Kenyans aren't genetically superior?

Berbers... atlas mountains....get a map.

You raise some good points, but my counter-points would be:

"not necessarily". OK, it NOT neccessarily true, but it IS true. It is in UNDENIABLE fact that people's whose ancestors are from a different part of the world than someone else's ancestors will have genetic differences from that other person. Is it shocking to think that some of these differences could be advantageous or disadvantageous to the sport distance running Or sprinting ??? Of course not. Do the differences that I mention that SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED that highlanders from East Africa possess (mitochondria superior at producing energy[something people from warmer climates have, not only East Africans], and bodies superior at extracting oxygen from the air[something Ethiopian highlanders have been shown to have]) sound like SIGNIFICANT differences that might help one become a great distance runner ???? Of course they do. So, "not necessarily" signigicant, I suppose, but acutally significant, I would say so.

Define "not that great" ? Have you done that comparison (sample of Kenyan athletes vs caucasian) ? Probably not. As far as "self-fulfilling aspect" at the highest levels, um, I guess so, but, in the end, at the elite levels, the difference between the top East Africans and top runners from the rest of the wolrd (besides North Africa) IS THAT GREAT. There is a big difference, and while there are many reasons for that, ONE OF THE BIGGEST is genetic.

I guess so. On the average, though, the East African will clearly win vs the non-East African (no one ever said there would not be exceptions). And that is the whole question here: WHY would the East African almost always win? I have give you what I think is the MAIN reason.

There is no "bad science or "poor inferences" on my part I don't think. I am bringing to light some of the latest scientific discoveries, and they are only proving what seems obvious to most people: the East Africans are born to run more than most.

As far as "defeatism" goes, that exists in all sports for all SORTS of reasons. Little guys don't think they can play hoops against really tall guys, women don't think they can beat men in sports, lighter boxers assume bigger boxers of equal talent will beat them, white sprinters don't think they can beat black sprinters, etc, etc, etc. And what are those "defeatist" attitudes born of??? REALITY. ON THE AVERAGE........women CAN'T beat mean in sports, right??? And the best women JUST CAN'T beat the best men in virtually any sport?? What is the MAIN REASON for that???? Genetics. BUT.....can the best women beat the-less-than-best-men in sports??? OF COURSE THEY CAN. So does that fact(best women beating many of the less-than-best-men) prove that women are NOT genetically different, or genetically inferior, ON THE AVERAGE, to men as far as sports abilities go??? No, it does not. So the fact that Ritz can beat many good East Africans change the fact that on the average East Africans enjoy a genetic predisposition/advantage to becoming good distance runners over non-East Africans???? Again, of course not. And this is true of my other statements also. ON THE AVERAGE, a 6' 10" guy (with some hoop experience) will beat a 5'2" guy(with similar hoop experience) in one-on-one hoops. I am sure there are exceptions to that, but the reasons why the bigger guy will win on the average are clearly genetic. Now height might be a more obvious and easy-to-see genetic advantage for hoops than superhuman oxygen extraction abilities is for running, but the latter is still an advantage and does exist.

Questions for you: do you really think white sprinters do much worse than black sprintes on the average at the elite levels MAINLY because of culture, or defeatist attitudes, or environment?? If those are not the main reasons, then why do you think such a difference exists between white and black sprinters (on the average)??? And if one of the main reasons for the superiority of the black sprinters is due to natural talent, WHY then couldn't the same be true about distance running??? It can be true about distance running, and IS true about distance running.

There's something inherently Western about compiling stats and sorting types into categories. It started with Aristotle, and it's very much at the heart of scientific inquiry. I think much of this discussion merely repeats the assertion that the evidence is in what can be proved rationally. Therefore, if it can be shown statistically that the Kalenjins and the Nandis and are better runners than other peoples, this in someway proves the theory of a genetic advantage. Unfortunately, the system of categorization runs up against too many variables. For instance, someone has pointed out that the Maasai are also Nilotic people (like the other two). So the genetic model can't be uniformly applied. In fact, the whole idea of what constitutes a Kalenjin or a Nandi is complicated by the way in which these categories do not take into account what genetic cross pollination has gone into their evolution as they migrated into the Embu region from somewhere near Sudan. How do we arrive at the model of a protypical Kalenjin or Nandi? What ideological function does it serve? Ultimately, the discussion seems to boil down to whether you're a hard core Cartesian, or if you allow for the existence of that which cannot be explained. When all is said and done, it seems that we're talking about something that Western science can only partially explain (no matter how vocal one makes the point). The rest is bound up in the mystery of what makes one exceptionally fit person win a particular race while the other one blows up en route to the finish.

Thanks M-82.

I never said that Morroccans live at the SAME atltitude as Ethiopians, just that there are definitely Moroccans WHOSE ANCESTORS I am sure spent many years altitude. Possibly because their ancestors lived at lower altitudes, and for not as many millenia, maybe that is one reason they are NOT nearly as good as East Africans in the 5000 & 10000, becuase if you have not noticed, they are not even close in those events depth-wise (Moroccans are great, but besides El G and a few others, they get destroyed by the East Africans OVER-ALL).

And as far as my "warm climates" comments go, please......you are saying that cities that have High temps between around 67-80 degrees YEAR-ROUND are not "warm climates" ??? No one said it had to be 90 degrees every day to be considered warm. Trust me, East Africa is a warm, relatively speaking, place. Maybe not scorching in the highlands, but "warm" nonetheless.

the average height for the Masai is around 6'4"......that might make a differance.

Madein_82 wrote:

Berbers... atlas mountains....get a map.

In America, the Rocky Mountain States have sparse populations. Same in the Atlas Mountains.

Berbers covered much or North America. Again, the population centers in Morrocco are at sea level. Get an education.

spell check: Morocco.

lol...i wasnt aware that Berbers lived in north america???

yeah i dont think so.

Liveing at altitude is only ONE possible selective. pressure that might be haveing an effect here.

and those spare populations that DO live in the rookies have not lived there NEAR long enough to experiance whatever effects these selective pressures maye or may not have(Remmber there have corelation doesnt prove causation it mearly infers it).

Also Modern living in COuntries like the US( there is the lifestyle facor, tied closely to genetics in this case), tend to negate any possible natural selection that might happen due to living in the rookies for 1000generations.

Has far as education is concerned im doing ok thank you. lol... though my anthropology teacher failed to mention the Rookie mountian phase of Berber culture..lololool

North *Africa,* of course.

lol...yes just giveing you hard time .

i guess we can all agree that there are a number of factors (Genetics, lifestyle, altitude...etc..)

cant agree on the details though ...ah well

i dont think there have been any REALLY good studies on this anyway...so its all speculation

damn lies wrote:

No, it was ironic.

Yeah, I caught that. I still remember what passed for "irony" in the ninth grade. Although this isn't really irony. Look up the word.

Like I said, that little point, ironic as it tried to be, was simple, and simply dealt with.

i·ro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)

n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and

often opposite to their literal meaning.

An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).

An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Dramatic irony.

Socratic irony.

dhow wrote:

In fact, the whole idea of what constitutes a Kalenjin or a Nandi is complicated by the way in which these categories do not take into account what genetic cross pollination has gone into their evolution as they migrated into the Embu region from somewhere near Sudan.

Just for the record, Embu isn't close to Sudan.

"Just for the record, Embu isn't close to Sudan."

He never said it was, but thanks anyway.

Yeah. I didn't say the Sudan was close to the Embu region. I said the Kalenjin migrated from somewhere near the Sudan (along the banks of the Nile River approximately 2000 years ago).

That said, I like the map.

I should add that the term Kalenjin can be a little misleading. It's used to describe a cluster of seven different people - Pokot, Elegeyo, Kipsigis, Marakwet, Tugen, Terik, Sabaot and the Nandi. Also, I should have mentioned that it's both the Kalenjin as well as the Kisii who produce the majority of the runners.

tuna wrote:

Mr. A-lot,

If the steam coming out of your ears would allow you a moment of clarity would you please explain your take on the men's middle and long distance events at Athens which clearly did not show an East African dominance. Thanks.

Everyone else here is arguing the reason for the East African dominance. You are the only one arguing that it doesn't exist.

When a region that includes about 3% of the world's population represents about 50% of the finalists in the Olympic middle and long distance events, that's dominance.

Migrant Lurker wrote:

"Just for the record, Embu isn't close to Sudan."

He never said it was, but thanks anyway.

THanks for your correction. I think I read it in a hurry. My apologies to Dhow.