Look, I use "admixture" how DNAP uses it.
The real word should be "genetic distance."
An example. Let us say that South Asians really have 30% total non-IE admixture.
That is what would be obtained by comparison to a broadly based parental population, that included South Asians.
But DNAP says that South Asians have 50% "admixture." That is where the over-estimation takes place.
SOME of the admixure is real, based on real historical events (e.g., the Mongol conquest of India). SOME of the "admixture" is not admixture at all, but simply that Asian Caucasians have different gene frequencies than do Northwest Europeans, as would be expected from genetic drift and thousands of years of separation.
When DNAP says that Greeks are 5% NAM and 5% African, on average, does that mean they really are 10% non-IE?
Or are they maybe 2-3% non-IE, and the rest is inflated because they are being compared to NW Europeans?
Until the correct parentals are used, I do not know and neither does DNAP.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
