Why are Black runners so much faster than whitey?

Quote from trendlover:


I read your link. You put the link on your response to me. What is YOUR conclusion to your llink? [/B]
My conclusion is that:
You are a fvcking retard because the link was sent to you, in response to YOUR query and confusion over IQ.

Quote from trendlover:

Tell me what is IQ "Quotient"
 
Quote from mrbill:

Well, ok except for the fact that you are off in a totally incorrect tangent. Never have I brought in Religion, wrong guy, sorry. I do respect those who are serious church goers, although I am not one of them.

I only brought up the Aryan comment as a way to show an example of how the discussion relates to those who think one race is superior to another. IQ or athletics. Anyone who spends time trying to upgrade themselves based on their ethnicity is, well, pretty sad. Why not simply accept yourself for who you are, for your own accomplishments? Not too cool to try to make yourself look better by putting others down, especially entire races of human beings.

I would like to think that many on here actually read each other's comments without having to chastise them for whatever pigeon hole they may be placed, regardless of how misguided.

Teaching moments are welcome, and they come and go, and yes, we may disagree on what is being taught. Not a big deal there.

So, teaching moment: don't make assumptions when they are not valid. No religious element to my posts, at least on this thread. And, 180 degrees to the opposite this time.

Your problem is that you are in love with your own idealogy. Since the formation and questioning period has stopped, it has a religious like hold on your thinking.

I do not need to 'upgrade' myself or even talk about myself since there's not much left to prove to myself. I am making political observations about the world outside myself. Your presumptuousness about me is staggering. You are the one who reeks of a moral superiority complex, not me.

I simply presented data, made obvious remarks about how it is probably a mixture of genetics and culture, then suddenly you and all the other KGB around here get offended. You have been trained to think a certain way by liberals, and that is that white men cannot talk about race in an honest manner unless or are supremacists. Nevermind that black men obsess about it, nevermind that it profoundly affects national politics and my taxes, you insist that I am supposed to shut up and tow your party line or else I'm in the KKK. There is no middle ground in your black and white world- you are in fact acting exactly like a religious wacko.
 
Quote from trendlover:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-06.htm
"I'm going to start with the idea that many people hold, that there is some special athletic prowess held by people of African descent in America. Most people sort of believe that African Americans are genetically predisposed to being faster runners or better basketball players or for being better cornerbacks in the National Football League. And there's also now some scientific studies which are attempting to look at population-based differences in genes that have to do with various aspects of physiological performance related to athletic ability.

Now, at some level, when we look at human physical variation, there are some differences between human populations that could possibly relate to athletic performance. For example, if we were to look at people from northern climates, who were indigenous residents of northern climates, they tend to be short and stout instead of long or tall and lean. And there are good physical reasons for that. If you evolved in northern climates, like the Aleut or the Eskimo populations did, heat retention is facilitated by being short and stout. If you evolved in the tropics, where the environment is very hot, then heat loss is facilitated by being long and lean. So you're going to see differences in body proportions on that kind of scale.

Now, if you were to ask yourself, "Is it likely that an Alaskan Eskimo is going to become a center in the NBA?", well, probably not, because height has something to do with your performance at that position in the NBA. So, we can see that in the gross scale it's likely that physical differences may have something to do with various forms of athletic performance.

But when we talk about subtle things like, for example, whether a given population is going to be fastest in sprinting, then it's not so simple. The fact is that most of the world record holders in the 100-meter dash are of Western African descent, but they also tend to be African-Americans who have mixed with Europeans and American Indians. So it's not easy for us to determine whether it's being African that might have something to do with them being so fast, or whether it's the fact that they have European and American Indian ancestry that might have helped them be so fast.

And all of those genetic factors have to be tempered in terms of the environment in which individuals train. For example, if you look at those sprinters of Western African ancestry, they all got their records because they trained in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, or even in the Caribbean. If you look at the Western African countries where those sprinters' ancestors supposedly came from, none of those countries have ever produced any world record holders in the sprint events.

So if it was something uniquely about being African that makes you a fast sprinter, then you'd expect that Western African countries would be holding all these records too, but in fact they don't. It has something to do with genetic predisposition, it has something to do with environment, it has something to do with training regimes, and particularly at the level of world-class athletic performance.

One of the factors that shows how the situation of populations in different geographical regions influences predisposition for sport is altitude. The Kenyan success in long-distance running may have something to do with the fact that the Kalenjin Kenyans come from a high-altitude region in Kenya. But, Kenyans from low altitudes don't do well in long-distance running, so it's not something special about being a Kenyan, it's something special about living at those high altitudes.

Now, in the last Boston Marathon, which (laughter) someone predicted would be won by a Kalenjin Kenyan, it was in fact won by a South Korean. Now, Korea is also a mountainous country, and so it's entirely possible that this individual at least trained at high altitude. Second place was won by an Ecuadorian, which also is a mountainous country, and they also probably trained at a high altitude.

So we have both short-term physiological adaptation that occurs from training in high altitude, and also long-term genetic adaptations for living at high altitude that might come from populations who live in those regions. And again, none of these things are consistent with our 19th century notions of race, because within the same country low-altitude Kenyans don't do well at long-distance running whereas high-altitude Kenyans do.

So we can't come to any fast, hard rule about how genetic ancestry is going to influence the ability of an individual to perform an athletic event. I think that the simplest thing is to look at the individual's history, how hard they trained, where they got their training, what kinds of resources were put into getting them to be able to participate in world-class athletics, that it's a combination of all these things and that we'll never have a simple genetic answer that says, "Because you came from this region of the world, you're going to dominate in swimming or long-distance running." I don't think we're ever going to have that."

I'm going to start with the idea that you are full of crap.

This is too long, see next post....
 
It is amazing the convolutions you want to go through just to avoid what is painfully obvious. Here's a thought, instead of making up your own babble, why not read someone more interesting?

http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p1.php

Here's a safe prediction: all of the athletes who line up at the final of the men's 100-meter sprint in Sydney trace their ancestry to West Africa. It's also unlikely than any sprinter other than one with West African roots will ever again hold the unofficial title of "world's fastest human." Even more startlingly, athletes who trace their ancestry to Africa, home to roughly 1 in 8 of the world population, or 800 million people, dominate elite sprinting and road racing: an athlete of African origin holds every major world running record.

The controversial question is why?

(my comment: sociologists = liberals) To many sociologists, the answer is 'racism'. "What really is being said in a kind of underhanded way," comments Harry Edwards of University of California/Berkeley, "is that blacks are closer to beasts and animals in terms of their genetic and physical and anatomical make up than they are to the rest of humanity. And that's where the indignity comes in."

Most hard scientists take a different view. "If you can believe that individuals of recent African ancestry are not genetically advantaged over those of European and Asian ancestry in certain athletic endeavors," says biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich, also of Berkeley, "then you could probably be led to believe just about anything."


{My comment: this is exactly the liberal vs. science debate I'm talking about.}




......


Now science can definitively state that the post WWII anthropological orthodoxy - what is referred to as environmental determinism - is clearly wrong. The genetics revolution now sweeping the world has decisively overturned this belief that all humans are created with equal potential, a tabula rasa for experience to write upon. Evidence spilling forth from the Human Genome Project shows that some functional characteristics do differentiate population clusters - most clearly in the proclivity to certain diseases and in athletic ability - although the classic racial trichotomy of sub-Saharan black/European white/Asian is indeed fuzzy around the edges and potentially misleading.

How have racial differences evolved?

Although the move out of Africa by modern humans to Europe and Asia occurred rather recently in evolutionary time, scientists now know that in relatively few generations, even small, chance mutations can trigger a chain reaction with cascading consequences resulting in significant racial differences or possibly even the creation of new species. Economic ravages, natural disasters, genocidal pogroms, and geographical isolation caused by mountains, oceans, and deserts, have deepened these differences over time. This is the endless loop of genetics and culture, nature and nurture.

Genetically linked, highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, the distribution of muscle fiber types, reflex capabilities, metabolic efficiency, lung capacity, and the ability to use energy more efficiently are not evenly distributed among populations and cannot be explained by known environmental factors. Scientists are just beginning to isolate the genetic links to biologically-based differences, most notably in isolating the causes of population specific diseases such as Tay-Sachs, which afflicts Jews, and sickle cell, which targets blacks.
....

Popular thinking still lags this genetic revolution. "Differences among athletes of elite caliber are so small," notes Robert Malina, a Michigan State University physical anthropologist and editor of the Journal of Human Genetics, "that if you have a physique or the ability to fire muscle fibers more efficiently that might be genetically based ... it might be very, very significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place."

Although scientists are just beginning to isolate the genetic links to those biologically-based differences, it is indisputable that they exist. Each sport demands a slightly different mix of biomechanical, anaerobic, and aerobic abilities. Athletes from each region of the world tend to excel in specific events as a result of evolutionary adaptations to extremely different environments that became encoded in the genes.

Whites of Eurasian ancestry, who have, on average, more natural upper-body strength, predictably dominate weightlifting, wrestling and all field events, such as the shot-put and hammer (whites hold 46 of the top 50 throws). Evolutionary forces in this northern clime have shaped a population with a mesomorphic body type - large and muscular, particularly in the upper body, with relatively short arms and legs and thick torsos. These proportions tend to be an advantage, particularly in sports in which strength rather than speed is at a premium

.....


While Africa is the mother-lode of the running world, talent is not evenly distributed across the continent but is concentrated in three areas: a swath of western African coastal states, notably Senegal, Nigeria, and Cameroon, extending south to Namibia; the northern African countries of Algeria and Morocco; and a long stretch of eastern African states from Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya to mountainous South Africa. However, there are a range of structural traits shared by genetically-diverse African athletes: low body fat, longer legs in comparison to the rest of their bodies, and narrow hips.

Although sub-Saharan Africans share many characteristics, different environments also have left distinctive evolutionary footprints. Athletes who trace their ancestry to western Africa, which has been geographically, and genetically, somewhat isolated from the north (by the harsh desert climate) and the east (by the Great Rift Valley) - are the world's premier speedsters and jumpers. Studies have shown that athletes of West African origin hit a biomechanical wall after about 45 seconds of intense, anaerobic activity (distances longer than 400-meters in sprinting and all measurable distances in swimming, in which Africans are believed to be genetically disadvantage on average) when aerobic skills come into play.

Such absolute domination is even more remarkable considering that African athletes have clearly had less access to the latest in sports medicine, technology, coaching, and opportunity. Yet it is indisputable that the highest level of athleticism among males athletes is disproportionately linked to Africa. For all practical reality, men's world championship events might as well post a sign declaring, "whites need not apply."
.....


All of the thirty-two finalists in the last four Olympic men's 100-meter races are of West African descent. The likelihood of that based on population numbers alone-blacks with ancestral roots in that region represent 8 percent of the world's population - is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent.

There have been a small handful of non-West African 200- and 400-meter runners over the years. In 1979 Italy's Pietro Mennea shattered the 200-meter record running 19.72 seconds, still the best time by a non-African. Although he ran in Mexico City's 7,300 foot altitude and was aided by a tailwind of 90 percent of the allowable limit, Mennea's moment-in-the-sun is invoked as "proof" that whites can run as fast as blacks. Mennea's record held for seventeen years before being pulverized in 1996 by Michael Johnson in a stunning 19.32, an improvement of more than 2 percent, an unheard of breakthrough in sprinting. Intriguingly, Mennea traces part of his own ancestry to Africa. Many southern Europeans, who are disproportionately stand-outs in running, trace a significant percentage of their genes to Africa as a result of interbreeding.

Whether or not genes confer a competitive advantage on blacks when it comes to stealing bases, running with the football, shooting hoops, or jumping hurdles remains the $64,000 question. Since the first known study of differences between blacks and white athletes in 1928, the data have been remarkably consistent: in most sports, African-descended athletes have the capacity to do better with their raw skills than whites. Blacks with a West African ancestry generally have:


•relatively less subcutaneous fat on arms and legs and proportionately more lean body and muscle mass, broader shoulders, larger quadriceps, and bigger, more developed musculature in general;
•denser, shallower chests;
•higher center of gravity, generally shorter sitting height, narrower hips, and lighter calves;
•longer arm span and "distal elongation of segments" - the hand is relatively longer than the forearm, which in turn is relatively longer than the upper arm; the foot is relatively longer than the tibia (leg), which is relatively longer than the thigh;
•faster patellar tendon reflex;
•greater body density, which is likely due to higher bone mineral density and heavier bone mass at all stages in life, including infancy (despite evidence of lower calcium intake and a higher prevalence of lactose intolerance, which prevents consumption of dairy products);
•modestly, but significantly, higher levels of plasma testosterone (3-19 percent), which is anabolic, theoretically contributing to greater muscle mass, lower fat, and the ability to perform at a higher level of intensity with quicker recovery;
•a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscles and more anaerobic enzymes, which can translate into more explosive energy.
 
science and reason vs. liberalism

I hope the new enlightenment happens in my lifetime, I'm sick of these liberal dark ages
 
Quote from Mav88:

science and reason vs. liberalism

I hope the new enlightenment happens in my lifetime, I'm sick of these liberal dark ages

How can you even equate science and reason as being against liberalism, or by default, FOR conservatism? When the conservatives tend to believe in bible stories instead of solid scientific fact, the most basic of which is evolution. ?? Come on, you have to see the craziness in that stance, right?
 
Quote from mrbill:

How can you even equate science and reason as being against liberalism, or by default, FOR conservatism? When the conservatives tend to believe in bible stories instead of solid scientific fact, the most basic of which is evolution. ?? Come on, you have to see the craziness in that stance, right?

What I see is liberals tripping all over themselves running away from scientific fact.
 
Back
Top