Correction: by 3 "types" I meant Type I, Type IIx, and Type IIa.
So really, it's 2 types, but the 2nd type is divided into two categories.
Correction: by 3 "types" I meant Type I, Type IIx, and Type IIa.
So really, it's 2 types, but the 2nd type is divided into two categories.
Another correction: Type IIX fibers are the ones that are the most inherent. Type I fibers are slow-twitch. Type IIA are fatigue-resistant, "speed-endurance" fibers, and Type IIX are the fast-twitch fibers that sprinters utilize the most.
Forgive me, I'm a student. I got mixed up.
cbenson4 wrote:
Child development? Excuse me, but there are children who never run, and then end up being extraordinarily talented in the sport.
Who said running is the only environmental factor? What about baseline activity level? TV viewing? Nobody knows what drives the epigenetics. So again, you can't conclude that it's inborn.
And you're gonna tell me that it was (Ryun's) child development or caloric intake that got him there? Please.
At the risk of starting a heated off-topic argument, doping was legal when Ryun was competitive.
How many white boy *milers* could do that today I wonder?
If this were true, it would be a good rebuttal to your previous statement. A gene pool that makes a Jim Ryun should make more of them, if genes are so important.
Sure, let's bring in race too. Why are African Americans naturally speedier than American whites?
You should try to be a little more subtle when using false premises.
And please don't try to tell me that African Americans or simply blacks around the world are *not* naturally speedier than whites at the short events. Because if you do, sir, you will be laughed at.
Go ahead and resort to popular opinion if you have no better argument.
it has to do with their Type (2x) muscle fibers that they are naturally born with, not their child development.
Nobody even possesses the muscle fibers they're born with. A little baby's muscle cells don't magically grow to adult size and never die.
But for the sake of argument, let's suppose muscle fiber ratios are indeed set at birth and that west Africans are somehow programmed to have the most. If that's really such a decisive advantage, why aren't west Africans better than African-Americans, who have mixed with Europeans for many generations? On the contrary, Nigeria makes considerable effort developing sprinters, yet is dominated by American immigrants to the extent that its own sprinters emigrate to Arab countries.
Why wouldn't that surplus of type 2x apply to any other events requiring short bursts of explosive power? Throws, for example. Why doesn't Reese Hoffa always win? Why does Kenya, not known as a land of type-2x dynamos, produce the only top-level javelin thrower in Africa? To overcome these averse results, you'd need very solid and extensive evidence that muscle fiber ratios were both inherited and sport-specific. Because infants don't play sports, this is not possible without controlling for developmental factors. That's not possible because nobody fully knows or even investigates what developmental factors exist.
Perhaps the muscle-fiber theory has a fallback - the west Africans aren't really into the throws, are they? But then that works both ways. Americans are very much into sprinting, and like most of American culture, they apply an absurd amount of racial tradition to it. Black Americans are more likely to be put in a speed position early on by the football coach, and are more likely to be poor and have an economic incentive to develop that speed. White Americans, even if they have speed, are either made quarterbacks or fattened up to be linemen or linebackers. Four years later the coaches look at their speedy black WR's and big white OT's and conclude they were right. It's confirmation bias and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And what do these football players do in the spring? The WR's run track and the linemen put the shot. So let it be written, so let it be done.
As long as cultural and economic factors influence who gets trained for what, you'll never know how much "talent," if not all, is due to training, and how much, if any, is inherited.
At The Movies wrote:
'A man has got to know his limitations'
-Dirty Harry
Harry is correct. Appropriate quote for the thread.
Belief wrote:
If you think you have no talent, you are right. If you think you have lots of talent you are also right.
Defeatism or self belief are both self-fulfilling prophecies.
Discuss.
Wow, did you come up with that yourself. You might not want to base your training on Stewie Griffin quotes. Come up with something original for us to DISCUS.
No, I just figured from an early age that if I really applied myself to something, I could develop very high skill levels in that task.
As Henry Ford said: "If you think you can do a thing, or think you can't do a thing, you're right"
However I do realize that philosophy and psychology are far beyond the grasp of most letsrunners. I don't know why? Perhaps they don't believe that such things are worth learning?
Belief wrote:
No, I just figured from an early age that if I really applied myself to something, I could develop very high skill levels in that task.
As Henry Ford said: "If you think you can do a thing, or think you can't do a thing, you're right"
However I do realize that philosophy and psychology are far beyond the grasp of most letsrunners. I don't know why? Perhaps they don't believe that such things are worth learning?
Well did you excel at everything you tried?
Plenty of kids put on the superman cape and jump off a roof with little success at mimicking the Man of Steel.
dial it up wrote:
You may be a geneticist by profession, but that doesn't mean you understand psychology or physiology does it?
Actually belief, it does! Thats EXACTLY what that means. I wasn't saying it to tout my choice of job or to imply that I am better than anyone, I was saying it to show you my qualifications to end this outrageously stupid argument. I am telling you that you are dead wrong, and I am more than qualified to do so.
However, debating is one of my favorite activities, so I'll pose this: Is Lebron James successful at basketball because he is 6'9, 250 lbs, yet still has a huge vertical leap and excellent speed, or did he just practice hard?
What I am saying is that at a certain level, everyone believes in themselves and everyone works hard. What separates them is genetics. If you aren't predisposed to be a great basketball player, can you still develop the skills to have some success? Yes. Will Kirk Hinrich ever be Lebron James? No.
No, you are not an expert on psychology or physiology. Your posts show me that. And your straw man height argument also shows that you can't understand my original post. Consider the genetics of our psyche for a few years then get back to me with an intelligent debate.
Belief wrote:
However I do realize that philosophy and psychology are far beyond the grasp of most letsrunners. I don't know why? Perhaps they don't believe that such things are worth learning?
Physiology seems beyond your grasp.
Quite the opposite. I suspect that perhaps you falsely believe that you are physically weak, but your real weakness is in your head?
Belief wrote:
Quite the opposite. I suspect that perhaps you falsely believe that you are physically weak, but your real weakness is in your head?
Physically weak? There is no such thing, right?
Belief wrote:
No, I just figured from an early age that if I really applied myself to something, I could develop very high skill levels in that task.
As Henry Ford said: "If you think you can do a thing, or think you can't do a thing, you're right"
However I do realize that philosophy and psychology are far beyond the grasp of most letsrunners. I don't know why? Perhaps they don't believe that such things are worth learning?
Having studied both I've concluded that you're a troll or an idiot.
Black Americans are more likely to be put in a speed position early on by the football coach, and are more likely to be poor and have an economic incentive to develop that speed. White Americans, even if they have speed, are either made quarterbacks or fattened up to be linemen or linebackers. Four years later the coaches look at their speedy black WR's and big white OT's and conclude they were right. It's confirmation bias and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And what do these football players do in the spring? The WR's run track and the linemen put the shot. So let it be written, so let it be done.
_______________________________________________________
This is full of assumptions at best, and in my experience just plain wrong. F- ball coaches line guys up and race them. A typical coach knows how fast all players are, O-linemen, WRs, QBs, ......everyone. At the high school level, QBS often run and can be the fastest on the team. Players are typically positioned by their attributes. Fast player play the speed positions. No coach is going to take a 4.5 180lb player and stick him on the O-line because he's white.
I have been associated with many schools, the fastest players tend to be black. In America there is a great chance that the origins are West African.
The argument of being poor as THE motivating factor is also weak also. If you take a look at the NBA now, there are so many players who had a parent who were professional athletes, and who grew up very wealthy. It's about talent
Shane Larkin
S Curry
Andrew Wiggins
Tim Hardaway Jr
Klay Thompson
Mike Dunleavy
Kobe
Al Horford
K-Love
Etc...
Randy Oldman wrote:
Belief wrote:No, I just figured from an early age that if I really applied myself to something, I could develop very high skill levels in that task.
As Henry Ford said: "If you think you can do a thing, or think you can't do a thing, you're right"
However I do realize that philosophy and psychology are far beyond the grasp of most letsrunners. I don't know why? Perhaps they don't believe that such things are worth learning?
Having studied both I've concluded that you're a troll or an idiot.
I'm neither, but obviously you have no understanding of how to apply philosophy and psychology to running?
So which one are you? A troll or an idiot?
genuine random a hole wrote:
Belief wrote:Quite the opposite. I suspect that perhaps you falsely believe that you are physically weak, but your real weakness is in your head?
Physically weak? There is no such thing, right?
So you do believe that you are physically weak?
Belief wrote:
genuine random a hole wrote:Physically weak? There is no such thing, right?
So you do believe that you are physically weak?
No. I know damn well I have Olympic quality talent.
I asked you a couple questions earlier you probably missed. Indulge me please.
Do you think there is a component to achievement that is commonly called talent?
If you do believe "talent" is something that does exist can you describe it please?
I get offended by the word, because it's a cop out.
I recently taught myself a new skill to a very high level very quickly. People tell me I have lot of talent, I say to them, I just worked and worked and worked at it for 10 hours a day until I got the results I required. Then when I ran out of money to finance my indulgence I got a proper job.
Is that my talent? My ability to focus on something? Or is it just that I made the most of an opportunity, while other people were distracted by their over busy lives?
Running is just one of the millions of things you can do with your time isn't it? We all have thousands of 'talents' that we can further develop don't we?
Do you really think that you ever reached anywhere near your genetic potential for running?
You are completely correct and Wigins, as almost always is the case, is embarrassing himself with his nonsense. It is beyond hilarious that he thinks white dudes are at a speed disadvantage due to some cultural bias against them being fast. Poor rural schools and more middle class suburban schools that have a nearly all white student body don't exist?? Of course they do. And do they have white running backs, white wide receivers and white 100m runners in track??? Of course they do. So plenty of whites DO get put into positions and events where their speed can be developed and nurtured from a young age, and some are quite speedy. But guess what happens when they go to the state finals, or play the black teams?? They simply, and plainly, usually (not always) run into faster, and MORE TALENTED (for speed) athletes. Speed is a talent. This was further hammered home in a recent study (I am sure linked to here) that looked at world and national class sprinters vs regular folks. The top sprinters had no unusual upbringing, and no long term training. They were simply the fastest person they knew since they first time they took off sprinting and were IMMEDIATELY super successful at speed sports, without virtually any training. Talent exists. Believe it.
XY wrote:
Black Americans are more likely to be put in a speed position early on by the football coach, and are more likely to be poor and have an economic incentive to develop that speed. White Americans, even if they have speed, are either made quarterbacks or fattened up to be linemen or linebackers. Four years later the coaches look at their speedy black WR's and big white OT's and conclude they were right. It's confirmation bias and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And what do these football players do in the spring? The WR's run track and the linemen put the shot. So let it be written, so let it be done.
_______________________________________________________
This is full of assumptions at best, and in my experience just plain wrong. F- ball coaches line guys up and race them. A typical coach knows how fast all players are, O-linemen, WRs, QBs, ......everyone. At the high school level, QBS often run and can be the fastest on the team. Players are typically positioned by their attributes. Fast player play the speed positions. No coach is going to take a 4.5 180lb player and stick him on the O-line because he's white.
I have been associated with many schools, the fastest players tend to be black. In America there is a great chance that the origins are West African.
The argument of being poor as THE motivating factor is also weak also. If you take a look at the NBA now, there are so many players who had a parent who were professional athletes, and who grew up very wealthy. It's about talent
Shane Larkin
S Curry
Andrew Wiggins
Tim Hardaway Jr
Klay Thompson
Mike Dunleavy
Kobe
Al Horford
K-Love
Etc...
And you give *ME* grief for "long-winded" posts??? Never have I seen so many words say so little.
Bad Wigins wrote:
cbenson4 wrote:Child development? Excuse me, but there are children who never run, and then end up being extraordinarily talented in the sport.
Who said running is the only environmental factor? What about baseline activity level? TV viewing? Nobody knows what drives the epigenetics. So again, you can't conclude that it's inborn.
And you're gonna tell me that it was (Ryun's) child development or caloric intake that got him there? Please.
At the risk of starting a heated off-topic argument, doping was legal when Ryun was competitive.
How many white boy *milers* could do that today I wonder?
If this were true, it would be a good rebuttal to your previous statement. A gene pool that makes a Jim Ryun should make more of them, if genes are so important.
Sure, let's bring in race too. Why are African Americans naturally speedier than American whites?
You should try to be a little more subtle when using false premises.
And please don't try to tell me that African Americans or simply blacks around the world are *not* naturally speedier than whites at the short events. Because if you do, sir, you will be laughed at.
Go ahead and resort to popular opinion if you have no better argument.
it has to do with their Type (2x) muscle fibers that they are naturally born with, not their child development.
Nobody even possesses the muscle fibers they're born with. A little baby's muscle cells don't magically grow to adult size and never die.
But for the sake of argument, let's suppose muscle fiber ratios are indeed set at birth and that west Africans are somehow programmed to have the most. If that's really such a decisive advantage, why aren't west Africans better than African-Americans, who have mixed with Europeans for many generations? On the contrary, Nigeria makes considerable effort developing sprinters, yet is dominated by American immigrants to the extent that its own sprinters emigrate to Arab countries.
Why wouldn't that surplus of type 2x apply to any other events requiring short bursts of explosive power? Throws, for example. Why doesn't Reese Hoffa always win? Why does Kenya, not known as a land of type-2x dynamos, produce the only top-level javelin thrower in Africa? To overcome these averse results, you'd need very solid and extensive evidence that muscle fiber ratios were both inherited and sport-specific. Because infants don't play sports, this is not possible without controlling for developmental factors. That's not possible because nobody fully knows or even investigates what developmental factors exist.
Perhaps the muscle-fiber theory has a fallback - the west Africans aren't really into the throws, are they? But then that works both ways. Americans are very much into sprinting, and like most of American culture, they apply an absurd amount of racial tradition to it. Black Americans are more likely to be put in a speed position early on by the football coach, and are more likely to be poor and have an economic incentive to develop that speed. White Americans, even if they have speed, are either made quarterbacks or fattened up to be linemen or linebackers. Four years later the coaches look at their speedy black WR's and big white OT's and conclude they were right. It's confirmation bias and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And what do these football players do in the spring? The WR's run track and the linemen put the shot. So let it be written, so let it be done.
As long as cultural and economic factors influence who gets trained for what, you'll never know how much "talent," if not all, is due to training, and how much, if any, is inherited.
Are you saying that no white boy can run 12 meters per second?