Genetics - split from Rip critique thread

Hanley

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I don't really care about the rest of this argument but this got me. You're inferring here that it's simply the training style of black sprinters that has them running faster than their white counterparts. So you're saying that every single white sprinter is a relative layabout, that we would have competitive white 100m sprinters if they'd only train as hard as their black equivilants?

Sorry but thats b*llocks. I'm fully aware that their training brings them the vast vast majority of the way but the reason that no white man has run a sub 10s 100m is that they're not genetically suited to do so. I could train all I wanted from a young age but I never would have been an olympic gymnast, I could have been a national competitor alright but never the best, or even in contention for the best. Putting someone's achievements down to genetics is wrong but so is thinking that its 100% due to their training.

I realise that this only applies to the far right of the bell curve but it does apply, and sprinting is a clear example.

Did you just not bother to read my post? Or did you purposely ignore the parts that I mentioned genetics so you could go off on a little rant?

Where did I say it was 100% training? (don't bother wasting your time looking, you won't find it).

Now, read my post underneath again and try to pick up on the key points. Namely that you can't be a good 100m sprinter without TRAINING, but you could potentially be even better due to your genetics.

:rolleyes:

Hanley wrote: »

Wow. That's ridiculous. Taking the genetics argument to the next level.



I disagree. TRAINING is what makes them run faster. A black guy doesn't just step on the track and run faster than a white guy. He has to TRAIN for it. His genetics might mean that potentially he can be faster, but he sure as hell wouldnt be if he sat around on his ass all day eating crisps.

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

Do you not feel the white lads try their hardest?

How old are you?

slemons

lol, how about this...

Winning and losing is all in the head.

How many more pages can we argue over that one

Hanley

slemons wrote: »

lol, how about this...

Winning and losing is all in the head.

How many more pages can we argue over that one

No, it's all in your genetics.

No, wait, I think it's all in your training.

No, no, wait. Could it be a combination?? :eek:

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

Do you not feel the white lads try their hardest?

At best that's trolling. At worst it could be considered cacist. Can we ease up on the 'white guys'-type terminology please, it adds little credence to the argument?

People here keep referring to 'genetics' accounting for an advantage. What, pray tell, are these advantages? Some literature to back that up would be just super too please. If you want to claim that race x is genetically superior to race y for purpose b I'd like to see some proof and not simple conjecture, otherwise y'all are talking through your bitter arses.

amazingemmet

blackgold>> wrote: »

Hanley can you run 100m in under 10 seconds?
No and neither can any other white man.

White guys have gone under 10secs can't think of some names off the top of my but gfe :pac:

Also on the whole black thing, The last I read on the blacks being better sprinters has more to do with them have longer achilles tendons and shorter femurs then whites giving them a better lever for sprinting.

Kenya also is on a plateau at some really high point above sea level giving the long distance runners that come from there a higher hemocrite then other runners thus being able to transport more oxygen then others

BobbyOLeary

Genetics cause Black Athletes to run Faster and DO better than white athletes!
Anyone disagree?

I disagree. TRAINING is what makes them run faster.

His genetics might mean that potentially he can be faster

I'm confused. You're disagreeing that genetics cause black athletes to be faster but you're agreeing with it at the same time? Eh?

DM-BM

Did anybody see a documentary on BBC around the time of the olympics, where Colin Jackson was looking in to this .

My recollection of this isn't the best to be honest, but he went to a university in the US, where a sample of his quadricep was analysed, he was told he had "super fast twitch" muscle fibers, and that only 1% on the people tested there had these.

I'm not making any claims about this, just wondering if anyone else remembers this or knows more about it?

kevpants

FFS!

The genetics argument is getting a little pedantic now. If myself or any of the people arguing they aren't as important as some would believe even acknowlege that humans have genes we're seen to be contradicting ourselves. We're not.

If your genes screw you over and you have a hunch-back and a club foot you probably aren't going to pip Usain Bolt over the line in London 2012. Indeed the indian cricketer Murrilitheran (my God why can't they be called Jones) has a congenital elbow defect that would have meant he wouldn't have made it as a Darts player but made him the greatest bowler in the history of cricket.

But look at the genetic differences between champions. Say Usain Bolt and Ben Johnson (I know Johnson was on the juice but surely the genticists here would agree it MUST have been his genes that were the main reson for his times). Bolt is a lanky rangy highjump-lookin fella. Johnson was squatty and looked like he might have been more suited to Olympic weightlifting. Both black, but defintely coming from different gene pools yeah? If you took all of Johnsons 100m races and combined his best start with his best first 40m and his best finish he would have run the 100m's in 9.58 seconds. Faster than Bolt.

Is that not an argument for two fairly different genetic specimens being capable of similar feats?

Indeed look at the WR holders since Lewis "won" in 88. Not one of them, the short ones, the lanky ones etc EVER (though I'm not sure on Bolt) broke a top travelling speed of 43.47kph over a 10m segment of the race. What this means is that they were all capable of getting to this magic speed which humans at the moment don't seem to be able to surpass and their technique and race tactics would have been the only thing to improve their times after that.

My point then is, even if you have the genetics to travel at 43.47 kph the guy with the better start, acceleration technique, stride pattern Is gonna whip your ass and make you look slow.

Hanley

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I'm confused. You're disagreeing that genetics cause black athletes to be faster but you're agreeing with it at the same time? Eh?

I'm going to make it as simple as I possibly can;

No matter how good your genetics are, you won't reach the top of a sport without dedication and the right kind of coaching, training and opportunities. Regardless of race.

If you're one of the lucky ones with good genetics you'll probably reach the top of your chosen sport faster and be more competitive.

If you've average to slightly above average genes, you probably aren't ever going to be the best in the world, regardless of work ethic. BUT you should be able to break into an elite level group if you work hard enough (I'm talking 10-15 years training from when you're 8 or 9 years old here) and have a decent enough genetic make up.

I'm sure we all know of freaks who never were because they didn't have the opportunity or training, and average guys we might not have thought would make it who've gone on to be quite successful.

Is there something contradictory about that?

Roper

Coming over here, stealing our women... taking our jobs... winning our races.

Hanley

You guys just need some Powerthirst, then you can run as fast as Kenyans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs

blackgold>>

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

Asians has 50 percent of the worlds population. Where's the fast asians? Anyone? There's none! There not fast enough are they...
But they have one of the toughest training regimes in the world.They produce the best gymnasts.Ponder that for awhile.
Anyway back to sprinting.
The best caucasian(whites) ranks 200th on the all-time list. I wonder why that is? He must be eating chips thats it ya. I'll finish my post with this sentence.
No sprinter of any other race,(except africans"black"...) are able to crack the 10 second barrier.

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

Asians has 50 percent of the worlds population. Where's the fast asians? Anyone? There's none! There not fast enough are they...
But they have one of the toughest training regimes in the world.They produce the best gymnasts.Ponder that for awhile.
Anyway back to sprinting.
The best caucasian(whites) ranks 200th on the all-time list. I wonder why that is? He must be eating chips thats it ya. I'll finish my post with this sentence.
No sprinter of any other race,(except africans"black"...) are able to crack the 10 second barrier.

Your logic is so twisted it's actually comical.

Serious question: do you know the difference between environmental influences and genetic influences?

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

Asians has 50 percent of the worlds population. Where's the fast asians? Anyone? There's none! There not fast enough are they...
But they have one of the toughest training regimes in the world.They produce the best gymnasts.Ponder that for awhile.
Anyway back to sprinting.
The best caucasian(whites) ranks 200th on the all-time list. I wonder why that is? He must be eating chips thats it ya. I'll finish my post with this sentence.
No sprinter of any other race,(except africans"black"...) are able to crack the 10 second barrier.

God yeah... those Chinese guys suck. Only winning like 40% more gold medals than everyone else at last years olympics across a wide range of sports.

And the way they've come from nothing to dominate the womens and lighter mens weightclasses in weightlifting in the last 8 years or so is crap too.

Now if they could produce a SPRINTER, then they'd be the ones with the good genes.

Once again I'm forced to ask, how old are you? Not trying to insult you, but your arguments and logic seem to be akin to that of someone with no real world experience with anything atheltic/sports related, so I assume you're quite young?

If you are, maybe that can help us to understand your reasonaing and respond appropriately. You never know, you might learn something!!

Roper

The only other person I know who used the term "the blacks" was my dear old aunty, who was 85 and also used the term "sambo".

On the other hand, did you know that Paul Hession is the fastest white man in the world? He's slightly ginger so could it be that the ginger gene is best?

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

If your able to discuss facts I would be more than welcome to.

If you could present some of your own that would be just super.

Ninja edit: If you post something up, be prepared to have it quoted

blackgold>> wrote: »

Running is a worldwide sport!
Every country on the planet has runners.Now you would think that all the runners would come from various random countries.But they don't.
West African runners ie (black people) win nearly every single sprint.Thats fact.
I will call whites caucasians and the blacks am lets see,africans.

Now when was the last time an non african (black) set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint?You have to go all the ways back to 1960 and it was by some german fella called Armin Hary and he did the 100meters in 10.2 seconds.It must of been the superior training he got 50 years ago....

But it's not down to simply genes. I don't think anyone here will deny that absolutely - at the elite level that yes, genetic discrepancies between individuals will play a part. But really, when you have an even playing field (surely we can agree that individuals competing in an Olympic 100m race are all elite and therefore all on a genetically even keel?) it's not just genetics that determines the winner.

Likewise, if youwant to extrapolate teh argument and say "well actually, it's genetics that gets people from average to intermediate to advanced to elite levels". Well, again genetics isn't not a factor, but it's not a largely important one.

Are black guys good at GAA?

Who knows? Last time I looked it wasn't on the Ethiopian national syllabus. That doesn't mean they can't play, simply that they don't. Similarly, sprinting and Athletics isn't a largely popular sport in Asian countries. In Jamaica however, athletics is a HUGE deal, and kids are encouraged to participate and take part from a very, very young age. The same goes for Canadians and ice hockey. Or Kiwis and rugby.

If you are so convinced that genes play such a large part to play then tell me, what are these genes?? What are the genes called and what do they do? I know of one gene that has been linked to sprint performance but event he paper authors wouldn't dare to herald it as a magic super-speed gene.

blackgold>>

Lets be a bit logical about this.
I'm not a brilliant debater but if you put master infront of it who knows.


1)No caucasian has broke the 10seconds barrier.

Now lets discuss this one fact ok and not get all emotional.
Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it.

Thats as far as i'll go with this one part.
Discuss if you think, not feel I'm incorrect so far.

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

g'em wrote: »

People here keep referring to 'genetics' accounting for an advantage. What, pray tell, are these advantages? Some literature to back that up would be just super too please. If you want to claim that race x is genetically superior to race y for purpose b I'd like to see some proof and not simple conjecture, otherwise y'all are talking through your bitter arses.

I remember hearing that black people have a higher bone density which is the reason caucasians dominate in swimming

a quick internet scan produced this link

http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/philly_daily_news.htm

the person writing it is commenting on a book by Jon Entine called taboo

he goes into both socio/geographical and genetic reason as to why there is a dominance and lack of dominance in some sports by black people

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

1)No caucasian has broke the 10seconds barrier....
Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it.

Are you saying that black people are born with more fast twitch muscle fibres than while people? Prove this with scientific literature. Everything else is just conjecture.

After we're done perhaps we can discuss how no black man has ever been to the moon?

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

Lets be a bit logical about this.
I'm not a brilliant debater but if you put master infront of it who knows.


1)No caucasian has broke the 10seconds barrier.

And?

All the weightlifting world records are held by white or asian people (I'm pretty sure ALL of them are).

Weightlifting is perhaps the most recognised measure of strength/power output, an extremely important component of sprinting.

So if both weightlifting and sprinting are two of the most "power" orientated sports in the world, why aren't they dominated by the same race of people if one has a distinct advantage when it comes to RFD and "power" production?

Once again we're back at the "you get good at what you train for" argument.

Now lets discuss this one fact ok and not get all emotional.
Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it.

Sorry... fail.

Endurance training has been shown to decrease the amount of type IIb fibres you have in favour of endurance orientated ones.

Thats as far as i'll go with this one part.
Discuss if you think, not feel I'm incorrect so far.

I eagerly await your response.

blackgold>>

Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it.

True or false?

Pub07

blackgold>> wrote: »

Lets be a bit logical about this.
I'm not a brilliant debater but if you put master infront of it who knows.


1)No caucasian has broke the 10seconds barrier.

I think you have a vaild point here, I dont see why people are getting thick over this. It's not like sprinting is a black-exclusive sport, there are loads of white sprinters and it is probably the sport with the least entry barriers, all you need is a pair of runners. When you look at the fact that not 1 white person has broken the 10 second barrier and not 1 one white person features in the top 200 100m times ran, in a sport that is open to all, it is blatantly obvious that there has to be some genetic factor that gives black people an advantage in sprinting. I dont see how it can even be argued with evidence that compelling. If it was the case that no white guys featured in the top 20 but did make it into the top 30, the evidence would still be extremely strong but with the fact being that they haven't made the top 200 it's almost 100% proof imo that black people have a genetic edge in sprinting. Id imagine a statistician would give a figure with 6+ digits after it if he was tasked with the job figuring out how likely this was to happen by pure chance.

As for why aren't black dominating powerlifting/weigthlifting to the same degree I think it's a fair point that these sports have relatively higher barriers for entry. The black population of America is much worse off than the white, go search "African American" in wikipedia if you want more info on that.

Look at how much squat racks, olympic weights, or gym membership cost. Not counting the money that needs to be spent on supplements and food. A high % of black people that could have the potential to do well in these sports are just not gonna take them up because of the cost. That's just the way it is, 24.7% of black americans are living below the poverty line, on average they earn only about 60% of what white americans earn. It's the same reason why there are relatively fewer black golfers. They're more likely to gravitate towards sports with low entry costs such as American football, athletics, basketball as opposed to having to shell out for golf club or gym membership.

I imagine there are also cultural factors as to why there aren't more black powerlifting/weightlifting but I haven't time to go into that now. My point is I think that the evidence is overwhelming that black people have a genetic edge in sprinting when you look at the top 200 times for the sport and I am sure there are top white sprinters out there down the years that put in just as much effort as the black guys yet not 1 of them has broke the 10 second mark or made it into the top 200 times in a sport that has basically no entry barriers.

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote:

Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it. True or false?

Jesus Christ. FALSE.

Can you not read?? See my post below, which is directly above your most recent post.

Hanley wrote: »

Sorry... fail.

Endurance training has been shown to decrease the amount of type IIb fibres you have in favour of endurance orientated ones.

Hanley

As for why aren't black dominating powerlifting/weigthlifting to the same degree I think it's a fair point that these sports have relatively higher barriers for entry. The black population of America is much worse off than the white, go search "African American" in wikipedia if you want more info on that.

Look at how much squat racks, olympic weights, or gym membership cost. Not counting the money that needs to be spent on supplements and food. A high % of black people that could have the potential to do well in these sports are just not gonna take them up because of the cost. That's just the way it is, 24.7% of black americans are living below the poverty line, on average they earn only about 60% of what white americans earn. It's the same reason why there are relatively fewer black golfers. They're more likely to gravitate towards sports with low entry costs such as American football, athletics, basketball as opposed to having to shell out for golf club or gym membership.

I'm seriously confused now.... Look at all the big "African American" guys in the NFL. Those muscles weren't build by positive thought and push ups. They had to have access to a gym.

You don't have to buy the gear, in fact s lot of US high schools have pretty decent gyms that are free to use for students.

I'm sorry, but the argument "they don't have access to weights" falls flat on it's face.

My point is I think that the evidence is overwhelming that black people have a genetic edge in sprinting

Who said they didn't?

Mikel

Have to be careful this answer isn't too long.
I get the feeling some of us are arguing at cross purposes here.

Hanley wrote: »

I'm going to make it as simple as I possibly can;
No matter how good your genetics are, you won't reach the top of a sport without dedication and the right kind of coaching, training and opportunities. Regardless of race.
If you're one of the lucky ones with good genetics you'll probably reach the top of your chosen sport faster and be more competitive.
If you've average to slightly above average genes, you probably aren't ever going to be the best in the world, regardless of work ethic. BUT you should be able to break into an elite level group if you work hard enough (I'm talking 10-15 years training from when you're 8 or 9 years old here) and have a decent enough genetic make up.
I'm sure we all know of freaks who never were because they didn't have the opportunity or training, and average guys we might not have thought would make it who've gone on to be quite successful.

Agree 100%

kevpants wrote:

The most succesful sportspeople are the ones who work the hardest.

Agree 100% with that too, but the two things are not mutually exclusive.

kevpants wrote:

no one is denying genes here but I object to every example of sporting prowess being met with the response:
"Genes"
It undermines the work athletes put in and the genetic disadvantages they've overcome to become so good.

Nobody (well I'm not) is dismissing the hard work any successful athlete does.
It's not either or. I don't think people should get defensive as if we're just hang waving and saying 'oh it's just genetic'.
Reminds me of the other arguments that come up about that little word beginning with s.............

g'em wrote:

People here keep referring to 'genetics' accounting for an advantage. What, pray tell, are these advantages? Some literature to back that up would be just super too please. If you want to claim that race x is genetically superior to race y for purpose b I'd like to see some proof and not simple conjecture, otherwise y'all are talking through your bitter arses.

I'm not bitter, but I don't see anyone arguing that Bolt is down to just training.
Black people are genetically superior for boxing because their skin cuts less easily.

g'em wrote:

but it's not down to simply genes. I don't think anyone here will deny that absolutely - at the elite level that yes, genetic discrepancies between individuals will play a part

g'em wrote:

If you are so convinced that genes play such a large part to play then tell me, what are these genes?? What are the genes called and what do they do? I know of one gene that has been linked to sprint performance but event he paper authors wouldn't dare to herald it as a magic super-speed gene.

So do you believe that genetics play a part or not?
Genetic in this context is a catch all term for 'things you are born with'.
It's probably a lot of small things, not necessarily a single gene you can point at.

The sprinting is an interesting one, sure there are cultural factors, training, scouting etc etc etc.
But seemingly every final would be made up of all black athletes, probably most of the semis too. I saw seemingly because I'm too lazy to check.
That would suggest to me some kind of predisposition to see that kind of domination.

Hanley wrote:

Quote:
My point is I think that the evidence is overwhelming that black people have a genetic edge in sprinting
Who said they didn't?

Well I think he was being asked for scientific literature to back it up in fairness

blackgold>>

blackgold>> wrote:

Your born with a certain amount of fast twitch fibers.You cannot change this amount ever.Your born with the amount and thats it. True or false?

For all the non beleivers !!
I've read papers on this very subject years ago.
Your born with what you have whether you like it or not.You might come across some studies saying you can change type 2 to type 2 b etc(if your a good at searching google before answering my posts) but they're still fast twitch fibers.And even if you could change 5% after years and years of training what use is that?

Here's a list off the top of my head.
fast twitch dominant sports

Sprinting
weight lifting
basketball players

Slow twitch dominant sports
long distance running
cyclists

Imagine this for a minute so.
You and your friend both start running and in 2 weeks you notice your friend is improving much faster than you and is doing the running with more ease than yourself.It's obvious his percentage of slow twitch is highter than yours and there's nothing you can do about it.If both of you train the same he will always be better.
Get over it.

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

For all the non beleivers !!
I've read papers on this very subject years ago.
Your born with what you have whether you like it or not.You might come across some studies saying you can change type 2 to type 2 b etc(if your a good at searching google before answering my posts) but they're still fast twitch fibers.And even if you could change 5% after years and years of training what use is that?

Here's a list off the top of my head.
fast twitch dominant sports

Sprinting
weight lifting
basketball players

Slow twitch dominant sports
long distance running
cyclists

Imagine this for a minute so.
You and your friend both start running and in 2 weeks you notice your friend is improving much faster than you and is doing the running with more ease than yourself.It's obvious his percentage of slow twitch is highter than yours and there's nothing you can do about it.If both of you train the same he will always be better.
Get over it.

So are one particular race of people more likely to have a certain fibre composition?

blackgold>>

This is not about race it's about genetics.
But it could be if you wanted to. Do you?

Hanley

blackgold>> wrote: »

This is not about race it's about genetics.
But it could be if you wanted to. Do you?

Do you think certain races are more GENETICALLY predispositioned to having a certain fibre make up?

Your argument seems to be "black" = more fast twitch/power dominant and "white" = more slow twitch? (assuming white is the opposite to black)