Show Posts
11491
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: FP's log
« on: June 04, 2016, 01:13:49 am »I agree about being PC to an extent. There are some gray areas like mental disorders where people begin to make excuses and make themselves victims. I know I have done this. Also when you live in a super liberal area like me where pretty much EVERY person my age is always PC it can really make it hard to voice a dissenting opinion cause you know everyone's gonna jump on your back for it.
For example it took me 45 mins to type up my previous message because I knew it wasn't PC and I couldn't think of a way to say what I really think without being offensive.
So I found this article by Malcolm Gladwell that kind of cleared things up for me in regard to why it seems like black guys are more genetically gifted athletes.
Here's kind of my reasoning for why I had this perspective:QuoteAccording to the medical evidence, African-Americans seem to have, on the average, greater bone mass than do white Americans-a difference that suggests greater muscle mass. Black men have slightly higher circulating levels of testosterone and human-growth hormone than their white counterparts, and blacks over all tend to have proportionally slimmer hips, wider shoulders, and longer legs. In one study, the Swedish physiologist Bengt Saltin compared a group of Kenyan distance runners with a group of Swedish distance runners and found interesting differences in muscle composition: Saltin reported that the Africans appeared to have more blood-carrying capillaries and more mitochondria (the body’s cellular power plant) in the fibres of their quadriceps. Another study found that, while black South African distance runners ran at the same speed as white South African runners, they were able to use more oxygen- eighty-nine per cent versus eighty-one per cent-over extended periods: somehow, they were able to exert themselves more. Such evidence suggested that there were physical differences in black athletes which have a bearing on activities like running and jumping, which should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who follows competitive sports.
To use track as an example-since track is probably the purest measure of athletic ability-Africans recorded fifteen out of the twenty fastest times last year in the men’s ten-thousand- metre event. In the five thousand metres, eighteen out of the twenty fastest times were recorded by Africans. In the fifteen hundred metres, thirteen out of the twenty fastest times were African, and in the sprints, in the men’s hundred metres, you have to go all the way down to the twenty-third place in the world rankings-to Geir Moen, of Norway-before you find a white face. There is a point at which it becomes foolish to deny the fact of black athletic prowess, and even more foolish to banish speculation on the topic.
He provides some explanations for why black athletes are proportionately overrepresented in athletics:
He talks about learned helplessness, which undoubtable already mentioned
But he also talks about this, which I previously did not know:QuoteThe likelihood is that these results reflect Africa’s status as the homeland of Homo sapiens: since every human population outside Africa is essentially a subset of the original African population, it makes sense that everyone in such a population would be a genetic subset of Africans, too. So you can expect groups of Africans to be more variable in respect to almost anything that has a genetic component. If, for example, your genes control how you react to aspirin, you’d expect to see more Africans than whites for whom one aspirin stops a bad headache, more for whom no amount of aspirin works, more who are allergic to aspirin, and more who need to take, say, four aspirin at a time to get any benefit-but far fewer Africans for whom the standard two-aspirin dose would work well. And to the extent that running is influenced by genetic factors you would expect to see more really fast blacks-and more really slow blacks-than whites but far fewer Africans of merely average speed.
So, back to my original comment. It was racist. I was mad that I got beat and I thought I could use race as an excuse. I was wrong.
btw, i don't think anyone here is offended with your original post and how you used the racial identifier.. i mean everything is cool (just in case you think people might be mad about it).
regarding those stats about african/black athletes and genetics, I think one needs to constantly be reminded about culture. Up until recently (the last ~10 years?), a black quarterback in the NFL was fairly rare. And much of the talk about why there aren't more black quarterbacks, is because of intelligence, game intelligence, etc. When in reality, it's simply based on opportunity. A black person can be just as effective as a white person, or vice versa, at any position in the NFL. It's now being proven. The same goes for any sport, olympic event, etc. I'm not ruling out physiologic genetic factors, they may in fact exist, and several studies do point them out. I am saying though, that culture and location play a more important factor.
In Kenya, Ethiopia etc, many kids run to & from school, with books. Running is their #1 sport. They also end up training at altitude, pretty much their entire life. Everyone runs distance.
In the 2012 Olympics, Mo Farah (black, British, of Somalian descent), won the 10k.. But interestingly enough, his training partner Galen Rupp (white, born in USA) came in second.
In Jamaica, everyone is sprinting. It's their #1 sport. They have had numerous heroes, and now that Usain Bolt exist, expect them to become even more obsessed.
Many of USA's potential sprinters may have also grown up playing football, basketball etc.. There's lots of other sports/activities which conflict with track & field. In Jamaica, you might have futbol/cricket which occasionally interferes, but track is their #1 sport. So are Jamaican "black people" genetically superior to "American black people"?
For the most part, Brazil dominates futbol. But France has "won", Italy, Russia etc. Why has the USA historically sucked so bad? Culture.
One can argue that skill-games rely less on genetics, but track & field events are proof that genetics play a deciding role in success. I disagree. I think dominance in any particular event is usually attributed to the culture/popularity of that event in a particular country.
If black people do have, on average more bone mass & thus more muscle, why don't we see them also dominating olympic weightlifting events? Culture.
If black people do have, on average more bone mass & thus more muscle, which helps them excel at sprints/power events, then why are they also dominating distance events such as 10k, half marathon, marathon etc? Culture.
Black athletes, depending on where they are from, might see more or less of a chance for opportunity/success if they pursue a career in sports. In many of these nations that dominate certain track and fields events, that event itself is such an enormous part of their culture. Everyone grows up participating in it. It also provides a sense of national pride.
In countries that have more of a mixed population & less of a singular identity on one event/sport, you see so much variation/diversity.
So I personally think culture & how early you start specializing in your sport, are the most important factors.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post. The second quote is much different than the first. I just think we should call out authors who quote studies which boast genetic advantages for a particular race, in sport. Alot of people are looking for excuses as to why they can't compete at the highest level.
pC!
haha