I've noticed that in drawing books on human anatomy and such. You very rarely find a good mix of people. And little to no attention is paid to how different bodies look, when bodies are conceptualized in books on drawing humans. Of course the obvious thing every drawing book will tell you is to study humans, draw from life, carry a sketchbook with you, blablablah practice-cakes, which is of course as true as it is supremely unhelpful. Nobody needs a book to know that to draw and study real people is good practice. OTOH drawing from life has also limitations, which is most likely the reason why you got the drawing book in the first place, to help you solve the problems you have. Which is especially true if you want to do fantasy art or action scenes rather than some sitting nude.
And in every drawing book that breaks down humans to help you that "generic" human is usually a young(ish), white man, though young, white women appear too, and they are usually drawn in a way that is considered "well-proportioned" at the time, which fluctuates a bit. And the one book (by Ron Tiner) I've encountered that is a bit more decent about different body types and ages (and to a lesser extent race) turns "scientific" classification systems from the 19th/early 20th century into artistic tools without any reflection or even notice that they were racist crap, for example the craniometry with its cephalic index. I wouldn't even mind the use of the terminology from outdated racist anthropology to describe skull and body types descriptively (I mean, late 19th and early 20th century anthropology was kind of obsessed with measuring and categorizing humans, so they do have a lot of specific vocabulary to describe differences in humans), but the book presented those as if this was actually "neutral" anthropology and it was from the 1990s and apparently did not at all realize that it is of the racist, debunked type.
no subject
And in every drawing book that breaks down humans to help you that "generic" human is usually a young(ish), white man, though young, white women appear too, and they are usually drawn in a way that is considered "well-proportioned" at the time, which fluctuates a bit. And the one book (by Ron Tiner) I've encountered that is a bit more decent about different body types and ages (and to a lesser extent race) turns "scientific" classification systems from the 19th/early 20th century into artistic tools without any reflection or even notice that they were racist crap, for example the craniometry with its cephalic index. I wouldn't even mind the use of the terminology from outdated racist anthropology to describe skull and body types descriptively (I mean, late 19th and early 20th century anthropology was kind of obsessed with measuring and categorizing humans, so they do have a lot of specific vocabulary to describe differences in humans), but the book presented those as if this was actually "neutral" anthropology and it was from the 1990s and apparently did not at all realize that it is of the racist, debunked type.