Are Africans Only Advantage Geography not Physiology?

adaptation? wrote:

so, you say geography is the key to their success? you also say they have adapted over several generations? dont you think its all genetics or something else on top of all these?

here is a question to ask yourself while answering that, if all is true, then we would expect people who live around Himalayas or the Andes mountains to be among the elite too.

while answering that, think about this ... 99% of the Kenyan runners are from the Kalenjin subgroup, and very few are from the other remaining 40+ dialects ...

sincerely, chirchir

And the Kalenjin have lived at altitude for about 700 years, not a huge number of generations.

He was born in Kirkland, Washington but didn't start running until he was in highschool living in Big Bear Cal.

You can look it up, page 88 Daniels' Runnning Formula.

I've read closer to 2000 years but I'd have to look it up in a book before I put any money on it. Additionally, it's thought they moved there from Sudan, which could still put them at altitude for some time. Not as high as the Ethiopian highlands or the Rift Valley, though.

The facts are really very simple. East Africans farmers who are on the move for 12 hours each day are fitter than Americans who sit in front of a computer or tv for 12 hours a day.

I think the point is that the geography AFFECTED the genetics over tens of thousands of years. The effect shows up most notably in the Kalenjins

Ah, the "Third World toughness" argument. For some reason, though "Third World toughness" argument doesn't extend to the 99.9% of the wretched hard working unpampered third world that doesn't reside in the Rift Valley of Kenya.

Why on earth is there resistance to the idea that populations differ in physiological endowments that might be of use in one sport or another? THis is painfully obvious and it seems only the desire to judge, then reward or punish our "will" - a kind of moral severity - is the only obstacle to seeing what is plainly so. Anyone who thinks that Samoans could be as good at distance running as a group as Kenyans given the right environment beginning int he cradle is just willfully ignoring the obvious.

But you don't need special physical endowments to be as good as the kalenjins, what you need is a similar lifestyle.

And tell me what is unique about their lifestyle that isn't also true of many, many impoverished farmers around the globe? Or other Kenyans, for that matter.

My theory is that the adaptive advantages of a particular tribe in running are what evolutionists would call a "spandrel" - an adaptation that had nothing to do with the use to which it is now employed. I think the adaptation is simply one of tending to be long limbed while not being terribly tall and not having a propensity to put on muscle mass with exercise. If altitude is involved, I suspect it is quite indirect.

The numbers are just too huge to be accounted for by environment alone. The overreliance on environmental causes for human outcomes (which I think involves a moral/political bias that drives examination of evidence, not one engendered by evidence) is being quickly eroded by modren biology and genetics.

Anyone who knows the "B" or "C" level Kenyan roadwhores knows there is nothing special about their lifestyle or their training. It is their natural running economy.

If you look at the sheer depth of distance running among Kenyans, not just at the top but the weekend roadwhores in Chapel Hill, Savannah, Richmond, KY, West Chester, etc. who go to any roadrace with a turnip on offer it must be plainly obvious that genetics is playing a role. WHy don't other wretched poor folk (and Kenya isn't nearly as bad as other places) take this tact to prosperity?

I don't see them as genetic distance running freaks. I see them as a group of people who share certain characteristics than we assume to be advantageous to runners, but these traits are extremely common around the world.

What they do have is a fourty year tradition of gradually improved performances which inspires the young runners to believe that they too can be as good as their brothers and cousins.

Let me put it this way, if twenty of your relatives were world class distance runners, don't you think that it would give you a huge psychological advantage if you wished to follow in their footsteps?

Runningart2004 wrote:

When I was a kid (1980s), I did walk to school, bout a half mile, and rode my bike everyday. You don't see that anymore. You don't see kids playing outside.

Alan

I do, in America and Britain.

I see loads of kids walking miles to school every day, running around playing, and on their bikes. This is in Britain. How come there aren't any Seb Coes right now?

Kids do play. And that they do doesn't guarantee them to be good distance runners.

"Let me put it this way, if twenty of your relatives were world class distance runners, don't you think that it would give you a huge psychological advantage if you wished to follow in their footsteps?"

I think there are moral or other reasons for wanting to deny the obvious. Why were twenty or more of their relatives good runners? Why is it so hard to believe that genetics can drive culture? Kenyans have gravitiated to running because they have found they can be successful at it.

Do you think that Kenyans, if they had the cultural impetus, could all excel in bodybuilding? DO yout hink if we took 100 Kalinjin youth and had them trade places at birth with 100 Samoan youth, that those Kalinjin kids would be large bulky and powerful in the sam proportion as the native Samoans and the Samoan youth would excel in distance running to the same extent as their native Kenyan neighbors? You couldn't possibly think this.

We observe great physiological variation in homoegenous groups of people across the globe. Why don't we want to accept it only when it conflates with a moral value we are pleased to think of us being the sole gift of our free will?

Brian Erb is that you? I know I've heard that Somoan vs Kenyan weightlifter argument before...

Alan

Brian, I think you are misinterpreting the nature of physiological variation. A sub 10 sprinter can't run a sub 2.10 marathon and vice versa.

My point is that I don't believe that the Kalenjin are genetically superior at distance running, any more than the Sicilians are genetically superior at being gangsters.

However, both groups have considerable environmental advantages that may influence their chosen profession.

Agree with you 100%.

They defintely have more talent per 100 people than western countries, add in the active lifestyle, the altitude, the low fat diets and relatively sepaking the significant rewards for running well and you have your answers.

"My point is that I don't believe that the Kalenjin are genetically superior at distance running, any more than the Sicilians are genetically superior at being gangsters.

However, both groups have considerable environmental advantages that may influence their chosen profession."

I don't misunderstand your point. You think that every population on earth is born with the same distribution of abilities and that it is only environment which makes Samoans and Kenyans appear so phenotypically different. Raise Samoans in the Kenyan environment and Kenyans in the Samoan environment and they will show the same range of phenotypical variations as the natives. They simply sould not. And we admit this is the case with some genetic things, but we dare not imagine that any of these things can add up to different distribution to success in a given sport.

Physical traits are heritable, organized crime traits aren't. Are you honestly asserting that the phenotypical differences in fat storage, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle, and a host of other things we see between populations are solely attributable to environment? That if we took eskimos and raised them in thh Rift Valley they would be phenotypically similar to the natives in their distribution of traits?

What I am saying is that I don't believe that you need special physical atributes to be a world class distance runner.

Those teenage East African prodigies would be outstandingly fit and competitive at other things besides running. If we had a competition to see which group of runners could lift the highest number of straw bales onto a truck in three hours, the East African runners would beat other nations by a considerable margin, because of their outstanding levels of fitness. And they would recover much faster too.

It's all about fitness, most of us have the genes to run fast. It's what you do with your genes that counts.

I think the key to the success of the Kenyans is their superior lifestyle. Just look at Robert Cheruiyot, who was a heavy cigarette smoker for years and didn't even take up serious running until after he had turned 20.

mr obvious wrote:

What I am saying is that I don't believe that you need special physical atributes to be a world class distance runner.

Those teenage East African prodigies would be outstandingly fit and competitive at other things besides running. If we had a competition to see which group of runners could lift the highest number of straw bales onto a truck in three hours, the East African runners would beat other nations by a considerable margin, because of their outstanding levels of fitness. And they would recover much faster too.

It's all about fitness, most of us have the genes to run fast. It's what you do with your genes that counts.

They're fit, but amazingly weak in terms of upper body strength - ask anyone who's ever been in a gym with Kenyans, even those who train regularly with weights. Better pick a different contest.