Segregation in Track and Field: Black Kids=sprinters Rich White Kids=distance runners

News Flash wrote:

Wigins, I have explained it before I will Explain it again. Most Black runners have a genetically low Vo2. East central Africa being the exception the other way, Genetically higher Vo2. I have had several higher end MDs tell the same thing that do Vo2 testing. Statistics over time also proves this correct. Look at the number of African Americans involved in high school, college even local marathons. All are very low. Look at the record books also. Past the mile a low Vo2 is difficult to overcome. Very scientific. No debate.

And as I already explained, that's irrelevant. Having a low max VO2 does not make anyone a good sprinter. Apples and oranges. And as for participation "statistics," you can't control for the innumerable cultural factors, so no it's not scientific, and yes debate.

And fat kids are throwers right?

And for everyone: Genetic advantages are no accident, genes evolve as adaptations to a particular environment. For example, people in tropical areas tend to have genes encoding dark skin and dark hair because it confers a selective advantage.

Where on Earth is sprinting more important than anywhere else? It makes no sense for a significant advantage to evolve in one specific area and then remain isolated there for centuries or millennia without the genes encoding it spreading around the world, unless it is a selective advantage in only that one area. That's pretty unlikely for a trait as useful as sprinting ability. More likely that people everywhere have the genotypes to develop as much sprint ability as their developmental environment demands. Just like tall kids of short parents. Epigenetics.

Except there is no evolutionary advantage for sprinting fast. We are slower than prey and predator.

No one else is willing to admit the truth so I will. It's as simple as this, black kids are usually lazy and/or live for today. Most affluent whites are not as lazy and they understand deferred gratification.

Black American sprinters actually win something in international

competitions.White American distance runners ? Well,let's just

say they make appearances.

monkey in the middle wrote:

Most affluent whites are not as lazy and they understand deferred gratification.

Hahahahahaha. Oh man this made me laugh so hard I peed a little. Good one bro. POD.

Wigins says: "Where on Earth is sprinting more important than anywhere else? It makes no sense for a significant advantage to evolve in one specific area and then remain isolated there for centuries or millennia without the genes encoding it spreading around the world, unless it is a selective advantage in only that one area."

You are correct, however, being LONG-LIMBED and THIN-TORSOED is a large advantage in warmer climates. This then confers a speed advantage in running, and a disadvantage in swimming. Check out the explanation of Bergmann's rule here:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_2.htm

Animals, not just humans, tend to be long-limbed in hot climates because it aids in heat dissipation. The opposite is true, too: people (and other animals) of polar environments tend to be short-limbed to conserve heat.

So the question then is why do people in Papua New Guinea, Ecuador, and India not have the same long-limbed advantage as equatorial Africans? The most likely explanation is that they did not have as long to evolve into subpopulations, as Africans have had on average a much longer time to adapt to localized conditions. However you can note that equitorial Amerindians, who evolved from Inuit peoples who migrated southwards, already exhibit some degree of this long-legged morphology over their ancestors.

I wish I could go back and edit the intro to the last paragraph so it read: so the question then is why do people in Papua New Guinea, Ecuador, and India not have the same DEGREE OF A long-limbed advantage as equatorial Africans? Clearly they already have some.

When I was in the 7th grade, we had about 50 girls who had to try every event from 100m-800m, jumps, throws, everything. I find it no coincidence that most of the African American girls were better at the sprints and jumps, while most of the caucasian girls were better at 400m-800m. Of course, there were a few where the reverse was true. Our destiny was sealed from then on.

Stereotyping? Get out of here!

let's say for the sake of argument that long limbs are an advantage in some sports and that they are more likely for certain populations. That doesn't mean that there aren't long-limbed people from those other populations. We're talking about the very few elites in any case. And most of these attempts at differentiating regions of the world by body proportions have not worked. Finally, there are always those exceptions. There have been swimming gold medalists with African ancestry and track gold medalists with European ancestry even on the men's side in recent decades and even in sprinting. Are the competitors really all the same physical types in each event? Look at Blake and Bolt, for instance. Same small country, both extremely fast, but one dwarfs the other.

I think you are on to something Watson.

Racial segregation is alive and well in America. Whites and Blacks hate each other. It is not just track. At my school in the winter all the blacks play basketball while the whites play hockey. We need to put an end to this madness.

[quote]not sure how useful yr list is in arguing about dominance as it has sprinters from different eras, eg. how much faster would the mighty linford have been with today's training.

of the 'black names' on that list, half are have recent afrocaribbean ancestry.

afro caribbeans are a small population so it is remarkable the number of sprinters that they or their diaspora have produced. [/quote}

In Europe, Afro-carribbean and Africans are found in roughly equal numbers, especially in country such as Britain or France. So it surprising that AC make less than half of "black names" in this continent.

Afro carribean benefited of the US college system up until the early 2000s (Jamaica, for example had produced very little sub 10" sprinters on their own before 2004) which is not the case with Africans. That's the reason why I mentionned the NCAA

Black americans are good at sprinting because they have to outrun the police in order to survive getting shot. The fat ones get killed like in Ferguson and New York with Eric Garner. White americans are better at distance running because other groups don't so it; if they did, white people would get beat at that as well.

monkey in the middle wrote:

No one else is willing to admit the truth so I will. It's as simple as this, black kids are usually lazy and/or live for today. Most affluent whites are not as lazy and they understand deferred gratification.

"Black kids."

Really?

This is a running website. Are you talking about the full spectrum of black runners that we all know so well? East African distance runners and African-American and Caribbean sprinters?

My impression was that THOSE "black kids," as you put it (in your idiocy) work pretty hard.

Who ARE you talking about? Shame on you, BTW, if you're taking time away from your (hard working) job to post here.

I'm cringing at the bizarre pseudoscience some of you are making up and essentially discussing black people like they were animals.

Long slender limbs? Like the black athletes who become football players?! There's such a range in body types among people of African descent. I understand why long legs and a short torso could be good for sprinting but why would it be BAD for distance running? If I randomly check out the body type of people of African descent in my city, I don't see unusually long legs.

Also, this discussion is completely irrelevant to high school sports. The majority of high school athletes are playing for fun and aren't knocking against the ceiling of their athletic potential. The idea that this supposed segregation is due to genetics would only make sense if whites were starting off as both sprinters and distance runners then the sprinters eventually switched to distance running and blacks started off in both and all eventually ended up sprinting.

Go to any practice that has black kids and white kids, tell them to run just a mile and see how many of the black kids dog it or complain, relative to the white kids, and then tell me attitude doesn't play a role.

I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

I know you run the boards but that comment was high key racist. As a black collegiate runner I can tell you, you're dead ass wrong.