered Feb 10, 2015 by John Frusciante

That is mainly because of their environment and upbringing, not their Intellectual capability.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study tested the IQs of Whites, Blacks, and Mulattoes (half White and half Black) that were adopted into White upper-middle class homes. The study tested the adopted children's IQs at the age of 7 and there was a 10 year follow up when they were 17. The study is important because despite the fact that some of the Mulatto children considered themselves fully Black and that society considered them fully Black, they scored in between the White and Black children; 101.5 for adopted Whites, 93.2 for adopted mulattos, and 83.7 for adopted Blacks.

This shows that despite having the same environment (adoption into upper-middle class White families) the higher the White ancestry of self- and socially-percieved Blacks, the higher the IQ. This study completely shatters the notion that "Racism" or "Black culture" oe "environment" is the cause of the IQ gap as these same social constructions or environmental effects would effect the Mulatto children (who considered themselves fully Black) as well as the Black children.

Every single study ever done in history measuring Black and White brains showed that Black brains are significantly smaller than White brains:

The heritability of IQ is about 70-80%, meaning only 1/4 of the difference in IQ between two random individuals is due to environmental factors:

Out of all psychological traits, IQ is found to be the most heritable:
(see table 1)

John, you're a fucking redneck piece of shit you cunt. Stay on white nationalist forums. I hope you have a stroke.

Calm down, please. I'm only trying to post peer-reviewed research. Isn't this forum about science?

The skin of the Negroid race is superior to whites in regards to protection. The thickness impedes scratching and piercing of the skin, protecting the negro from infection, and the dark pigment protects them from the sun.

Those with lighter iris color have been found to have a higher prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) than those with darker iris color. Lighter eye color is also associated with an increased risk of ARMD progression.

The Negro eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat protecting it from outside materials, proving that the negro eye is superior in that it can withstand more small particulate matter than the eye of a Caucasian.

The higher arch in the negro foot & higher muscle insertions in the calf help the negro sprint faster and jump higher than a caucasian.

The skull of the Negro is thicker and denser on average. Studies have shown that the Negroid skull can withstand almost 2.3 times the pressure of the average Caucasoid skull on the sides, and the top is tougher as well.

Negroes have arms which are longer, relative to body height, than those of Caucasians. This feature, together with their much thicker cranial bones, gives Negroes an advantage over Caucasians in some forms of combat such as boxing.

The wool-like hair of the negro gives him a greater ability to dissipate heat from his head compared to Caucasians

I feel better already :D

John Frusciante master troll.

Who's the troll exactly, the one posting peer reviewed studies or the one not doing it?

"Stay on white nationalist forums." WP

"I want to surround myself with people who are smarter than me, not dogmatic fools." - WP

I just wanted to point out that you are being a bit prejudiced against rednecks as well as people that are less intelligent than you are. You are also being hypocritical in being dogmatic against presumed dogmatists. Perhaps you would fare better on a forum where everyone is smarter than you are and devoid of dogmatism. You can also consider carrots or penicillin. Josh Rubin has some great bamboo shoot recipes, too.

"Everything in moderation, including moderation" - Oscar Wilde

"I just wanted to point out that you are being a bit prejudiced against... people that are less intelligent than you are."

Good thing it's almost impossible to find one.


So you're a man of the middle eastern ethnicity, who's defending a white redneck, who, after just writing what he did above, would clearly call you a sand nigger? Makes sense. Of course he is free to do so, redneckism need not be illegal. But non-white rednex, such as yourself, I'll never understand.

This book Erectus Walks Among Us discusses the many genetic differences in black people:

answered Feb 10, 2015 by raintree

Of course you would post this. Someone who believes in Lemuria, would also believe this bullshit. You recently said that you're "old?" Keep taking pregnenolone, maybe you'll look young and hot again, if you ever were, most hippies are decent, but most likely you're gross, that ship has sailed, no matter how many hormones you take.

You're actually not a hippie because true hippies know that humans aren't sub-divided by "race." You withering fat old hag.

You show dem haters.

you cant fight hate with hate, m8

WP, have labs done. Also, on your list of things to do, include google Cultural Marxism. You're brainwashed and need help.

Saggy boob quack,

I've heard that term before, last time I made my points here. But "Cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with what I am talking about. By using that phase, it shows more about you than me, and it does not address my argument. How assholes like you feel emotionally about "culture" has nothing to do with the science of the human animal.

Most people who get selected as top athletes are genetically gifted, no matter the race. African American men have higher testosterone on average than white people, which would account for some of the difference, but they are just as vulnerable to health problems as any other demographic, some arguably moreso.

answered Feb 8, 2015 by hazmatt

" African American men have higher testosterone on average than white people "
...was there an explanation/mechanism given for this? u have a link to a study/s. Thx

Google scholar would be a better source for studies than me.

The few sources I've looked at don't appear to show african americans having higher testosterone.

" Significantly higher serum levels of total testosterone (P[lt ] .01) and SHBG (P [lt ] .02) were found in the African American than in the Caucasian men in both the morning and evening, whereas free testosterone levels were similar in both groups."

Found that in ten seconds.

African Americans enter puberty earlier, that is why "young" African American males have higher testosterone. African Americans do not have higher testosterone throughout adulthood.

The substantially earlier physical maturation of blacks might lead to a lot of the black "over-representation" at elite levels in sport. When the screening for the best opportunities starts at about age 14, early maturation becomes a big deal. When you look at whites and asians you find a great many very successful athletes who didn't become notable until their mid 20s. The late round draft pick that unexpectedly explodes into a superstar years later is usually some white guy or asian.

Shredder: I've read their T levels are substantially higher than other subsets of the population until they are about 24.

4a552f55cbb9: Nah, its not the age gap that's leading to the "over-representation." It probably isn't just testosterone either. Just like kenyans are naturally gifted in distance running, certain African gene pools are gifted in terms of athleticism, specifically in terms of power athletes. Dunno why this is so hard for people to accept, as it is glaringly obvious watching or playing pretty much any sport.

Why are most professional hockey players born in Jan, Feb and March? Youth hockey leagues go by age. Players born then have an additional year of of physical development. They get extra coaching and play time. By the time it comes to try outs, they have years more experience playing hockey.

Wrestling is dominated by Europeans. It is one of the few sports that goes by weight class where developing quicker doesn't mean you have quite as much of an advantage. Likewise with weight lifting.

Hockey birth days

God you're dumb. Just like the time I had Fat Stone as my name, and you actually thought that I was Matt Stone.

You can find any kind of person within any of the seven ethnicities of the world. Nothing is unique to one ethnicity of people. The only thing that is unique is the way someones face looks. It's nurture vs. nature, it's culture vs. science. People are not that unique. People are not that special. People wish they were, but they're not.

Non-Black NBA players, who prove that ethnicity has nothing to do with anything:

Shawn Bradley - 7'6"

Gheorghe Mure»ôan - 7'7"

Pavel Podkolzin - 7'5"

Slavko Vraneš - 7'7"

Chuck Nevitt - 7'5"

Mark Eaton - 7'4"

Rik Smits - 7'4"

Zydrunas Ilgauskas - 7'3"

Ha Seung-jin - 7'3"

Yao Ming - 7'6"

Sun Mingming - 7'9"

Even taller than the NBA players, are more non-Black people listed here:

List of tallest people

Meet the Kulkarnis: India's tallest family with a combined height of 26ft hope to set a new world record

Giant Gonzalez - 7'6" - A really tall Mexican.

Ye Li - 6'3" Female, and "Asian", destroying the Asian people are short and small myth.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

answered Feb 9, 2015 by Westside PUFAs
edited Feb 10, 2015 by Westside PUFAs

That wasn't me. Now get a life you pussy. All you do is troll these forums like people actually give a shit about your vegan bullshit. You must have had a rough childhood.

Blacks, on average, have longer limbs and shorter torsos relative to non-black people of equal height. This gives blacks a biomechanical advantage at running, but not necessarily at sports that don't involve a lot of running.

answered Feb 9, 2015 by Shredder
edited Feb 9, 2015 by Shredder

100m and 200m races are dominated by New World blacks. Never nigerians or whatever, it's specifically carribean and north american blacks. There are some hypotheses about selection pressures on people who A) survived trans-atlantic shipment as a slave and B) survived and reproduced under the particular workload of new world plantation field slavery.

A very small subset of a particular East African highland population does disproportionately very well at marathons. They don't dominate like new world blacks at sprint distances, though. Marathons are competitive across races.

Outside of the 100m and 200m, racially I'm not sure there's much of a pattern with regard to running. Whites and Asians do very well at 400m and 800m and 1000m. And the distance stuff is reasonably competitive across races.

For being a sixth of the global population Indians are mysteriously horrible at everything athletic. Not a lot of hispanics medalling, either.

New world blacks are, on average, larger and stronger than blacks living in Africa (possibly due to environment mainly, and not genes), hence superior at sprinting. Though the European 100m record holder is Francis Obikwelu, a Portuguese citizen who was born in Nigeria.

Blacks, on average, may have worse aerobic capacity than some other races, or at least no better, and so the longer the race goes, the more that biomechanical advantage becomes insignificant.

Aerobic capacity between Caucasians and African-Americans.

I think it only gives them a biomechanical advantage at running long distances. In the same way that a small wheeled bike is easier to start up, but a large wheeled one is more efficient with distance. If you think about it inuitively, longer legs are harder to move, while shorter legs are more nimble. Just watch Lionel Messi dribble a ball.

Blacks (west African ones) have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers, which I think is what gives them an advantage in most sports. Since most sports have rest periods where one can recover, it makes it more advantageous to have muscles dominated by high intensity low endurance, rather than low intensity high endurance.

My guess is that aerobic capacity test would test east Africans as equal or higher to whites.

lol at indians being terrible at everything

i guess they have cricket though

Indian Americans have won the U.S. national spelling bee seven years in a row and 12 out of the last 16.

Yeah the spelling bee was on ESPN so technically it is a sport.

"Longer legs are harder to move" No, they aren't. A shorter torso means less dead weight to carry, and longer legs give more power as the legs generate speed as they push off the ground from a higher distance.