Race and athletic ability.

Blacks descended from slavery dominate at power/speed sports because they were bred for hundreds of years to have those traits. The strongest males were bred to the strongest females to produce the strongest workers. that is why you see very few(or atleast statistically what you would expect based on population) native africans in the power/speed sports.

 
Yep... Don't like Obamacare? Racist.

Agree with the trayvon/Zimmerman verdict? Racist.

Point out that statistically black on white crime is way more prevalent than white on black? Racist.

This country is going down a dark path.
 
To address the question of race and athletic ability, there is

definitely a larger environmental portion to athletic ability than

genetics. But at an elite

level where almost everyone has nurtured their innate abilities to run

up to nearly their fullest extent, it all boils down to genetics. I

think this has basically been stated previously in different wording

throughout the thread.

But to whoever paralleled artificial

selection in dogs to slavery is absolutely wrong and people like that

need to brush up on their evolutionary concepts. There was no form of

natural selection or artificial selection going on during slavery. No

specific phenotypic/genotypic traits were being selected for during

slavery- at least not intentionally. Whether there truthfully was or wasn't actually artificial selection is blurred due to a lack of valid historical knowledge. You cannot pass on an acquired

trait. It's as simple as that. It's a fact that's been established since

Lamarck's theory of evolution was rendered invalid back in the 1800's.

And to put a simple term into simpler terms: if your parents, you, your

children, and grandchildren were all professional body builders, your

great great grandchildren will not be born with an innate genetic niche

for body building.

Even if "the strongest slaves were bred together to make stronger

slaves", it would have taken far longer than merely a few hundred years.

Dogs have shorter lifespans, which is why artificial selection in dogs

is evident to humans. Microbes have much shorter lifespans, which is why you can observe natural selection happen under a microscope, or with influenza within a year. Humans have the longest

life spans of any organism relevant to their BMI and body mass. It

would require much more than some hundreds of years (just a few generations) of artificial

selection to have any noticeable effect at the level of the individual

alone. At a population level it would be even longer.
 
if you breed together someone with the genetics of an NFL linebacker with that of an olympic sprinter and then breed the most athletic/strongest of the offspring for 20 generations you will have bred a very athletic race.

Why are the offspring of professional atheletes almost always really, really good athletes?
 
You're example here is pretty week and almost tautological.

We are talking about culture/genetics.If athletes have a child you can not distinguish between whether their athletic ability was genetically inherited from their parents or if they were socialized to be athletes from the start by two parents who hold athletics in high esteem.

Athletes having good athletes for children? Because they raised them that way. That's not evolution.
 
prince fielder looks pretty damn similar to Cecil...not to mention the incredibly high level of innate hand-eye coordination.

There are millions of kids socialized from day 1 to be athletes, yet the offspring of great athletes are much more often great athletes themselves.

 
there are a lot of high school hero dads who raise their kids from day 1 to play football. not very many of those kids end up being high level athletes.
 
I'm not saying you are wrong, all I'm saying is it seems that the two (socialization/genetics) are inextricable and hard to disentangle, especially since most people are raised by their biological predecessors. Also genetics and socialization are not mutually exclusive, all aspects of genetic influences require environmental activators.

 
im just saying that if your dad loved football but was slow, fat and short, raised you to love it and play it, you are going to be a worse athlete than the kid who was raised by his Ex-Ohio State football playing dad.
 
And again, in a general sense I agree, but when you are trying to determine whether it was the fathers genetics or the fathers socialization of the child, it gets muddy even with your example.

Sure the Ex-Ohio state football dad might have better genes, but he also clearly knows more about physical condition and discipline than does the dad who is fat and slow, loving football from the couch with a beer and bag of chips in hand. The Ex-Ohio State dad can actually go out and run with his sun, educated him on dieting and weight training, and provide a stronger example of athletic discipline than the father who can only show his son what football looks like on TV. These are all, again, aspects of socialization.
 
We're pointing out rudimentary concepts of evolution and the interplay of biology and culture acquired from elementary school, middle school, high school, and possibly even college. Nobody is "downplaying" genetics or science. If anything, we are supporting genetics and science by pointing out that there is no such thing as heritability of an "athletic gene". Please educate yourself before posting.
 
Actually athleticism is highly heritable. Bone lightness is a heritable trait and that is linked to speed. Strength is heritable and affects both speed and how high you can jump. Speed and vertical leap are the 2 best measures of athletic ability.
 
Athletic ability is a complex grouping of a bunch of rudimentary physical abilities. Yes, there are genetically inherited physical traits that lend them selves well to athletic ability, but once again, athletically ability itself is not an inheritable trait.

Also, athletic ability as a concept is too broad to say that "speed and vertical" are the best determinants. What type of athletics are we talking about? You're making pretty broad strokes, if you want to have a scientific argument try for more specificity.
 
First I'd like to point out that if you had lighter bones they'd break more easily. Ever hear of osteoporosis? It's a disease that people die from annually and it's something an athlete wouldn't be able to prosper with. There are plenty of other bone diseases that are due to low bone density, look them up.

And yes, physical traits such as tall stature and long limbs are heritable. But if you don't nurture yourself to get to an elite level, you're not going to become athletic. What is so hard to understand about this?
 
Uhh...is anyone arguing that? I don't think anyone is claiming that pro athletes become pro athletes without putting in a lot of training, regardless of their natural ability
 
By lighter bones i mean thinner bones. Osteoperosis has no effect on young people. Are you judging peoples athleticism at age 70? Haha
 
Actually the term athlete is used very sparingly to describe proffessional sports players, and it usually is used to refer to speed, strength, and ease of movement. Hand eye coordination is also highly heritable, as is muscle mass accumulation as shown in the video
 
To answer your question, yes. Osteoclast activity overpowering osteoblast activity (what happens during osteoporosis) will be hazardous for anyone regardless of their age. Osteoporosis is not the only bone disease out there. Look them up.

Also, thin bones aren't a necessity for every type of athletic activity. Actually, I think the only thing thin bones are good for are in the female modeling industry where anorexia and bulimia are also prevalent. There are different types of physical traits necessary for different types of sports. Hence, no such thing as an "athletic gene" that you're referring to. What it all boils down to is that the term "athletic" is subjective in this case.
 
maybe a speed, but good luck not getting stress fractures during high mileage training. But I would agree smaller stature in denisity would turn into a better economy and less fatigue.Generally anyone who has repeated bearing exposure during childhood/ teenage years has densure stronger bones reducing their odds of osteoporosis
 
Absolutely, the top athletes are a result of genetics, no argument there. But when you are arguing that one race is better than an other race in terms of sport performance I think that genetics is a pretty weak argument.

If you study a distinct population for specific physiological traits that directly improve their performance then I think you will find that in total there is pretty limited evidence. But in the case of Kenyan's for example its their environment that has permitted them through increased lactate threshold because of the altitude, the Vo2 max increase in from their increased exposure to running, and their economy is genetic and diet influence. So when you look at the variables, genetics are 1 of 4 factors that lead to increased performance. There are plenty of other populations that similar stature that could easily have the same results, but they have not been either afforded the opportunity or they dont hold enough cultural relevance to excel in endurance activities. Does evolution permit some populations to excel? Absolutely, but is it because of genetics that a group of people have success, probably not? But for one person to have success, yes.

The Kenyan's have are just an example multifactoral perfect storm in a

If anything, I think society has placed way too much relevance in genetics and trying to apply social darwanism concepts to it. Its pretty simple, the race with the highest participation rate in a sport will excel in it, pure probability.

Its not what race you are or what environment you live in it, its what a population does in their environment that makes athletic success.

I can't remember if it was mentioned in this thread or if it was said in my lecture last night, but many elite athletes at highest level have also gone through some cellular mutation.

 
But race and genetics cannot be used interchangably. One person's specific DNA is very different than an entire race.

An offspring of a specific athlete will most likely be more successful than a football dad's for several reasons, that are genetic, cultural, and psychological.
 
Im sick of this shit. Read up kids-

Peering Under the Hood of Africa's Runners

By Constance Holden

Kenyans dominate endurance running, and West Africans excel as sprinters. With a physiological explanation in hand, researchers are now probing the genetics of this geographic mastery In 1968, a Kenyan runner named Kip Keino emerged as a shining star of the Mexico City summer Olympics, setting a world record in the 1500-meter race. Year after year Keino's success has been followed by equally dazzling feats by his compatriots: Kenyan men now hold world records in the 3000-meter track race, the 15-, 20-, and 25-kilometer road races, the half-marathon, and the marathon. Kenyan men have won 13 of the last 14 Boston marathons. Kenyan women are also rising fast: They hold half of the top 10 marathon times and world records in 20-, 25-, and 30-km track races. What is even more remarkable is that most of these athletes come from a small area in Kenya's Rift Valley, from a group of tribes called the Kalenjin who number little more than 3 million people.

Theories abound about what Kenya-born writer and runner John Manners calls "the greatest geographical concentration of achievement in the annals of sport." Is it the high altitude that fosters big lungs and efficient oxygen use? Is it their maize-based diet? Or the fact that many children run to school? A grueling training regimen, perhaps? Such questions have inspired a handful of researchers to try to define the Kenyan magic. Meanwhile, scientists are unraveling why athletes whose ancestors come from the other side of the continent&West Africa—have emerged as the world's fastest sprinters.

Fuel economy

Leading the charge in penetrating the Kenyan mystique has been Bengt Saltin, a Swedish physiologist who heads the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre in Denmark. In the 1990s, Saltin's group began comparing Kenyan and Scandinavian runners by scrutinizing their physiological makeups and assessing the "trainability" of novice runners in both countries.

A decade later, the scientists have ruled out most of the popular explanations for Kenyans' domination of running. Altitude is not the key to the riddle, they have found, because there's no difference between Kenyans and Scandinavians in their capacity to consume oxygen. And the Kenyan diet is on the low side for essential amino acids and some vitamins as well as fat, says Dirk Christensen of the Copenhagen center: "In spite of the diet, they perform at high level." The running-to-school hypothesis was demolished as well: Kenyan children aren't any more physically active than their Danish peers. Do Kenyans try harder? The researchers found that the Danes actually pushed themselves harder on a treadmill test, reaching higher maximum heart rates.

An important clue is the ability of Kenyans to resist fatigue longer. Lactate, generated by tired, oxygen- deprived muscles, accumulates more slowly in their blood. Comparisons of lactate levels have suggested to Saltin's group that Kenyan runners squeeze about 10% more mileage from the same oxygen intake than Europeans can.

Just as more aerodynamic cars get better gas mileage, the Kenyan build helps explain their fuel efficiency. A recent British TV documentary described the Kalenjin as possessing "birdlike legs, very long levers that are very, very thin [on which they] bounce and skip" along.

Saltin's group has quantified this observation. Compared with Danes, the thinner calves of Kenyans have, on average, 400 grams less flesh in each lower leg. The farther a weight is from the center of gravity, the more energy it takes to move it. Fifty grams added to the ankle will increase oxygen consumption by 1%, Saltin's team calculates. For the Kenyans, that translates into an 8% energy savings to run a kilometer. "We have solved the main problem," declares Henrik Larsen of the Copenhagen center. "Kenyans are more efficient because it takes less energy to swing their limbs." Other scientists say the jury is still out on the Kenyan question. But "I think Saltin is probably the most correct that anyone is at the moment," says physiologist Kathryn Myburgh of the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, who is exploring the role of Kenyans' training.

However, slim lower legs are not the whole story. Kenyan runners also have a higher concentration of an enzyme in skeletal muscle that spurs high lactate turnover and low lactate production. Saltin says that this results in an "extraordinarily high" capacity for fatty acid oxidation, which helps wring more energy out of the muscles' biochemical reactions. Because intense training alters the body's biochemistry, Saltin says that he can't say for sure whether the ezyme levels are due to genes or training. But he adds, "I think it's genetic." Research in South Africa jibes with the Copenhagen group's findings.

A team led by exercise physiologist Adele Weston of the University of Sydney, Australia, compared black South Africans, whose running strengths are similar to those of Kenyans, with white runners. The two groups had similar VO2 max values—that is, when putting out maximum effort, they used up the same amount of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute. But the black runners were more efficient in their oxygen consumption, lasting on a treadmill at maximum speed for twice as long as the whites. As with the Kenyans, the black South African runners accumulated less lactate and had higher levels of key muscle enzymes.

A little more twitchy

Whereas East Africans dominate long-distance running, West Africans have surged to the fore in short-distance events. Little research has been done on West Africans, but there's powerful circumstantial evidence for some physical advantages, as presented by Jon Entine in his book "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It." Athletes of primarily West African descent—which includes the majority of U.S. blacks—hold all but six of the 500 best times in the 100-meter race, "the purest measure of running speed," says Entine, whose book set off a broad debate on the subject.

Various studies have shown that West African athletes have denser bones, less body fat, narrower hips, thicker thighs, longer legs, and lighter calves than whites. But the differences between East and West Africans are even more striking. The fabled Kenyan runners are small, thin, and tend to weigh between 50 and 60 kilograms, whereas West African athletes are taller and a good 30 kilograms heavier, says Timothy Noakes, a prominent exercise physiologist and researcher at the University of Cape Town.

The differences don't stop with body shape; there is also evidence of a difference in the types of muscle fibers that predominate. Scientists have divided skeletal muscles into two basic groups depending on their contractile speed: type I, or slow-twitch muscles, and type II, fast-twitch muscles. There are two kinds of the latter: type IIa, intermediate between fast and slow; and type IIb, which are superfast-twitch. Endurance runners tend to have mostly type I fibers, which have denser capillary networks and are packed with more mitochondria. Sprinters, on the other hand, have mostly type II fibers, which hold lots of sugar as well as enzymes that burn fuel in the absence of oxygen. In the 1980s, Claude Bouchard's team at Quebec's Laval University took needle biopsies from the thigh muscles of white French Canadian and black West African students. They found that the Africans averaged significantly more fast-twitch muscle fibers—67.5%—than the French Canadians, who averaged 59%.

Endurance runners have up to 90% or more slow-twitch fibers, Saltin reports. Bouchard, now at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, says his team looked at two enzymes that are markers for oxidative metabolism and found higher activity of both in the West Africans, meaning they could generate more ATP, the energy currency of the cell, in the absence of oxygen. The study suggests that in West Africa there may be a larger pool of people "with elevated levels of what it takes to perform anaerobically at very high power output," says Bouchard.

Although training can transform superfast-twitch type IIb fibers into the hybrid type IIa, it is unlikely to cause slow- and fast-twitch fibers to exchange identities. Myburgh says there is evidence that, with extremely intensive long-distance training, fast IIa fibers can change to slow type I fibers. So far, however, there is no evidence that slow-twitch fibers can be turned into fast-twitch ones. As an athlete puts on muscle mass through training, new fibers are not created, but existing fibers become bigger.

Running ACEs

The differences in physique and muscle makeup that underlie the dominance of Kenyan endurance runners and West African sprinters doubtless have a strong genetic component. But researchers are only just getting off the starting mark in the search for genes that influence running performance. Bouchard's group, for example, is collecting DNA samples from 400 runners and other top endurance athletes from the United States and Europe, but he says they haven't spotted any running genes yet. There are a couple of intriguing possibilities, though. In 1999, a team headed by Kathryn North of the Children's Hospital at Westmead in Australia described two versions of a gene that affects production of -actinin-3, a protein found only in fast-twitch muscles. They found the less efficient version of the gene which results in poorer energy conversion—in 18% of the members of a group of Caucasians.

In 2003, North's group reported in the—American Journal of Human Genetics that only 6% of a group of sprinters had the gene defect; 26% of endurance runners had it. The authors surmise that -actinin-3 helps muscles generate "forceful contractions at high velocity."

Alejandro Lucia Mulas of the European University in Madrid is taking DNA samples from Eritrean runners to explore another candidate: different versions of the gene for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE). Lucia says the less active version, or I allele, of this gene is associated with less muscle, less fluid retention, and more relaxed blood vessels—which would enhance oxygen uptake—and appears to be more prevalent in endurance runners.

And in Scotland, sports physiologist Yannis Pitsiladis has launched a major onslaught on the Kenyans' secrets with the International Centre for East African Running Science. Headquartered at the University of Glasgow, the virtual center will bring together research on demography, diet, and socioeconomic factors as well as genes. Pitsiladis says he has spent the last 3 years in East Africa collecting DNA samples from their "living legends" and now has DNA from 404 Kenyan and 113 Ethiopian athletes. His team has found a higher prevalence of the I allele for the ACE enzyme in male marathoners compared with men from the general Ethiopian population. But Pitsiladis thinks his numbers may lack significance given the variability of the trait in African populations. "At the moment there is no evidence" that East Africans have a genetic advantage in running, he says.

None of the data negate the importance of cultural habits and training. But as Entine quotes anthropologist and sports science expert Robert Malina, who is retired from Michigan State University, "Differences among athletes of elite caliber are so small that if you have an advantage that might be genetically based ... it might be very, very significant." Next month's Olympic games in Athens should demonstrate yet again that West African runners are built for speed and Kenyans built to endure.
 
What do you think? Read the 4th paragraph. Its not altitude, its not diet. Theres little to distinguish east africans from the rest of the world other than genetics
 
And just to note, that article really twists some of the findings of Larsen and Saltin. For studies by Larsen and Saltin, the only difference in performance factors plasma lactate and ammonia levels in the blood, this most likely because of their repeated exposure to training at altitude. Again, its their economy that provides some advantages, which is influenced by both diet and genetics. But there are other populations that have a very similar economy in South African and India.

 
Why arent andean peoples great distance runners then? They live at the same and higher altitude than east africans. Like i said man read the 4th paragraph. Altitude has nothing to do with it.
 
People keep trying to make excuses because they believe that all men are created equal, when its obvious they arent
 
I've read that article and I am familiar with those studies.

Altitude is a factor in some regards, just not with O2 consumption as everyone has believed, which was what we were discussing earlier in the thread.

What those findings suggest is that altitude may have some benefits at buffering LA, therefore, increased trainability. Which is caused by environment, not genetics.

As for why arent the andeas good runners? Well maybe because all their potential talent pool isn't afforded the opportunity to have access to athletics? And the potential talent that does have a high aerobic capacity is more likely to be playing soccer. Maybe if someone from Bolvia had won the olympics instead of kip keino we would be arguing this exactly same thing about them.

There is also a very well developed athletics program in Kenya, its funny how that gets over looked. Same as in Jamaica, over 40, 000 people go to watch HS track and field meets, you dont see that in Europe or the US.

And the answer to your question may actually be in the fourth paragraph...

So we both agree that economy is one of the factors that influence kenyan performance. So genetics is a factor with body type. Which is likely one of the largest factors, but so is the diet, the article says itself, 'essential amino acids and some vitamins as well as fat', so I think that explains to you why they have an increased performance, decreased body weight= decreased energy used over long durations. Studies have been conducted on the national teams diet as well, they consume less calories than their predicted energy expended. THe US has the highest rate of obesity in the world, is it because of genetics? For some yes, but mostly because people shovel shit down their mouth. I'd imagine you could find a similar correlation to the with Kenyan's. Mike Boit, one of Kenya's national running heros' son philip who also went to the olympics for x-country skiing, is overweight, so I'm going to assume that they are just as impacted by food as everyone else.

'Do Kenyans try harder'?

Probably yes actually. Because its seen as national disaster if they lose the marathon in the olympics, not to mention that they have enough high end runners to use team tactics in races. Also it comes with stereo types. American colleges, and companies are willing to invest in these runner from Kenya because there is the stereotype that they are 'faster'. If you were from a low income family in Kenya and naturally inclined to be a good runner, I'm pretty sure you would be pretty damn motivated to get faster if told that could give you a college education and potentially turn pro.

And Kenyan's may participate in less structure physical activity, but im willing to bet that those who excel in running have high amounts of unstructured activity. Especially who you consider that Nandi town boys have lower Vo2max than nandi village boys. The chidren who are in the smaller villages have been known to run 12km each day to and from school, and up to 90km a day. Also those who live in Nandi are typically tea plantation farmers spend around 44 mins a day doing chores outside. Where as the Danish kids I assume have rides to school in closer proximity and I really doubt are outside farming.

I'm almost certain all of these authors would agree that their dominance is highly cultural.

 
No one has said that all men are create equal, maybe try and look at it from a wider spectrum than 'Kenyan most medals= fastest human gene alive!' Kenyan's are no doubt the worlds best runners, and likely will be for a long time, but in the right situations other races have the potential to do the same.

Lifestyle, culture, stereotypes are all factors that have a much larger factor in performance that I think you're willing to acknowledge.

 
Dude your talking out of your ass. Ill point out an example. You say track isnt big in europe. Its HUGE in europe. Track is on tv all the time over there. As for trying harder? Read the paper, youre wrong. As for why andean runners arent any good? It has nothing to do with opportunities. Kenya is as poor or poorer than andean countries, and andean runners are pushed and helped by the country to try and get some of them to make the olympics, just as much as any other country. Why arent runners from high areas in the rockies world class? What about nepalese? What about the swiss? They are one of the richest countries in the world. Where are their world class runners. Dude like i said your talking out of your ass and you have some major agenda to promote the idea that nobody has a genetic advantage in sports. But nobodies buying it. I dont have the energy to refute all of your bullshit points. Its bullshit, and not worth my time
 
And like i said. Read the article again. Youre arguing with people alot smarter than you, on points they have reduced to certainty.
 
And its not just kenyans. Its east africans. Haile gebreselasse of ethiopia is probably the best long distance runner of all time, and ethiopia doesnt have nearly as big of a national program for runners that kenya has. Culture may play a part but genetics are obviously the major influence in east african dominance
 
- Go read the actual studies, not some person's argumentative essay. I've based my opinion on what I've read. Its made up, I backed it up with facts based on science, if you would like the articles I'm happy to send them your way.

- I'm well aware of track being popular in the Europe for spectators but I don't think you comprehend how much of a role culture is playing in Kenya in terms of participation.

You can call my points bullshit all you want, but you straight up don't understand what you're reading. People have repeatedly explained and discussed it nicely without having a hissy fit like you are on the first page. I can't break it down any simpler than I already have, I'm sorry this is making you so angry.

 
And we can just wait and see when other ethnicities start dominating like the east africans do. You might have to wait a long time, perhaps forever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top