I'm very intrested in some enlightenment about a question that I've been curious about. Malnutrition seems to take different effects by race, at least from my observations. For example, Asian malnutrition usually involves loss of growth and body mass. Black and white malnutrition appears to involve continued growth, but loss of body mass. While South Americans retain body mass and height. This isn't a joke. Seriously, I've noticed these things AT LEAST 6 times for each of these. Am I blind, medically incorrect, or is the media trying to fool us by taking weird angled shots of poor people?
it would depend on how you define malnutrition, its impossible for anyone to reach full height and mass as you claim after a lifetime of malnutrtion....family/ethnic genetics plays a part some families/ethnicities are just smaller or thinner and not malnourished....the duration of malnutrition, short term long term...age of the individuals, infancy, pre adolescence, teen, adults...you've asked an interesting question but you're reaching conclusions on casual superficial appearance with no background information...the guy with coke can doesn't look at all malnourished, probably has a healthier diet than anyone on this forum,if the coke is a indication of where his culture is headed though they'll be like us soon enough...
Well if North Korea is anything to go by - Asians lose height in dramatic fashion if subject to malnutrion in their development years. I have noticed African children seem more prone to bloated stomachs than Asians, but I have no medical evidence other than perception to base that on.
Do you have some type of medical report that backs that up? Because to me it seems more like regional diets that are effecting your perception, not anything that has to do with race itself.
the bloated stomachs is a result of insufficient protien in the diet, you probably notice it more in african countries because the kids run around unclothed...this occurs even when they get sufficient daily calories, it also happens when a child is weaned from its mothers breast milk because of a new baby...
agree, less protein affects height but that doesn't mean the individual is malnurished...my son in law is no bigger than the korean in the first photo and he grew up in a middleclass family with no dietary shortages and lots of protien, it was simple genetics...
Regional is a viable theory. I made a connection between Guinea and Africa, Argentina and Colombia, with Vietnam and Laos that makes me believe its not regional.
As a result of recent positive selection, Europeans are more prone to gain weight than their Asian counterparts and Europeans have three times more Neanderthal variants on lipid processing than East Asians, even though both racial groups inherited 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA. In other words, the metabolite concentration associated with Neanderthal ancestry among contemporary Europeans is directly linked to obesity, hypertriglyceridemia and coronary heart disease and Europeans are three times more likely to have a body mass index (BMI) of more than 40 (class III obesity) than Asians. But the metabolite concentration specific to modern Europeans is an evolutionary advantage that offers protection from malnutrition and starvation and Europeans are more likely to survive under conditions of nutrient deprivation.
Thanks for your well thought out response and explanation. Although, usually the people who are this educated on racial differences are somewhat racist. Not saying you are though.
not nearly as simple as it seems...different families/ethnic groups have different critical BMI levels...asians have a lower level BMI at which they are considered obese, they can be thin and obese.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19221673 you'll notice I didn't use the term "race" because there is no such thing..."race" is an artificial social construct we should eliminate forever...we are all one family, we're all related, we developed unique ethnic appearances due to thousands of years of regional isolation...
We use the terminology to define things as race for scientific reasons. We know for a fact that racial backgrounds have evolved somewhat differently, with somewhat different genetic codes. I get your OP though. There is little to no evidence that different racial types are different by extensive standards. People who believe genetic code is that different between race are fools. I'm interested in you two having a debate though. I now have two different OP's to consider.
Just as my OP, it relies on base observation. Which is why I consulted who I assume are experts (science forum users)
Just media trends. I can't give you an exact date. Several others have confirmed this, which is why I dared make a thread regarding race.
Children suffering from food shortages is likely to worsen... Child Hunger, Malnutrition on Rise in Parts of Eastern, Southern Africa December 25, 2015 The U.N. Childrens Fund warns poor rainfall and the El Nino weather phenomenon are putting hundreds of thousands of children at risk of hunger and disease in parts of eastern and southern Africa.
The article you copied is extremely scientific and too hard for my little pea-brain to understand, and I took a course in genetics. I applaud you for understanding the article enough to copy it.
No population in the United States has a higher obesity rate than African American women, four out of five of whom are overweight or obese, according to a 2012 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the general adult population, 70 percent of adults are overweight or obese. http://www.bu.edu/today/2012/exploring-the-causes-of-black-womens-obesity/ Four out of five black women are obese. That is a little higher than 21%. It would be more like 21% are not obese. One of the statistics mentioned above is not right. I'm betting on the first one.
