Manual labour is somewhat overrated as far as building strength goes. My dad, and certainly my grandfather, were both manual labourers. By they were more wiry than brawny. I can say without a doubt that I could outlift them by far in any conventional gym lift, and any strength-demanding lift in general that doesn't involve well-developed grip strength.
Of course, anything involving both strength and endurance, like say unloading roof tiles from the back of a truck (which is the kind of work my grandfather spend thirty years of his life doing daily), they'd wreck me.
So it comes down to the definition of what strength is.
Madmick's argument that countries where a substantial part of the population is still engaged in manual labour are likely to have the strongest men is perfectly valid if you broaden the definition past just measuring one-rep maxes, especially if you consider that most developed countries have a large percentage of the population that is simply all-round sedentary and don't even lift bro.
I don't think weightlifting is a popular pasttime in China. Their elite weightlifters are still a tiny, tiny selection of people, and not something that grows out of a culture where people in general spend much time lifting weights. So the Tian Taos and Lu Xiaojuns aren't representative of the population at large. Same goes for, say, Bulgaria. I listened to a podcast with Max Aita (an american weightlifting coach that used to train under Abadjiev) a while back, and he basically said that even during the time Bulgarian weightlifting was at its peak, the national coaches still had to make do with a comparatively small selection of prospective lifters- it wasn't in any way like strength training was a national pasttime. Bulgaria didn't suceed by having a large talent pool to pick from, but by having complete control over their lifters 24/7.
Neither is Hafthor Bjornsson representative of the average Icelander, but there's still a better correlation between him and the genpop. A western country doesn't produce that many strength athletes without having a large talent pool of people who are simply interested in that type of activity.
agree
I think this topic raises the question of genetic diversity verse genetic homogeny. For instance I know it's controversial to state that certain populations are better than other populations at certain aspects of academia, and athletics. However I believe it's true based on what naturally may come easier for a certain group. Example sub Saharan Africans in comparison to Asians from the china, Korea, Japan genetic lineage.
I think it's fair to say that with extensive study it's easier for an Asian from that genpop to become an actuary, or Math prof than it would be for them to become a world class Olympic level hurdler. Though with enough focus and training and physical development there's a possibility you might have a guy from Korea eventually reach the final heat of the 100 meter dash one day.
Now take the sub Saharan,. it's not racist to say that peoples from this genetic group have an easier development and or natural ability to reach elite levels in sports that involve running, jumping and fast twitch explosivity(is that a word?), than their East Asian brethren(yes we're all related see Genesis).
Olympic sprinting events, and American football, are the two best examples of this. it's also a bit controversial but from my observation, and experience true. That at the highest levels of math and science many people from the sub Saharan region seem to struggle with the special concepts and non linear rules that govern differential equations, and the linear spatial laws that govern trigonometry and Geometry that demand imo an almost innate grasp of if your going to complete the course with a high grade.
that said, I know that there are know that their are black astronauts, and degrasse Tyson, and doctors. And i also know youve got your Dat Nguyen's and Yao Ming outliers in sports. So i know that if you trained a black child in the more advanced STEM disciplines they could excel...but will the Asian ultimately have an easier go at it based on some as of now unknown genetic advantage? I know Asians study hard just like blacks involved at the highest level of sports train hard. Anyway I think the answer is yes. I guess basically I'm saying one tends to take the easier path and concentrate one's efforts where their genetic "gifts" seem to be.
Now you have your white guy or European male.
That imho and observation of reality seems to have the most genetic diversity which arguably means the most genetic "gifts" when it comes to pursuits both academic, and athletic.(see Jason Sehorn) I don't think it's racist to say based on real world observation of which peoples have the majority of the planet's wealth under their control, and that make most of the military, economic, and international decisions for the rest of humanity save for the oil rich Arab's, is the white guy.
They rule the world because of that genetic diversity acquired through ages of foreign armies invading Europe. Exp. a white guy can play American football, and win a gold medal in the slalom, a white guy can be a mathematician, and a garbage man with ease and equal success, a white guy can do porn, and be hung like a pimple. Their range is so vast in all genetic aspects they have a high degree of success in what ever endeavor they seem to pursue.
agree disagree thoughts?
