OK, people we all need to relax (yes, including me).
Let me say a few things:
1) "M_82", thanks for agreeing with me.
2) Others on here think that genetics plays some role in the East African dominance, but current cultural and environmental factors ALSO play a strong role. Hey, I a basically agree with that! I was NEVER saying that there were NO other factors involved in the East African dominance. Of course training knowledge/support, diet, a culture of hard work vs a "soft" society, other sports being more or less popular (taking away potential runners), good training environment (soft surfaces, hills), etc, etc, etc. ALL play some role. This is true. But I do think some people overestimate the advantages that some East African countries have as far as these "environmental/cultural" factors go. How many malnourished peoples have grew up in these countries that last several years?? How many Gebs or Bekeles might have died in a famine in the last 30 years in Ethiopia?? How many potential star runners have died of AIDS??? How many potentially great women runners might have been denied a chance to compete because social norms looked down on females competing???? Maybe a lot. Remember Geb's story?? His Dad tried to STOP him from becoming a runner because he did not respect running, and needed Geb working on the farm. National sport indeed. Now a lot of that has changed, BUT.....clearly my point is: East Africa has a DOUBLE-EDGED sword has far as running environment/culture goes. It is a BIG sport there, the stars are heroes, and the kids are not playing video games all day, eating McDonalds' and getting fat like so many of our kids. BUT.....there are negatives to the East African environment TOO for sure. Don't forget to factor those negatives in when considering the role environment/culture has played in their success.
3) It appears that SOME are saying genetics has NOTHING to do with the East African dominance and that there is ZERO proof that people from one region of the world have some genetic differences from other peoples that could help them in running. THAT is absurd, and THAT is the position I have been getting angry about. Clearly the East Africans have tons of talent, and clearly natural talent ALWAYS plays a role in who the top runners are. So to deny the existence of East African natural brilliance is very bizarre. AND, if you see some of my recent posts, I have shown that it IS NOW CLEAR that peoples from different parts of the world do have have genetic differences. And two differences that East Africans appear to have (superior energy producing mitochondria, and superior ability to extract oxygen from the air to the bloodstream) would APPEAR TO ME to give them some advantage in distance running. Science is now showing us what has always pretty obvious to the naked eye: East Africans, on the AVERAGE (not everyone single damn one of them), are NATURAL BORN RUNNERS (moreso than the average person from other countries of the worlds). Is that a shock????
Of course not. Having ancestors that lived in the highlands (altitude), in a warm environment, and in a culture where long-distance running for hunting and herding was a necessity for survival has allowed for the selection of certain genes (over others) to bring about today's brilliant distance runners. Different environments and different cultures of ONE'S ANCESTORS produce people today who are different from peoples of other parts of the world. Current cultures and evironments of today also play a role in differing abilities of people, but it is the ANCESTRAL history of a people that plays the role in determing the different genes of today, and the East Africans DO have some different genetic components that help them in running.
4) As far as the Morrocans go, they TOO have a history of people living in some highlands and in a warm environment, ie, a similar environment to the East Africans, therefore it does not surprise me that they have some brilliance in running too. I never said that East Africans have no similarities to other peoples. But Morrocans depth is nowhere near the depth of brilliance of the East Africans. Clearly they don't have all the right genes.
5) As far as middle distance success of non-East-African runners: the 800/1500 are interesting events: they are a real MIX of aerobic and anerobic abilities. East Africans STILL dominate the all-time lists in these events overall (compared to other countries), but it is clear that non-East African can compete more here than in longer races. It is likely that there are genetic factors that play a role in aerobic running that are different than anaerobic abilities, just as there are differences in sprinting and long-distance running (and this is why people of West African heritage are better than people of East African heritage in sprinting. You don't REALLY think that THAT huge difference is due to cultural/environmental factors solely, do you???).
**** IN SUMMARY*****
I never said other factors don't play roles in the success of the East Africans vs the rest of the world in distance running. AND....I never said that science has disovered ALL the genes that play roles in one being a successful runner and the East Africans have ALL of them and no one else has any of them. NO NO NO......
Instead, I only said that it has always appeared obvious and logical to state that GENETIC FACTORS DO PLAY A LARGE ROLE the success of the East Africans, and that science has NOW RECENTLY SHOWN what some of those genetic differences that they have are, and how those differences certainly could be considered advantages for them becoming successful runners.
That is all. Don't deny that the realites playing out right front of your noses. East Africans, on the average, and more than other peoples of the world, are born to run.
(but such statements in no way say that were will never be exceptions to the rule, like Mottram or Ritz or whoever. Exceptions always exist. But call me when several non-East Africans start running under 12:50 or 26:50, and we'll talk)