You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The distinction between talking racist and being racist

in #life7 years ago

Show me a study which proves "black" is a unified group of people. Then show me the gene which "black people" all have which produces this physical strength? If you show the gene and show only black people have it then I'll believe it but to believe the gene exists without the science proving it would be racist.

Sort:  

Searched around and found different studies, one of them said black didn't have increased amount of testosterone when compared against white people but did have increased amount of estradiol, a female sex hormone so i guess this one couldn't help them since female sex hormones have the opposite effect of increased muscle mass, but also found one that said black people have incresed amount of testosterone(free test and not free test and also DHT) and for that reason they are more predisposed to prostate cancer, this is widely seen in america it seems where black people have the higher rate of prostate cancer when compared to white males.
After analyzing the studies i think more studies need to be done before i can say for certain anything, we got studies saying one thing and other saying another thing, so regarding the first question i think more studies need to be done, which is something extremely difficult to do nowadays because any studies that aim to compare white males with black males are labeled racist by the common person, when from a scientific point of view i find it intriguing. If a gene is discovered we could insert it into animals to increase the amount of muscle mass they have so that it increases meat production for example, or we could upregulate it to increase the amount of muscle in cancer patient, HIV patient, etc...

What distinguishes black and other people? If it's melanin then I'd like to see how skin pigmentation influences testosterone levels. Why not just post the link to the study?

I think any race based studies are highly flawed because first they have to define what white and black is on a genetic basis for the study to make any medical sense.

1 - Serum Testosterone Levels in Healthy Young Black and White Men , i only found the abstract, don't have access to the whole study not even with my college info, if you do please share what you find
2Serum Estrogen, But Not Testosterone, Levels Differ between Black and White Men in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans
Those were the 2 studies i read.
And melanin can influence vit d production which would influence test production, but going on this route it would make sense for darker people to actually have decreased test and not the other way around

After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level. A 15% difference in circulating testosterone levels could readily explain a twofold difference in prostate cancer risk.

Study from 1986. Study from 2007. The study from 2007 is more relevant as it's newer and would factor in more current genetic knowledge.

For the first study I would like to know the sample size, whether or not it was randomized properly, and most importantly how do they define "black". It could very well be that some people who happened to be labeled black have the genetics to make them more vulnerable to prostate cancer than another group of people who happened to be labeled white, but it doesn't show me anything about what black is or what genes exactly are responsible for the higher testosterone levels if it's even genetics.

The 2007 study is much better. They isolate out non-hispanic white and non-hispanic black. I'm not sure why they do this but maybe they want to focus on specifically American blacks. They also included Mexican American which is good for the study as well.

After applying sampling weights and adjusting for age, percent body fat, alcohol, smoking, and activity, testosterone concentrations were not different between non-Hispanic blacks (n = 363; geometric mean, 5.29 ng/ml) and non-Hispanic whites (n = 674; 5.11 ng/ml; P > 0.05) but were higher in Mexican-Americans (n = 376; 5.48 ng/ml; P < 0.05).

So according to this result it appears testosterone levels are higher in Mexican Americans but are not significantly different between non hispanic white and non hispanic black.

Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men. However, blacks had higher estradiol levels. Mexican-Americans had higher testosterone than whites but similar estradiol and SHBG concentrations.

So appears there is no racial difference in testosterone according to that study. And that study was more recent and better designed than the older study with a larger sample size. This in my opinion does not indicate a racial difference between black and white. They did find slightly different hormone levels of estradiol but I doubt it has anything to do with being black or white, so I would have to see some evidence showing the cause before I form an opinion.

Interesting that testosterone levels did test as higher in Mexican-American men. What does that say about race? My opinion is that culture (belief systems, activities, ways of relating in different cultures, etc.) and climate (which can greatly influence culture) play large roles in the differences we see, with our own eyes, between races. That said, there is such a wide difference within each race, that we should never stereotype anyone strictly according to their race. To me, "race" is just a family lineage, primarily, and has a lot to do with the geographic area where one's ancestors spent most of their time.

I will search around for it :) don't like to spitting out nonsense, but it might be hard to find any study relating both since it is a touchy subject, as i wrote the first comment i was actually thinking that i might get flagged because of some extreme political correct person taking it the wrong way