Genetics - split from Rip critique thread

g'em

blackgold>> thanks for the links. Could I ask that in future you provide back-up to your claims like that sooner rather than later, it allows for a much clearer and fairer discussion.

As a rebuttal to the points made in the links you provided here's another (more recent) book - African Americans in Sport from 1998.

The second link you provided discussed how various anthropomorphic studies in the 1930s - 1960s concluded that blacks were more physiologically suitable for athletics but in response to this Edwards (1973) pointed out that the studies were skewed because they only looked at clack athletes and not a random African-American population (v good point); second of all the data was null and void anyway given that anthropomorphists have not been able to divide humans into "races" according to their body structure anyway (so just because a black athlete has slender calves it may have nothing to do with him being black as slim calves are not a black 'identifier') and thirdly these are all observable variables and you can't draw any solid conclusions from them.

In further reference to the the race card being played Edwards makes the following notes: with specific reference to African American athletes who (as was earlier discussed by another author, Martin Kane) were subject to the 'slave selection' and 'slave breeding' hypotheses, genetic selection would have taken both physical and mental characteristics into play; also, due to racial interbreeding modern American [athletes of the world over??] are not 'pure' but have genes combined from Africa and Europe.

blackgold>> wrote:

1. more fast-twitch muscle fibers in the thigh muscle
2. slender calves (ever wonder why they wear long socks)?
3. narrow hips
4. glycolytic metabolic pathways are wider(more fuel)1 litre versus 1.5 litre car)
5. higher key anaerobic enzymes
6. Less body fat
7. higher bone density

These are, certainly, traits that confer advantage for an athlete but I still don't see any reason why they qualify as purely "black" traits.

Again, I'm not at all saying that genes don't have a role to play, of course they do, but the advantageous genes that one person has over another cannot be qualified according to a basis of race.

Wibbs

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.

Is there something contradictory about that?

Sums it up for me.

I would say genetics is important to see how far you're likely to go at the very top end. Cyclists are a case in point. Read a good article in new scientist on this one. Lance armstrongs VO2 max is unusually high. They checked other members of his family and also found unusually high VO2 maxes even in those who were sedentary(obviously not as high as Lances as they didnt put in the effort). Now Lance has put in the road miles and has serious dedication and came back from a setback that would have seen most off in a pine box, but his genetic VO2 advantage is there. So much so that pro teams in cycling measure potential additions to the team's VO2 max as part of the selection process.

Regardless of all that. Anyone can maximise the potential they have through hard work and training. In that sense genetics is often used as a cop out by those who dont want to put in the hours.

Wibbs

g'em wrote: »

but the advantageous genes that one person has over another cannot be qualified according to a basis of race.

Agreed, though I think the "race" word is what gets peoples hackles up on both sides. If we think of populations you do see general trends and differences, or at least a trend towards a local adatation. Forget athletics for a moment, look at the Inuit. They have a much higher density of capillaries in their faces and hands as a local adaptation to the intense cold. Northern Europeans have slightly more than sub saharan Africans. An African bloke is going to die far quicker than an Inuit bloke if both were exposed to the arctic climate and the Inuit chappy is going to get burnt to feck and get heatstroke far quicker in a tropical climate. Naturally, they're just local adaptation. The Kenyan lads living high in the mountains are also going to have a more efficient oxygen transport system than someone living at sea level. Same would go for Tibetan sherpa types.

blackgold>>

The Kenyan lads living high in the mountains are also going to have a more efficient oxygen transport system than someone living at sea level. Same would go for Tibetan sherpa types.

African Americans haemoglobin levels are far lower than caucasians.
I'll post back later as i've a busy day.

g'em

blackgold>> wrote: »

African Americans haemoglobin levels are far lower than caucasians.

According to the West Indian Medical Journal Link you posted above though (which, as an aside, has more holes than a sieve in it) this shouldn't matter due to the supposed compensatory actions of the sickle cell gene as carried by a large proportion of the African American community.

And besides, why should that matter when we're talking primarily about sprinting i.e an anaerobic activity?

Wibbs

blackgold>> wrote: »

African Americans haemoglobin levels are far lower than caucasians.
I'll post back later as i've a busy day.

And you're again looking at a population based on "race". In the US this nearly impossible as the various african populations that make up black americans has interbred with each other and with other populations. You could also add in some level of eugenics from the slave days when some selection was involved. Plus kenyan is as different to a congolese as they are to me as a european as far as genetic drift is concerned(though humans are among the closest genetically to each other of all primates. We're quite inbred). The colour aspect is a red herring. Neandertals were white with red hair yet are as far as we know of a completely different genetic line to modern europeans.

Now I do think it likely that certain populations with a shared genetic history may have more of a particular trait within the populaton due to local selection pressures, both in the past and currently. Different hunting strategies in different environments over time will likely shape to some degree the general makeup of the population. Especially if genetically isolated for any length of time. The inuit have only been living in their environment for only 20,000 years and they show many local adaptations. Africans of various lineages have been in Africa for 150,000 years, Europeans at least 60,000 and Asians a little earlier.

You could expect to see a shift to say higher explosive speed(sprinting) in a population that lived in an environment that required sudden speed to catch food. You could see a shift to long distance work in an environment where food was sparse and far apart. You see this with our very early ancestors. Neandertals used close in hunting methods and lived in a very harsh environment, hence they were very heavily muscled and stocky. Judging by bone muscle attachments and leverage an average Neandertal would put a champion powerlifter to shame. The women alone had 50inch chests(G'em if they ever find a Neadertal lassie, your records could be in danger;):D). Computer simulations on homo erectus have strongly suggested that even an adolescent would out run an olympic sprinter and keep going even over longer distances. They were built for high speed due to the nature of their environment and their food gathering strategies.

You tend to see persons of the european ancestry more heavily represented in the really ultra long distance events. That could be a holdover from the past when food was sparse in ice ages and required long distances to find it. You also tend to see more europeans in the heavy lifting arena too. Again maybe a local adaptation(akin to neandertals) that built more muscle as a protection against the cold. It could be any number of things. Maybe the seemingly high variability in size, shape, skin, eye and hair colour in europeans is down to diversity in such a harsh and variable climate, that selected for diversity as a genetic backup.

The problem of course come when you consider how inbred we all are. How complex and subtle these adaptations are. So we cant say that one group as a whole have this advantage and certainly not by anything as arbitrary as skin colour .

Racing Flat

Haven't had time to read through all this, but anyone doubting the importance of genes needs to ask why people spend such massive amounts of money to get their pet horse to go on a date with Rock of Gibraltar - it's not because your horse is frisky and fancies him the most.

Genes are crucial, but gene-environment interaction is even more important.

amazingemmet

blackgold>> wrote: »

Yes I know by a tiny percentage while killing yourself training.If your 50%fast and you do that regime how are you going to catch the 85%+ people? Electric shock therapy? I've read lots of studies by the likes of gollnick.He says you can change type 11b to type 11a but not type 1 to type 2.If you can show me i would gladly read it. I've a very open mind when it comes to educating myself. I'm always learning everyday.

By taking testosterone with hgh you will increase the number of type type 2a and b at the expense of type 1 changing the ratio.

Wibbs

Racing Flat wrote: »

Haven't had time to read through all this, but anyone doubting the importance of genes needs to ask why people spend such massive amounts of money to get their pet horse to go on a date with Rock of Gibraltar - it's not because your horse is frisky and fancies him the most.

I agree completely, but that's in a very controlled breeding system. The problem is in humans there isn't such a system in place, unless you count isolated groups over 1000's of years, that adapt to particular environmental stresses. The general population has a mish mash of gene's floating around. Now that may change over time if athletes start paring up with other athletes. Even then it's a crap shoot. Even in the case of highly controlled reproduction such as horse breeding it's still a crap shoot, albeit with better odds.

Genes are crucial, but gene-environment interaction is even more important.

+1 I'm quite sure there are potential lance armstrong and sub four minute miler types sitting beside you in the pub with even better genes as a foundation, but nobody will ever hear about them as they never sat on a bike, or simply didn't feel the need to.

blackgold>>

pub7 wrote:

'Evidence' - no white man has ever broken the 10sec mark for the 100m sprint and the top 200 times recorded were all ran by black men.

Exactly.

gem wrote:

I don't have one. I haven't once said that it's not simply coincidence but I have yet to see any definite genetic reasoning for either side of the argument. I'm asking for someone to show me proof either way to convince me and so far none has been forthcoming.

gem wrote:

As a rebuttal to the points made in the links you provided here's another (more recent) book - African Americans in Sport from 1998.

You've yet to explain why caucasians can't win the 100meters Or get below 10 seconds.


;

---

;
About your rebuttal of my points earlier.
;

---

;

gem wrote:

The second link you provided discussed how various anthropomorphic studies in the 1930s - 1960s concluded that blacks were more physiologically suitable for athletics but in response to this Edwards (1973) pointed out that the studies were skewed because they only looked at clack athletes and not a random African-American population (v good point);

Indeed a very good point and so is this.
Random african american population have highter testosterone,longer limbs,less bodyfat per (bmi),denser bones,noticabley faster motor skills,up to 40% better metabolic pathways,shorter trunks,higher percentage of fast twitch fibers and are more prone to obesity and osteoporosis.
Would you disagree or agree with any of those traits?
Feel free to discuss one at a time.

gem wrote:

Second of all the data was null and void anyway given that anthropomorphists have not been able to divide humans into "races" according to their body structure anyway (so just because a black athlete has slender calves it may have nothing to do with him being black as slim calves are not a black 'identifier') and thirdly these are all observable variables and you can't draw any solid conclusions from them.

Your digging as deep as you can to prove me wrong.
Fair play!
I will agree that what I call black others will call something else.
Colour is not race is a fair and valid point.I will in my post call them by there ethnic origins in future.As you knwo we have Mongoid, Caucoid, and negroid. each having various characteristics.Would you argue against that?Some people say there are 5 races by the way.

gem wrote:

In further reference to the the race card being played Edwards makes the following notes: with specific reference to African American athletes who (as was earlier discussed by another author, Martin Kane) were subject to the 'slave selection' and 'slave breeding' hypotheses, genetic selection would have taken both physical and mental characteristics into play; also, due to racial interbreeding modern American [athletes of the world over??] are not 'pure' but have genes combined from Africa and Europe.

Whats your point exactly?

blackgold>> wrote:

1. more fast-twitch muscle fibers in the thigh muscle
2. slender calves (ever wonder why they wear long socks)?
3. narrow hips
4. glycolytic metabolic pathways are wider(more fuel)1 litre versus 1.5 litre car)
5. higher key anaerobic enzymes
6. Less body fat
7. higher bone density

These are, certainly, traits that confer advantage for an athlete but I still don't see any reason why they qualify as purely "black" traits.

Well you admit that genes do play a part.You don't want to say there black or white thats fair enough. Do you think calling them west-african traits or kenyan traits is more appropriate?I do and i'll agree with you once agian.
But this does not change the fact that african americans who came from a certain part of africa have better genetics suitable for a certain sport.

gem wrote:

Again, I'm not at all saying that genes don't have a role to play, of course they do, but the advantageous genes that one person has over another cannot be qualified according to a basis of race.

Most of this discussion wasn't about race it was about genes.You just said what i was trying to say all along.
If you have a certain percentage of a certain muscle type you will be better at a certain sport.That to me is obvious.

wibbs wrote:

I would say genetics is important to see how far you're likely to go at the very top end.

If lances legs were full of fast twitch fibers then he would not even be known to you.

Cyclists are a case in point. Read a good article in new scientist on this one. Lance armstrongs VO2 max is unusually high. They checked other members of his family and also found unusually high VO2 maxes even in those who were sedentary(obviously not as high as Lances as they didnt put in the effort). Now Lance has put in the road miles and has serious dedication and came back from a setback that would have seen most off in a pine box, but his genetic VO2 advantage is there. So much so that pro teams in cycling measure potential additions to the team's VO2 max as part of the selection process.

Good point as you can see genetics do matter.
Enjoyed reading that thanks.

gem wrote:

African Americans haemoglobin levels are far lower than caucasians.

gem wrote:

According to the West Indian Medical Journal Link you posted above though (which, as an aside, has more holes than a sieve in it) this shouldn't matter due to the supposed compensatory actions of the sickle cell gene as carried by a large proportion of the African American community.And besides, why should that matter when we're talking primarily about sprinting i.e an anaerobic activity?

What wibbs said was not correct.I pointed that out. Whats your point?That you support wibbs when he's wrong? "more efficient oxygen transport system". Did i say it mattered that they have lower levels of haemoglobin? No I did not.


I'll get back to you later on tonight wibbs Racing Flat and amazingemmet.
It took me awhile to reply so, later.

Wibbs

blackgold>> wrote: »

I will agree that what I call black others will call something else.
Colour is not race is a fair and valid point.I will in my post call them by there ethnic origins in future.As you knwo we have Mongoid, Caucoid, and negroid. each having various characteristics.Would you argue against that?Some people say there are 5 races by the way.

Actually I would argue against that. It's far too limited a description. Race as an idea is largely a victorian construct. It has little overall basis in genetics. Genetics talks about populations. That's very different. Yes certain populations appear to have similar phenotypes such as skin colour, but within that, there can be huge variation. And in unexpected ways. Lets look at "white" Europeans. There is more phenotype diversity as far as eye, hair and even skin colour within that population. All the way from near silver eyes to near black eyes, from almost white blond hair to red all the way to jet black, dead straight to very curly. Sometimes you can even see this in the same extended family. Compared to other populations the difference is quite striking. At first sight an observer would reckon Europeans had a very diverse genetic background, yet we have among the lowest of any large scale population. Far lower than African or Asian populations, who have a much wider spread of genes going back for far longer. As I pointed out Neadertals had white skin and blond and red hair(possibly black), so their phenotype looked quite similar to our own. Indeed except for the stocky build and large noses they could walk down a street in Europe and not really be noticed much(especially the later more gracile type). If you stood a stocky modern human beside a Neandertal and beside him a Massai tribesman, a casual observer would be not be wrong in thinking the two "white" fellas were related, purely on observable phenotype, yet they were as far apart genetically from "us" as it is possible to be. 200,000 years + further away. A different species. This is why I would have a scientific objection to race as a concept.

Well you admit that genes do play a part.You don't want to say there black or white thats fair enough. Do you think calling them west-african traits or kenyan traits is more appropriate?I do and i'll agree with you once agian.
But this does not change the fact that african americans who came from a certain part of africa have better genetics suitable for a certain sport.

I could go along with that somewhat.

If lances legs were full of fast twitch fibers then he would not even be known to you.

Which I agreed with. Though Lance has quite a few of the fast twitch fibres actually as he was known more as a sprinter before his cancer. Indeed many commentators have suggested, not without merit, that the cancer treatment that wasted his body actually helped him to rebuild his body into one more suited to winning long distance races, as he was too muscular and bulky before.

Good point as you can see genetics do matter.
Enjoyed reading that thanks.

I for one never said genetics don't matter. Of course they do. I would take issue that said genetics are based on an outmoded and unscientific notion of race.

What wibbs said was not correct.I pointed that out. Whats your point?That you support wibbs when he's wrong? "more efficient oxygen transport system". Did i say it mattered that they have lower levels of haemoglobin? No I did not.

Actually I was correct and somewhat agreed with you. You just read it wrong or I wasn't clear enough for you. I said that people from a high altitude environment will have a more efficient oxygen transport system, inc higher haemoglobin levels than other populations in a different environment. So Kenyans of that population would be better for long distance events, if they also had more slow twitch muscles. They would not in general make good sprinters. Some Africans from another population may be more genetically gifted with fast twitch fibres which would make them better sprinters.

As for african americans, while you can make general assumptions based on their results in different events, the reasons for those results could be based on more than just genetics. Access and interest and trailblazers would be bigger factors. Certainly in America. More black kids do athletics and basketball as it is cheaper to get into. Less take up competitive cycling as it's not. Does this mean blacks can't cycle on a genetic level? Hardly. Tennis was a good example. Few black kids took it up, until the black middle class gained ground in America. 20 years ago, with the exception of Arthur Ashe(and he was of mixed "race" so of course.....), you could have equally argued that "blacks weren't suited to tennis"(and I remember that people did). Now the Venus sisters have knocked that one on the head. Watch as more do. Cycling is another one. In the 80's Ireland fielded some world class cyclists. Out of the blue. Does this mean the Irish are good cyclists? Nope it was due to many many factors beyond their genetic heritage. Golf? where were the black kids? Oh look.... Weightlifting? Correct me if I'm wrong here folks but do not the turkish have a huge presence on the world stage. Is this down to their genetics or is it down to the fact that it is a more valued route to kudos in Turkey, so everyone wants to be the next whomever? Table tennis and the Chinese lads and ladettes. Are the Chinese genetically gifted with ping pong? Nope. They love it as a sport, more do it and so more will get to the top and wow, it looks like they have a genetic advantage.

I would contend if the 100 metres suddenly became the most popular sport in the world among white kids, I would put damn good money that in one generation you would have white men and women jostling with black men and women at the front. Simply because more would be coming through and among them people with, yes a genetic advantage. Little to do with race. It's down to numbers in a population going for a particular event

g'em

blackgold>> I'm finding your tone very patronising and irritating so after this post I don't think I want to continue engaging in this discussion.

blackgold>> wrote: »

You've yet to explain why caucasians can't win the 100meters Or get below 10 seconds.

Who says they can't? Just because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean it's impossible.

blackgold>> wrote:

Random african american population have highter testosterone,longer limbs,less bodyfat per (bmi),denser bones,noticabley faster motor skills,up to 40% better metabolic pathways,shorter trunks,higher percentage of fast twitch fibers and are more prone to obesity and osteoporosis.
Would you disagree or agree with any of those traits?
Feel free to discuss one at a time.

How can I disagree or agree with conjecture? Who says they have all the above? All the studies you quoted thus far are looking at athletes and are 50+ years old.

blackgold>> wrote:

I will agree that what I call black others will call something else.
Colour is not race is a fair and valid point.I will in my post call them by there ethnic origins in future.As you knwo we have Mongoid, Caucoid, and negroid. each having various characteristics.Would you argue against that?Some people say there are 5 races by the way.

Characteristics, yes. But this is not genetic predisposition, it's selection and breeding. All ethnicities are capable of carrying equivalent genomes - there is no exclusivity involved in being from one background over another.

blackgold>> wrote:

Well you admit that genes do play a part.You don't want to say there black or white thats fair enough.

That's ALL I'm saying.

blackgold>> wrote:

Do you think calling them west-african traits or kenyan traits is more appropriate?

No, because I'm yet to be convinced that they are exclusive to those groups of people.

blackgold>> wrote:

What wibbs said was not correct.I pointed that out. Whats your point?That you support wibbs when he's wrong? "more efficient oxygen transport system". Did i say it mattered that they have lower levels of haemoglobin? No I did not.

If you're going to make sweeping statements they'll be misinterpreted. You're probably better off clarifying yourself instead of dropping sentences into the discussion without qualifying them.

What was the point of what you said then?

Wibbs

g'em wrote: »

Characteristics, yes. But this is not genetic predisposition, it's selection and breeding. All ethnicities are capable of carrying equivalent genomes - there is no exclusivity involved in being from one background over another.

Nail on head. Ignore my longwinded post. This sums it up pretty much.

Racing Flat

blackgold>> wrote: »

I'll get back to you later on tonight wibbs Racing Flat and amazingemmet.
It took me awhile to reply so, later.

No need to get back to me as I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, just stating the indisputable, incontrevertible facts...

Genes determine athletic potential

Gene-environment interaction determines whether athletic potential might be fulfilled

Gene-environment interaction in conjunction with personal factors (motivation, confidence, tactics etc.) determine athletic performance

.