Post: #201

(11-27-2014 10:25 AM)Pestilence Wrote:  Do you do street approaches or approach women at bars, or is it just mainly your social circle?

60% social circle, 30% holiday destinations where you can strike up conversations with women who are traveling alone or with a friend, 10% club game.

I don't approach in streets and malls. I find it forced but I know people who do it regularly.

(11-27-2014 09:33 PM)Arado Wrote:  not India Indians no offense you guys are at a different place in terms of mindset

Yeah, sometimes I feel for the guys who display an identity crisis. You guys should've stuck around when the going was tough or at least caught the first train back like these guys.

Talent flows East

I wonder how other minorities like Persian-Americans, Korean-Americans etc handle those issues?

(11-27-2014 09:33 PM)Arado Wrote:  don't cook Indian food,

What is this blasphemy? You don't cook Chicken Tikka?

Post: #202

(11-28-2014 02:53 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

(11-27-2014 09:33 PM)Arado Wrote:  not India Indians no offense you guys are at a different place in terms of mindset

Yeah, sometimes I feel for the guys who display an identity crisis. You guys should've stuck around when the going was tough or at least caught the first train back like these guys.

Talent flows East

I wonder how other minorities like Persian-Americans, Korean-Americans etc handle those issues?

(11-27-2014 09:33 PM)Arado Wrote:  don't cook Indian food,

What is this blasphemy? You don't cook Chicken Tikka?

Like I said, we can get into a discussion on multiculturalism/identity crisis but I'm curious about how to deal with this subset of game situation. If there wasn't so much reverse caste discrimination/quotas and inefficiencies than perhaps my family would have considered staying back in the day, but what's done is done. Anyway, we'll see if Modi can jumpstart things, but I'm skeptical.

I guess I should learn to cook Indian food, but I'm trying to learn to cook more in general for dinner dates and health reasons.

Post: #203

These kinds of articles make me depressed: /thread-36001.html

It's an article by Krauser titled "THE 10 INVISIBLE BARRIERS TO DAYGAME". He mentions "little Indian chodes" twice in it.

"Everyone has strings of blowouts. If you’re good-looking and confident they’ll be short strings that barely phase you but you’ll still get them. If you’re a short Indian chode opening Russian catwalk models blowouts are pretty much the only thing you’ll get."

and

"Then there’s all the little Indian chodes asking me “how many sets I need before hot Russian girl become in my harem, Mr Krauser?”"

I'm not completely sure what this means for Indian guys, but it is clear that they have a bad image in the sexual market. Krauser didn't *need* to say Indian. He could've just said "little chodes" but he didn't, which seems to suggest he has Indianness associated with chodeness in his head, and that's just bad news.

Post: #204

^it's not that he has Indianness associated with little chodes. He's going off people he has met and emails he's received when he says that. After all one of his best mates is an Indian

Post: #205

(12-01-2014 07:37 AM)bojangles Wrote:  He's going off people he has met and emails he's received when he says that.

This annoyingly needy behavior seems to be an Indian thing. I'm just lamenting the fact that it's an Indian thing. There's this deluge of Indian dudes spamming people all over the world with stupid questions and requests, which only makes it much worse for us cooler ones.

This is not limited to game and pickup. I am a grad student and I often receive requests for internships from Indian guys. I'm a grad student! I don't have money to host an intern! It's much worse when the request for the internship is in a field completely unrelated to mine.

My friend who is involved in many open source software projects gets similar emails from Indian guys. The common opinion in all these communities seems to be that "there are some cool Indian guys, but most of them spam the world with annoying questions."

I am bothered by this because I'm sure this affects the first impression someone has about me if the only thing they know about me so far is that I am an Indian. I have to fight the well-justified assumption that I am probably one of the annoying ones.

Post: #206

Not really, I'm writing about being socially adjusted and how it really helps regarding game soon. I think that being socially adjusted helps in all aspects of life and if you act normal, talk normal and understand subliminal communication then you won't get the negative feedback that most indian guys do.

Post: #207

Not gonna lie, Krauser's comments are vexing. He is entitled to his opinion, but he says all that and yet is content to take their money off book sales, that's not right.

Post: #208

(11-27-2014 09:33 PM)Arado Wrote:  I agree, anyway I'm still curious to hear from UK/US/Australian Indians (not India Indians no offense you guys are at a different place in terms of mindset):

What do you guys do when you're abroad (where people are less familiar with multiculturalism and ethnic Westerners) and girls insist on discussing your ethnicity?

Do you play it down and emphasize your Americanness or embrace it, even if you yourself aren't that reflective of your ethnicity (don't speak Hindi, don't like Bollywood, don't cook Indian food, etc)? If you do emphasize your Americanness, how do you do it smoothly when the girl is asking a bunch of questions about India or says something like: "you're not American/British/Australisn you're Indian!" or "oh I thought you were from India!"

Last night I was out and a couple of girls focused on the Indian thing and those conversations went nowhere regardless of whether I "owned" the ethnicity or played it down. Of all the sets that hooked well and got makeouts/etc, all were girls that didn't care about my ethnicity or accepted me as an American without question.

Obviously, the fashion, hygiene, being socially adjusted, dressing well stuff is already taken care of. What are ways to guide the conversation in order to do better with the girls that usually would be closed off to an Indian but open to a American?

I’m not an American, but I say to people I’m not from India, and I’m from UK. With Americans, my accent overrides their perception of my skin colour. They generally see me as British. In China, I was hanging out with white Americans, so I guess the locals saw me as one of them. In Japan a lot of people also thought I was American for some reason.

There’s always women who can’t get past your ethnicity – next them!

This has been said many times before, but being seen with a diverse set of people straight away makes people think you are not a FOB.

Post: #209

(12-01-2014 09:12 AM)future Wrote:  This annoyingly needy behavior seems to be an Indian thing. I'm just lamenting the fact that it's an Indian thing. There's this deluge of Indian dudes spamming people all over the world with stupid questions and requests, which only makes it much worse for us cooler ones.

I actually see this as a blessing. If the majority of your demographic are seen negatively then learning game, fixing your body language and your wardrobe will bring far greater results than say the average white guy who does the above. Roissy has a good post on contrast, I would suggest you check it out.

And stop valuing the opinions of others to a point that it bothers you. Why do you care what Krauser or some other 'game guru' thinks about your race. Game teaches us not to pedestalize women; it should apply to men as well.

Post: #210

(11-27-2014 09:33 PM)Arado Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 11:56 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  Lol what happened to this thread? It started so well then turned into a thread about multiculturalism and whether or not minorities should be considered American/Canadian( or whichever Western country they live in). Slightly bizarre but not totally unexpected.

Anyway, WalterBlack, Deluge, bojangles, and Cobra have been making good points. It cannot be repeated enough but you simply gain so many points by being an Indian guy who's "normal" and socially adjusted. THere will be girls who don't like you because of your skin color but who cares about those girls? Just be the best version of yourself that you can be and throw the limiting beliefs about your race/skin color out the window. Don't put girls on a pedestal (especially white chicks) and approach relentlessly. Everything else is just noise. I believe it was Gio who said it in one of his threads but all the people who whine about their race need to STFU and approach like a machine (not exactly in those words but you get the idea ).

Also, Fighting888 did the same thing in the old IRT thread and would paste a bunch of graphs and figures about STD rates/interracial dating and marriage etc. about Indians. Maybe he likes doing research on Indians?

I agree, anyway I'm still curious to hear from UK/US/Australian Indians (not India Indians no offense you guys are at a different place in terms of mindset):

What do you guys do when you're abroad (where people are less familiar with multiculturalism and ethnic Westerners) and girls insist on discussing your ethnicity?

Do you play it down and emphasize your Americanness or embrace it, even if you yourself aren't that reflective of your ethnicity (don't speak Hindi, don't like Bollywood, don't cook Indian food, etc)? If you do emphasize your Americanness, how do you do it smoothly when the girl is asking a bunch of questions about India or says something like: "you're not American/British/Australisn you're Indian!" or "oh I thought you were from India!"

Last night I was out and a couple of girls focused on the Indian thing and those conversations went nowhere regardless of whether I "owned" the ethnicity or played it down. Of all the sets that hooked well and got makeouts/etc, all were girls that didn't care about my ethnicity or accepted me as an American without question.

Obviously, the fashion, hygiene, being socially adjusted, dressing well stuff is already taken care of. What are ways to guide the conversation in order to do better with the girls that usually would be closed off to an Indian but open to a American?

For me (here in Canada) it's never been an issue. WalterBlack nailed it. It always helps when you have a diverse social circle. As it keeps on getting repeated, there will be girls who don't like your race/ethnicity/type. Who cares? Next them and move on. Sometimes girls will ask me about my background but a lot of the times it doesn't even come up at all until later after the first time I meet her or after the bang.

Post: #211

(11-23-2014 04:10 AM)Deluge Wrote:  Self-reported data is useless, look at what people do not what they say. If you want to get a clear picture of mixing you have to look at intermarriage data and the best place to do that is the Census. You need academic access to get it for free, but check out "Intermarriage by Birthplace and Ancestry in Australia" by Siew-Ean Khoo, Bob Birrell, Genevieve Heard in People and Place, vol. 17, no. 1, 2009.

Looking at the largest immigrant groups (who can easily find co-ethnics to marry where they live), according to the 2006 Census 35% of second generation and 69% of third generation Chinese men, 40% of all second generation Arab men, 51% of second generation and 77% of third generation Italian men and 56% of second generation Indian men were intermarried in 2006. Where the third generation wasn't stated it was because there wasn't enough third generation respondents of marriage age at the time to make a sufficient dataset.

Among women intermarriage rates were the same or lower than men's for all groups except "Oriental" Asians, i.e second generation Chinese women had a 48% intermarriage rate vs 35% for men, although the gap is almost gone by the 3rd generation (69% of men vs 73% of women for the Chinese). Unfortunately the only data on Africans is for South Africans (almost all of whom are white), and 1st generation Sudanese, who at 11% had a lower intermarriage rate than first generation Indian, Arab and Italian men, but a higher intermarriage rate than Chinese and Vietnamese men. Latino's are virtually non-existent here even today.

TL;DR: in Australia second generation Indian men are more likely to marry out than second generation Italian, Arab and Chinese men, AND Chinese women.

Exclude Indians and Orientials marrying people from another "Asian" ancestry and the true intermarriage rate in the 2nd generation drops to about 27% for both Chinese and Vietnamese men (Vietnamese dudes seem marry a lot of non-Vietnamese Asian women) and 52% for Indian men down from 56%. Do the same for Italian men marrying "Asian" women and it's still lower than Indians at 49% down from 51%. Also FYI a lot of other European groups in the table are present in too small numbers to accurately compare to larger groups, there's not enough for someone to easily find a co-ethnic to marry.

The problem with your data is that a large percentage of the Indian-Australian population, in the 2nd+ generation category, is comprised of Anglo-Indians. Anglo-Indians are of partial white, partial Indian ancestry. So including them in the intermarriage statistics tends to distort the intermarriage rates and inflates these rates to being higher than they really tend to be. For example, the statistics show Indian-Australian women intermarry more than Chinese and Vietnamese Australian women. That doesn't match real life experience of Indian women being more conservative in dating/marriage - the main reason for the high intermarriage rate is that includes lots of Anglo Indians.

Here's some data from the US. Which will be more useful to us, as America doesn't have a substantial Anglo-Indian population and the Indian population in America is roughly 8x the size of the Indian-Australian population.

http://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml

Here are the percentage of men (of each Asian-American ethnicity) intermarried with white women:

Indian: 4.3
Chinese: 5.2
Filipino: 7.9
Japanese: 18.8
Korean: 5.3
Vietnamese: 2.8

Now I will give you statistics for Asian-American male intermarriage for 1.5/2nd generation Asian-American Men. (1.5 generation are immigrants who arrive in America at a young age in their childhood.) So these statistics are a good indicator of the US-raised Asian-American man's interracial marriage situation.

Here are the percentage of men (of each Asian-American ethnicity from the 1.5/2nd generation) intermarried with white women:

Indian: 13.2
Chinese: 19.2
Filipino: 24.0
Japanese: 22.8
Korean: 23.1
Vietnamese: 13.1

As you can see, Indian-American marry white women at lower rate than the other Asian-American ethnicities. The exception would be the Vietnamese-American population, who intermarry at a lower rate.

Here are the intermarriage stats for Canada:



TLDR: Indian-American men intermarry with white women at a lower rate than Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Filipino men. This is especially so for US-raised Indian-Americans in comparison to these other Asian ethnicities.

South Asian (Indian, Pakistani) Canadian men intermarry at a lower rate than Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Arab, black, and Latin American men.

Ignore the Australian stats, as they're inflated by the inclusion of large numbers of mixed-race Anglo-Indians.

Post: #212

Fighting888 what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You're not really contributing any value to the thread, which was intended to help out Indian guys who want to improve themselves.

Post: #213

(12-01-2014 09:45 PM)Saladin Wrote:  Fighting888 what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Race trolling .

Post: #214

Now I'll give you some statistics from England&Wales.

Here are the percentages of South-Asian British men intermarried with white women (from the 2001 UK Census):

Indian: 4.86
Pakistani: 3.65
Bangladeshi: 2.16

Here are the percentages of 1.5/2nd generation South-Asian British men intermarried with women of a different ethnicity (from the 2001 UK Census). These are statistics for British-raised South Asian men:

Indian: 19.46
Pakistani: 10.46
Bangladeshi: 19.23

The above figures include intra-South Asian marries (ie Indian marries a Pakistani) and also interethnic marriages with other non-white groups. If we want to get the percentage of 1.5/2nd generation South Asian British men who intermarry with white women, here are the rough estimates I calculate from the Census data (figures are approximate):

Indian: 11.2
Pakistani: 4.2
Bangladeshi: 7.6

I was curious about figures for interracial cohabitation, as cohabitation is a better proxy for "dating" and sexual behavior. Some have suggested that there's a tendency for South Asian men to date other races, but marry their own. So here are some interethnic cohabitation rates for British South Asian men and women. These figures are based on calculations from the UK Census. Methodology can be provided if requested. These figures are estimated lifetime probabilities of cohabitation for South Asian youth in the UK. These youth can be of any generation, but primarily 1.5 and 2nd generation.

Probability of UK South Asian youth male cohabiting: 17%
Probability of UK South Asian youth female cohabiting: 15.5%

Probability of UK South Asian youth male cohabiting outside of race (ie with a non-South Asian): 8.3%
Probability of UK South Asian youth female cohabiting outside of race (ie with a non-South Asian): 6.8%

Interestingly, the probability of interethnic cohabitation for UK Chinese males was somewhat higher than for UK South Asian males. UK Chinese females cohabiting far more than UK South Asian females also.

Lastly, here are the probabilities of having contracted chlamydia, by ethnicity. These probabilities are based on a large-scale national chlamydia screening programme in England. These screenings only look at those in the 15-24 age range, so they apply to UK South Asian youth. Also, these screenings are based on those who submit to chlamydia testing, so if a more culturally conservative group opts not to test, that wouldn't distort these results.

These chlamydia positive rates by ethnicity are a good indicator of sexual promiscuity, as chlamydia can only be contracted through sexual activity.

As you can see, females and especially males from the Asian subcontinent (ie India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka) have much lower rates of chlamydia than other ethnic groups. Even lower than Chinese men and women. As a group, there seems to be particularly low rates of sexual activity among UK South Asian youth males.

The US govt keeps it's own statistics for chlamydia. Based on my analysis, it seems that even in America, there seems a pattern of chlamydia rates for men being in this order: Black, Hispanic, white, East Asian, South Asian. For women, the pattern is similar, except some studies indicate East Asian women might be equal or slightly higher than white women. Interestingly, it seems lifetime probability of chlamydia infection is equal for UK whites and American whites.

I explored that possibility that variations in chlamydia rates, by ethnicity, could reflect different rates of "safe sex" practices. However, this seems unlikely, as British South Asians and British whites have equal abortion rates. If British South Asians observed safer sex practices more frequently, we wouldn't see equal abortion rates. (By the way, the overwhelming majority of British abortions occur to young unmarried young women. This is also true of South Asian women, among whom the overwhelming majority of abortion seekers are young women.) It seems that low chlamydia positivity among UK South Asian males and females is more a product of relatively non-promiscuous sexual behavior, rather than any differences in safe sex practices.




TLDR: As we can see, intermarriage rates (with white women) for British-Indian men are about the same as those of Indian-American men. Other South Asian groups (Pakistani, Bangladeshi) intermarry less.

Cohabitation rates are comparatively low for South Asian youth males and youth females in the UK, but the men are slightly more likely to cohabit before marriage. Both groups have low rates of interethnic cohabitation.

Post: #215

^^





Still don't understand what's your motivation for posting all that and derailing the thread.

Post: #216

(12-01-2014 10:56 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  ^^





Still don't understand what's your motivation for posting all that and derailing the thread.

My statistics were in response to Deluge. He asserted that Indian/South-Asian men were more successful than East Asian men at gaming by the 2nd generation. I disagree with this and the cited evidence (chlamydia rates for both the US and UK, interracial marriage stats, cohabitation rates, online dating statistics) was posted to refute his point.

Here are Deluge's quotes:

(12-01-2014 10:56 PM)Deluge Wrote:  Also, Kaizen has it wrong Asian guys have it harder. With Indian men their problems are cultural, by the time they're 3rd generation 99% of their problems go away. This is why when do you see a FOB Indian with a white girl she's almost always an immigrant from Southern or Eastern Europe so their traditional cultures have more in common. With Asians though, their situation does improve with each generation but their core problems with passivity and shyness don't go away, but there's a decent improvement with the Eurasian mixes, I suspect the prevalence of these traits for Asians isn't cultural but genetic. This is more true for Chinese/Korean/Japanese guys then South East Asian's who are more alpha, hence why so many guys were saying Julien could never get away with his Tokyo behaviour in Bangkok in the RSD thread.

(12-01-2014 10:56 PM)Deluge Wrote:  Perhaps cultural norms stick to Asian dudes more than Indians over generations, but the Eurasian guys because inbetween makes me wonder otherwise, as does the fact Asian guys have a harder time putting on muscle. Whereas Black guys are the opposites both for muscle and extraversion/confidence. My guess is relative to White, Middle Eastern and Indian people (who are all on a clear genetic continuum) Asians have less testosterone and Blacks have more. Out of all the HBD science this stuff seems the most solid.

That's also why I posted stats showing East Asian countries perform better at the Olympics. I disagree with Deluge that East Asians are lower in gaming abilities and testosterone than South Asians. The evidence supports my assertion.

There's some additional evidence that I could post on lean mass and ethnicity, but I might save that for another day.

Post: #217

Re: Deluge

I found the data I was looking for.

This study (graphic posted below) examines fat-mass and fat-free mass (ie lean muscular mass) among different ethnic groups in New Zealand. The study was done by
the University of Auckland.

https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the...rticle-wen



As you can see, Indian males and females have substantially higher fat mass than Whites, Chinese, Maoris, and Pacific Islanders. Asian Indian males and females also have substantially lower fat-free mass than Whites, Chinese, Maoris, and Pacific Islanders.

So Deluge's speculation that East Asian men have the lowest testosterone isn't quite accurate. If we assume a correlation between testosterone and fat-free mass and an inverse correlation between fat mass and testosterone, then Indians are likely lower in testosterone than East Asians. It does seem that East Asians are lower than whites in testosterone levels, but not the lowest of all the major ethnic groups.

It has been asserted by posters that Indians from the Panjaab region of northern India/Pakistan are significantly different from the general Indian population. To test this hypothesis, I found a study which examined lean mass and ethnicity among a multiethnic Canadian sample. This study was done in the Greater Vancouver region of the British Columbia province in Western Canada. The study examined males and females from the following ethnic groups: White-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, Aborigine-Canadian, and South Asian-Canadian. 82% of the South Asian participants indicated that they spoke the Panjaabi language. So this study gives us an opportunity to compare the Panjaab-Indians to other ethnic groups.



In this study, South Asian males had substantially lower lean mass than Whites and Aborigines, but higher lean mass than the Chinese males. South Asian males had substantially higher fat mass than the other ethnic groups. South Asian males had a comparatively smaller standard deviation in their lean mass values, so we can assume that this was not a relatively heterogenous sample. To put it more simple language, we can assume that that in the South Asian sample (sample split 82/18 Panjaab/non-Punjaab language speakers), the non-Panjaab element didn't have significantly different lean mass values.

Based on this study, there does seem to a possibility that there's intragroup variation within the South Asian population. Even with the variation, the Paanjab-South Asians demonstrated the high fat-mass/low lean-mass build found in other studies of South Asians. The lean mass distribution for the Paanjab South-Asians is higher than for the general South Asian population, but still well below that of whites.

TLDR:

Indians have much lower lean mass values than whites/Chinese and higher fat mass. Paanjab-Indians have lower lean mass than whites, but higher than Chinese. They have higher fat mass than Chinese and whites. Based on this, we could assume lower testosterone levels for South Asians, but with some moderate intragroup variation.

Post: #218

Good job single-handedly derailing this thread. You were posting the same crap in the old IRT thread as well. Keep on posting information which has nothing to do with anything relevant (within the scope of this thread).

Post: #219

(12-02-2014 03:15 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  Good job single-handedly derailing this thread. You were posting the same crap in the old IRT thread as well. Keep on posting information which has nothing to do with anything relevant (within the scope of this thread).

So studies on online interracial dating and interracial marriage rates have nothing to do with this topic?

Post: #220

Anglo-Indians are ~5% of Australia's Indians, and they wouldn't write themselves down as Indian in the Census anyway, regular Indian's have been immigrating in big numbers for almost 40 years. Look at first generation Pakistani intermarriage rates in the Census and they're slightly higher than Indians (maybe due to lack of available partners) and even higher for Sinhalese, so you can't the figures off as being Anglo-Indians. The Census data matches exactly with what I've seen of second generation curry's getting married, about half of both male and females end up marrying white people, usually someone of similarly high education/income.

And my gym is maybe half Asian, they have a harder time putting on mass than the whites and curry's and the Black dudes are the biggest, it is what is it is.

Post: #221

You guys. Clearly fighting888 is a white dude who'se white wife left him for some Nawab from Darjelling and he hasn't been able to get over it.

Also, what exactly are the boundaries here? I don't know but if it is acceptable to refer to people as curry's can we refer to posters like Deluge as white trash. I don't really care, I'm just curious.

Post: #222

Sri Lanka had a large mixed-race Burgher population. Similar to Anglo-Indians. These people were mixed with Dutch and Portugese ancestry.
There were 50,000 Anglo-Indians in Australia as of 2006. Almost all of whom are long-time residents (ie 2nd+ generation). http://www.overseasindian.in/2006/sept/news/11m1.shtml
As for Pakistan, it had its own Anglo-Pakistani population. I don't know what percentage of Anglo-Indians value their Indian ancestry, but there seem to be a lot of Anglo-Indian organizations out there and lots of Anglo-Indian pride (ie Russell Peters), so I don't necessarily agree that Anglo-Indians don't write down Indian ancestry in the Census forms.

One reason that Australia might not be the best example, other than the Anglo-Indian/Lankan/Pakistani population inflating figures, is that its Indian population was pretty small until the last few yeras. For example, in 2001 there were only 156,000 Indians in Australia. Compared to 1.8 million Indians in America and over 2 million South Asians in the UK. America offers better statistics because of larger population size and the UK, with South Asians being present in large numbers from around the 1960s to today, offers the best statistics.

Of the 156,000 Indians in Australia, 26,500 indicated multiracial ancestry. Probably Anglo-Indians.

Of the 156,000 about 35,400 were 2+ generation in 2001. In comparison, there were about 450,000 2nd+ generation Indian-Americans in 2000. Which sample do you think is more representative? I'd say UK>US>>>Australia. So when I post stats showing better odds for interracial marriage and interracial dating (and contracting chlamydia) for East/Southeast Asian-American men, I'd say my data are fairly solid. Better dating/marriage odds are consistent with the higher lean mass/lower fat mass present in East Asians, as well as the stronger record in athletics (ie Olympic medals and pro sports). Overall, East/Southeast Asians seems to exceed South Asians in testosterone, but are still behind caucasians.

Quote: my gym is maybe half Asian, they have a harder time putting on mass than the whites and curry's and the Black dudes are the biggest, it is what is it is.

The statistics I posted showed that Chinese New-Zealanders had significantly higher lean mass, while Indian New Zealanders had much higher fat mass. If Indians are "bigger" than Chinese, it likely reflects higher levels of body fat. If you'd like, I can post another study done on college students in Texas. That study also shows higher levels of lean mass in Asian-Americans, but higher levels of fat in Indian-Americans. There's a third study of Singaporeans which found similar results for Chinese and Indians (ie Indians were fatter).

Here's a study on newborns. It actually found a lower birth weight overall for Indian-American newborn infants in comparison to Chinese-American newborns.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17694426

Quote:Analysis of the 1998-2003 National Center for Health Statistics' natality file for 293,211 singleton births in Asian Indian and Chinese mothers compared birthweight distributions, mean birthweights, proportions of very low birthweight (VLBW) and moderately low birthweight (MLBW) infants, and the influence of maternal nativity on these outcomes. A multiple logistic regression analysis, stratified by maternal nativity, was done to control for established confounders of maternal age, marital status, education, and parity.
RESULTS:
Maternal characteristics and birthweight distributions varied by race subgroup and nativity. Infants of Asian Indian mothers had a lower mean birthweight and higher proportions of VLBW and MLBW than Chinese. After controlling for differences in maternal characteristics, infants of US born Asian Indian mothers were more likely to be VLBW (AOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.27-2.75) or MLBW (AOR 1.59, 1.39-1.82) than infants of US born Chinese mothers. Similarly, infants of non-US born Asian Indian mothers were more likely to be VLBW (AOR 2.13, 2.06-2.21) or MLBW (AOR 2.26, 2.18-2.35) then infants of non-US born Chinese mothers.

The study didn't analyze lean mass vs fat mass, but previous studies show Indians tend to be above average in fat mass and Chinese tend to be below average. So there's likely a fairly large difference in lean mass between Chinese and Indian newborns in America, with the Chinese being larger in general. Of course there's data showing Chinese are smaller than white caucasians.

Here's data from a second study on newborns from Vancouver city in Western Canada. Similar pattern detected with South Asian newborns being smaller than Chinese and significantly smaller than Europeans. In Vancouver, the Indian population skews disproportionately toward the larger Paanjab-Indians.

Quote:Weight, length and head circumference were measured in 2695 infants born to healthy non-smoking mothers in British Columbia at 37–41 completed weeks of gestation. Gestational age was confirmed by ultrasound before 20 weeks of gestation. Weight was measured by digital scale, length by stadiometer and head circumference by firm plastic tape measures. Means and 95% confidence intervals were compared among newborns grouped by ethnicity and sex. Smoothed graphs were constructed for visual interpretation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802014/



There are studies from the UK which also show South Asians to have a body type with high fat mass and low lean mass.

For example, this study (below) found that South Asians in Scotland have lower fitness levels due to genetics. The study participants were likely mostly Pakistani, as 75% of the Scottish South Asian population is of Pakistani origin. However, other studies of British South Asians have shown strong similarities between the Indian and Pakistani populations in lean mass, fat mass, and height. So I'd assume this study could be extrapolated to the general South Asian population.

https://colliedrugs.com/article.php?id=6...rd_search=

Quote:FRIDAY, June 28 (HealthDay News) -- Lower fitness levels and higher amounts of body fat are major reasons why middle-aged men of South Asian origin living in Scotland have higher blood sugar levels and a greater risk of diabetes than white men, according to a new study.
The findings suggest that physical-activity guidelines may need to be changed to take people's ethnicity into account, the University of Glasgow researchers said.
The researchers measured blood sugar levels, insulin resistance and other diabetes risk factors in 100 South Asian and 100 white men, aged 40 to 70, without diabetes. The men's physical-fitness levels were measured using a treadmill test and their body size and body fat were calculated.
Lower fitness levels and greater body fat in South Asian men explained more than 80 percent of their increased insulin resistance compared to white men, the researchers concluded in the study, which was published in the June 27 issue of the journal Diabetologia.
The study also found that lower fitness levels among South Asian men could not be explained simply by lower activity levels. The South Asian men had lower fitness levels than white men at all levels of physical activity, which suggests natural differences in body makeup, the researchers said

Post: #223

(12-01-2014 02:13 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I’m not an American, but I say to people I’m not from India, and I’m from UK. With Americans, my accent overrides their perception of my skin colour. They generally see me as British. In China, I was hanging out with white Americans, so I guess the locals saw me as one of them. In Japan a lot of people also thought I was American for some reason.

There’s always women who can’t get past your ethnicity – next them!

This has been said many times before, but being seen with a diverse set of people straight away makes people think you are not a FOB.

To both Walter Black and the Slayer, I appreciate your advice, and I agree that it's spot on in Western countries. Accent and friend circle override ethnicity in the US/Canada/UK. If I was living in the US I wouldn't even post on this thread.

However, I'm talking about ABROAD - East Asia specifically, where Indians do not have the best reputation. How can you be socially deft and handle the ethnicity issue with a girl who is either fascinated/focused on your ethnicity.

I've posted several mock conversations so far and no one has given suggestions about how to handle it when a girl says "you're not American you're Indian!" or "hey tell me about **** related to India!"

Yes, game, fashion, frame, hygiene, etc I'm aware. However, there are a not insubstantial proportion of East Asian women (enough that "next" is not a long term solution) who are closed off to Indians regardless of game but open to Americans. So, what are some good conversational tactics? I think this would be a much more productive discussion than the race trolling statistics above.

Post: #224

(12-02-2014 03:43 AM)Deluge Wrote:  Anglo-Indians are ~5% of Australia's Indians, and they wouldn't write themselves down as Indian in the Census anyway, regular Indian's have been immigrating in big numbers for almost 40 years. Look at first generation Pakistani intermarriage rates in the Census and they're slightly higher than Indians (maybe due to lack of available partners) and even higher for Sinhalese, so you can't the figures off as being Anglo-Indians. The Census data matches exactly with what I've seen of second generation curry's getting married, about half of both male and females end up marrying white people, usually someone of similarly high education/income.

And my gym is maybe half Asian, they have a harder time putting on mass than the whites and curry's and the Black dudes are the biggest, it is what is it is.

The biggest guys in Australia/NZ are probably the Pacific Islanders.

In America, they're much larger than even people of African origin. I know Australia/NZ have many Tongans, Samoans, Fijians, and Maoris.

The studies I've seen show Pacific Islanders have high lean mass and high fat mass.

Post: #225

@Fighting888
The Census asks people to declare their ancestry, not a nationality. Anglo-Indian's are counted separately from Indians, don't know about Pakistani's (they're small in number anyway). Sri Lankan isn't counted as an ethnic group according to the Census (because it isn't one), notice I said Sinhalese specifically in gen 1 had a higher intermarriage rate than Indians (who are already at >50% in gen 2), no Burgher (or Tamil) would ever write down Sinhalese as their ethnicity on a census form because that's not their ethnicity. Same way a Bosnian Serb would never write down that they're a Bosniak. Intermarriage varies heavily by religion, for Muslims and Sikh's it's uncommon but the vast majority of Indian/Lankan Catholics (not mixed, their ancestors were converted by missionaries) do. There's a lot of the former in the U.K and a lot of the later in Australia.