未必真实，新疆的汉族小孩同样爱运动，甚至有可能更爱运动，尤其是处在城市里的小孩多，有更多样的体育运动条件。维族小巴郎子很多家庭条件本身就不好，到处疯玩并不等于在体育运动。
《美国人类遗传学杂志》（AJHG, The American Journal of Human Genetics）曾经有过一些研究维族的遗传学的研究报告发表，像耶鲁大学医学院的这个报告认为维族的基因介于欧洲人和东亚人之间，但是更像东亚人：
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790568/
Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Dec 11; 85(6): 934–937.
Genetic Landscape of Eurasia and “Admixture” in Uyghurs
Hui Li,1 Kelly Cho,1 Judith R. Kidd,1 and Kenneth K. Kidd1,?
1Department of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
中科院于德国马普所计算生物学伙伴研究所的这个报告认为维族的基因差不多一半一半，北疆维族稍微更接近欧洲，南疆维族稍微更接近亚洲
Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Sep 12; 83(3): 322–336.
A Genome-wide Analysis of Admixture in Uyghurs and a High-Density Admixture Map for Disease-Gene Discovery
Shuhua Xu1 and Li Jin1,2,?
1Chinese Academy of Sciences and Max Planck Society (CAS-MPG) Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China
AJHG算是一份很有影响比较严肃的学术期刊，既然这些报告认为维族人的基因是欧亚混血，那么在身体条件上，也应该表现出类似的介于欧洲人和亚洲人之间——前提是同样的营养条件。作者: guoyaoshi3 时间: 2015-5-24 18:16 引用9楼 @Crawfishcake2 发表的:
[Ethnic differences on nutritional status of children under 3 years old in poor counties of the western China].
Qu PF1, Zeng LX, Zhou XY, Zhao YL, Wang QL, Dang SN, Yan H.
OBJECTIVE:
To explore the ethnic differences on nutritional status of children under three years old, in the western areas of China and to identify the affecting factors.
METHODS:
14 072 children under the age of three years and their mothers were recruited, using the proportion population sampling method in 45 counties in the western areas of China. Height and weight were used as the measurement on nutrition of children.
RESULTS:
Height and weight of children with Han, Uyghur, Tibetan and Zhuang ethnicities were all lower than the WHO standards and with differences on height and weight among them. There were also ethnic differences on the status of malnutrition. Prevalence rates of stunting were 14.7%, 20.3%, 26.9% and 26.5% for Han, Uyghur, Tibetan and Zhuang ethnicities, respectively. Prevalence rates of underweight were 6.1%, 10.7%, 6.8% and 15.5% among the Han, Uyghur, Tibetan and Zhuang ethnicities, respectively. The prevalence rates of wasting were 4.2%, 5.3%, 2.9%, 8.9%, and of under nutrition were 19.2%, 25.5%, 30.3% and 36.5% for the Han, the Uyghur, the Tibetan and the Zhuang ethnicities, respectively. When factors as family size, years of schooling of parents, family numbers, sex, age (months), mother"s height and weight, ways of feeding and sources of family income etc. were adjusted, children with Uyghur, Tibetan, Zhuang and other ethnicities were still presented more malnutrition than the children with Han ethnicity.
CONCLUSION:
There were differences on malnutrition status of children under the age of three years among the studies on different ethnicities. Undernutrition was less than nutritional status, seen in children of the Han nationality than other minority ethnicities. Ethnicity seemed to be related to differences in the nutritional status of children in western China while children of the Han nationality would be better than other minorities on nutritional status if they were in same living conditional.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000852
Rushton’s r–K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations
Richard Lynn
University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland BT52 1SA, United Kingdom
呵呵，谢谢，谢谢，真是好久没看见这么喜欢送脸下乡的“科学精神”了。继昨天证明了您连引用论文时要搞清楚原始出处这一最基本的论文引用原则都懵然无知后，今天又用一篇自己抽自己脸的东西来给咱取乐。真实太感谢了。呵呵。
好吧。就让咱来看看，您拿出的这篇《Rushton’s r–K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations 》里的数据到底是什么东西吧。
虽然对Richard Lynn以及其文中提到的John Philippe Rushton的life history theory这种人类学领域，本人一窍不通。但是本着实事求是的精神，咱还是很轻松的找到了这篇文章的出处。
http://www.taodocs.com/p-4364169.html。
想看原文的同学，可以看看原文。而不必被个截图所忽悠。让我们先看原文是什么。这个表（table 3）以及之前和之后的另外3个表，都出自该论文的第二部分“2.New data on race difference in penis length”。那么，让我们看看这些“New data”的来源是什么呢。
在阁下自己所引用的文中，已经标出来了table2和table3的来源了。我就用阁下的截图，来标出来给大家看看吧。下面这个截图里，黑框即table2和table3的数据来源
呵呵，table2的数据来源是什么？
[color=]targetmap网站 ！阁下可是清清楚楚承认，targetmap是个三无网站哦。难道这个三无网站的东西，就印在某篇英文写成的论文中，就不是三无产品了？
那么，我们再来看这所谓的记录着世界各国小弟弟长度的table3的数据来源又是什么？嗯，everyoneweb网站，这又是什么网站？本着实事求是的精神，我再一次按照这个文章提供的网址，打开了下面这个网页
http://www.everyoneweb.com/worldpenissize
wow!首先映入我眼帘的是，原来这个网站研究的主题，已经到了2015年版了。好悠久的学术研究历史啊。然后，是这个网页介绍“
This website provides information offered by trusted research centers and reports worldwide ”。啊，
trusted research centers 。这不由让我对该网页数据的可信度提高了一个几个百分点。
但是，接下来，当我看到数据采集的方法中大部分竟然写着“self reported”时，这几个百分点马上化作了满头雾水？self reported?就报个数？这就是数据采集方法？
当然了，这还不算什么，因为表中数据源毕竟还有少部分是经过“meatured”的嘛，但是，当我继续看，我发现了什么？居然有好多所谓的数据来源，竟然是《Lynn et al.. 2012. An examination of Rushton’s theory of differences in penis length》，也就是本文？这！这算什么？！这就是作者声称的"
trusted research centers" ？
论文说我的数据来自某网页，然后网页说我的数据来自该论文！？左手撸右手？
嗯，实在忍不住的我，只好点开该网页数据来源，看看这个网页自己是怎么介绍自己的数据来源的——
You
are entering an extend and comprehensive database of penile dimension
studies, that is frequently updated on this platform. This site has no
racial reality agenda or tries in any case to discredit a countries
honour.
[color=]We do not pretend to be 100% accurate in the data given, but try only to use scientific relevant and trusted reports available
.
呵呵。英文我不太好，但还勉强看得懂，搞这玩意的人的意思就是真假我们不能保证，您自己看着办。是这意思吧。
看到这里，我想大家都该看明白了，这个所谓的everyoneweb,无非是和wiki一样的玩意罢了。要说它比targetmap，还真高级点。但是说它的数据，能作为科学研究中可信的数据，那我只能呵呵了。(ps:我现在想了一下，也许在统计学的观点上，这些数据具有一定价值？本着不知为不知的态度，期待这方面研究方家给咱解惑）
这位信誓旦旦告诉我们国内的学术论文不严谨和造假而臭名昭著“”的学术大师，端给我们的到底是什么严谨的东西啊。
提醒一下，先生，不是会用个学术搜索引擎，会截个图，就能在咱面前装“学术”的。下回献宝时，还请先阅读一下原文哦（如果阁下英文水平能达到的话，不过从你两次都送脸下乡的表现看，我很怀疑这一点）。免得拿出来自己打自己脸的东西哦。
再来，论文的措辞里，是这么说的：The second new data set consists of a survey。 也就是说，这是一个survey。
在这里我又忍不住要抽一抽小傻瓜的小脸蛋了，这小傻瓜用翻译软件的意思在读，所以他根本不知道survey 研究在学术里有专有的意思，就是用询问受试者的方式进行的一种研究。
A survey is defined as a brief interview or discussion with individuals about a specific topic.
所以这个小傻瓜还洋洋得意的说，你看你居然用self-report的方式收集数据。survey study不self-report，你还要用什么办法？哈哈，有够蠢的。
在医学研究里，survey研究是非常重要也在统计上实际上可靠的方法，比如NEJM，这是全世界最好的医学期刊，它上面多的是survey，倚靠的就是对象self-report，自我报告。
比如
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa067423
A Study of Sexuality and Health among Older Adults in the United States
再来，论文的措辞里，是这么说的：The second new data set consists of a survey。 也就是说，这是一个survey。
在这里我又忍不住要抽一抽小傻瓜的小脸蛋了，这小傻瓜用翻译软件的意思在读，所以他根本不知道survey 研究在学术里有专有的意思，就是用询问受试者的方式进行的一种研究。
A survey is defined as a brief interview or discussion with individuals about a specific topic.
所以这个小傻瓜还洋洋得意的说，你看你居然用self-report的方式收集数据。survey study不self-report，你还要用什么办法？哈哈，有够蠢的。
在医学研究里，survey研究是非常重要也在统计上实际上可靠的方法，比如NEJM，这是全世界最好的医学期刊，它上面多的是survey，倚靠的就是对象self-report，自我报告。
比如
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa067423
A Study of Sexuality and Health among Older Adults in the United States
