Is there a genetic ethnic lineage that is considered weaker on average?

[Yngvi]

Damn it.
I can't keep up with this.
Is it still acceptable to call you an "Endios" from the "Una gente endios" origin of the word?

To answer the original question; we all know the Jotnar race is the strongest, folllowed by the Gigantopithecus race and Neanderthal race.

[francesco.decaro]

There you go! Can you please tell Fran that you don’t mind being called “Indian”?

Wow you guys got really hooked in that one huh?
Still, he called himself Native American, not Indian lol

Damn it.
I can't keep up with this.
Is it still acceptable to call you an "Endios" from the "Una gente endios" origin of the word?

To answer the original question; we all know the Jotnar race is the strongest, folllowed by the Gigantopithecus race and Neanderthal race.

So why are those people in Asia called "Indians" too?

[Mark Rippetoe]

So why are those people in Asia called "Indians" too?

History, Frank. Study it.

[francesco.decaro]

History, Frank. Study it.

Can I get the short explanation for that?
Because from my knowledge India has been named a long time ago and term "indians" simply comes from there.
My observation was on the fact that if the person in question had called themselves Indian and not Native American, you would guess he was from India.

[EdTice]

From observation, have you noticed specific ethnicities that tend to underperform on average in barbell training/strength building? Ethnicities that tend to over-perform? I know that everyone can get “strong”, but is there a noticeable difference in how certain groups are able to achieve great strength?

You have asked the question in a way that it can't be answered and any attempt to do so will wander into dangerous territory. If you have two groups A and B, where A achieves an *average* deadlift of 400lbs with a 200lb standard deviation and group B achieves an average deadlift of 500lbs with a 100lb standard deviation, group B is clearly stronger on average (+100lbs) but in any type of competition, all of the champions will come from group A. 400lbs + 3standard deviations = 1,000lbs where 500lbs +3standard deviations is a "paltry" 800 lbs.

Plenty of records of feats of strength are kept and you can lookup the ethnicities or whatever of the winners to the extent that you don't get bored.

But that doesn't tell you anything about the average. Even if you could find the *average* strength of all members of various groups that choose to train, you still can't make a statement about the group as a whole. If the average bench of group C is 280lbs and the average bench of group D is 310lbs, is that because group D has a physiological advantage? Or is is that some social phenomenon in play. The fancy word for that is a confounding variable. Maybe in group C, being good at soccer impresses the ladies way more than lifting heavy weights and the best athletes are all kicking a ball, as a hypothetical example.

You can't really "notice" these things because none of us has a complete view of the entire world. Our own experiences are valuable but they are always skewed by confounding variables. How many Olympic weightlifters of Bulgarian ethnicity do you think train at WFAC?

[Steven Kalin]

Wow you guys got really hooked in that one huh?
Still, he called himself Native American, not Indian lol



So why are those people in Asia called "Indians" too?

Naw, not really. Just having a bit of fun, I live in a small town, gets boring pretty easily. For the record, I find you thoughtful, and I have high hopes for you when you grow up. I thought I knew everything when I was your age too.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Can I get the short explanation for that?
Because from my knowledge India has been named a long time ago and term "indians" simply comes from there.
My observation was on the fact that if the person in question had called themselves Indian and not Native American, you would guess he was from India.

I'm not going to study it for you.

[francesco.decaro]

I'm not going to study it for you.

I'm just trying to understand what I should look for here. If I look at the etimology of "indian" online, I get this same explanation, plus the wrongful use of the term for native american tribes and some asian populations in the past.
If you are referring specifically to native american tribes in the 1800s then using the term indian can make sense as an historical reference.
But as I said, if Dodds had told you he was "indian" you would've though he was from India, not America. It depends on the context, of course.
And I never said it was an offensive term either, just to be clear. I just think it's wrong, even if the person doesn't mind being called that.

[Mark Rippetoe]

This will explain it: Indian - Wikipedia

[francesco.decaro]

Naw, not really. Just having a bit of fun, I live in a small town, gets boring pretty easily. For the record, I find you thoughtful, and I have high hopes for you when you grow up. I thought I knew everything when I was your age too.

I'll take the compliment, thanks.
I'm probably just bored as well.
I sure as hell don't think I know everything, in fact I don't know most things, that's why I make assumptions or ask questions.
But I realize this terminology topic is not that important. If I'm told to cut it out, I will.

This will explain it: Indian - Wikipedia

I just see the term "indigenous", "native american" and "pre-Columbian tribes" used to describe what you would call "indians". So I don't get it.
Anyway, I don't wanna waste more of your time, Rip.