Kenyans aren't genetically superior?

the mann wrote:

RunDaddy wrote:

First of all, I've never had a post pulled from this board. Ever.

Yes, you have. Please don't lie. I'd link to the exact thread that was disappeared, if it was still there. You should know the one. You were saying something stupid about African "shit-holes." Oh, wait, you're ALWAYS saying something stupid, so that doesn't narrow things down, does it?

Well, unless you have any studies, or even some training in the subject, those of us with a clue will keep on laughing at you, results in hand.

p.s. Dad, there's no apostrophe in the plural of "country," which is "countries," not "country's." I find it hard to talk evolutionary biology with someone who doesn't know gradeschool punctuation. Where did you go to school, anyway?

I think I know the thread you're referring to. I didn't start it and I didn't have it pulled. It was probably pulled because it dealt with a political topic. I could care less if you don't believe me.

I just think East African cultural and sociological conditions contribute more to the running success of East Africans than genetics. It's an opinion shared by others as well, and they're not all stupid idiots because they don't agree with you.

Yes, i did make a punctuation mistake. Who cares. it's a f***ing message board. F. Scott Fitzgerald couldn't spell or punctuate to save his life and he was certainly no dummy. He also went to a pretty good school. Where did i go to school? Actually a pretty good school. You come across as a pedantic, stuck up, self righteous prick for even asking a question like that based on what someone writes on a message board.

"Last year, the potent Kenyans made another quantum leap forward reaching a staggering 431 separate sub-2:20 marathon performances around the world. In October alone they scored 126 times, a total most nations would be proud to achieve in a full year. Surprisingly, though, the Kenyans accounted for their year total in just 117 different races, the same number as in 2003 and just one more than in 2002."

http://www.iaaf.org/news/Kind=2/newsId=28823.html

The US once had 267 sub 2:20 performances in one year, now a significantly smaller country nearly doubles that.

Better running thru chemistry.

And the other countries aren't?

It has nothing to do with genetics. Look at their country: they are active. America as a whole does not value activity. That's why there are so many unfit and unhealthy people here. They start at an early age. Runners here start running cause they have nothing else to do.

Ok, that's a little over-pessimistic but you get the idea.

How do you know they aren't genetically superior?

I think this is not about genetics but about opportunity. In the US and other western countries there are many other sports that athletes can participate in. For example here in the US we have football, soccer, basketball, baseball, tennis, and etc. whereas in Kenya they have running and soccer (to a lesser degree cricket). The best athletes tend to gravitate to the more popular sports, so our best runners are those that are left over. I remember in high school seeing some truly exceptional natural talented runners who would run XC for conditioning and play soccer or basketball. One guy ran track one year and ran 49 for 400M and 1:57 off of next to nothing in terms of training. He ended up playing basketball and football the next year.

GWI wrote:It has nothing to do with genetics.

wrong. surely their lifestyle has an effect on their training discipline and overall activity, but you cannot disregard the fact that they are genetically predisposed to running. look at their bodies: compact, lightweight, biomechanically efficient. they have extra mitochondria in their muscles that speeds glycolysis and enhances endurance. their arteries are, on average, larger than american's. even if a group of americans were raised in the kenyan lifestyle, they would not have the same running success.

Saying that MANY Kenyans don't have a genetic advantage over most of the worlds population is like saying that Alan Culpepper doesn't have a genetic advantage over the average American. Yes the genetically gifted have to work at it, and diet and lifestyle help, but build and natural aerobic capacity cannot be changed.

GWI wrote:

It has nothing to do with genetics. .

Wrong. Look at my posts, if you care to, on the "McDougal" thread. It has a lot to do with genetics and some of these exact genetic differences have been recently discovered:

Mitochondria better at producing energy and a superior ability to pull oxygen from the air and into the blood.

I don't think kenyans necessarily have superior genetics. According to Lydiard, aerobic capacity is not a limited factor, so it doesn't really matter if they are born with more aerobic capacity. They probably have more aerobic capacity on average just because of their culture (high activity + diet.) Even if on average they have better genetics, wouldn't you say on average african americans have better sprinting genetics than white guys? Looking at who won the 400 at the olympics, it's obvious that it is genetically possible for a white american, if he does just about everything right to be the best distance runner in the world.

On a side note, here's an interesting article about genetics.

http://www.13.waisays.com/genetic.htm

nope wrote:

I don't think kenyans necessarily have superior genetics. According to Lydiard, aerobic capacity is not a limited factor, so it doesn't really matter if they are born with more aerobic capacity.

If a sufficiently ungifted athlete were given 100 years to train constantly, he or she would still not reach the level that a gifted athlete could achieve in 100 days. What matters is not the starting point alone, but the speed of progression.

A specific that no one ever seems to point out in these discussions is the fact that out of 40 plus tribes in Kenya, only two or three produce 99 percent of the elite distance runners (Paul Ereng and Douglas Wakihurri being two notable exceptions from outside these tribes). So talking about "Pan-Kenya" as a superior Nation is a bit misleading. This very small minority among the Kenyans is a special group that has found its strong suit (to say the least) and even other Kenyans are no closer to beating them than Europeans or Americans.

genetics wrote:

GWI wrote:It has nothing to do with genetics.

wrong. surely their lifestyle has an effect on their training discipline and overall activity, but you cannot disregard the fact that they are genetically predisposed to running. look at their bodies: compact, lightweight, biomechanically efficient. they have extra mitochondria in their muscles that speeds glycolysis and enhances endurance. their arteries are, on average, larger than american's. even if a group of americans were raised in the kenyan lifestyle, they would not have the same running success.

We have plenty of people who are compact and lightweight: the Torres brothers for example. And as far as biomechanically efficient goes there are "white Kenyans" out there like Alan Culpepper and Bob Kennedy. Adam Goucher is said to have notoriously high mitochondrial amounts. A Nation of 300 million people is an untapped resource with a vast pool of talent...most of that talent will never make it to the line however so your hypothetical group of American's "trained in the Kenyan lifestyle" will never be mustered. We will never know nor can we ever know how many Ritz's are out there in the USA.

According to Lydiard, aerobic capacity is not a limited factor

Saying one type of people are genetically superior to another is a slippery slope, ESPICALLY USING STATS AS EVIDENCE. How much of the worlds money is controlled by White males? I am only guessing, but I would saythat it is over 70%(maybe 80-90%??). Using thisstatistical evidence to demonstrate superiority,I could make the contention that white males are genetically superior at making money(break that down into whatever cognitive functions that suites you). Of course if i did this I would be immediatly shunned as a biget, but it is the same exact logic that is used in the original post.

If I was 5'6', 120lbs or less while keeping the same power to weight ratio I'd be a world beater too. The genetic advantage they have is simply a weight and height issue. If the average American runner is 5'10, 140lbs, then the average Kenyan is likely 5'8', 120lbs.

1. If you are small you have less weight to carry and require less oxygen to move your body.

2. If you have strong legs (say, through running up hills) then you'll develop the leg strength needed for a high power to weight ratio...Plainly put, you'll be able to run with a longer stride.

Kenyans, and east Africans in general, are simply smaller due to thousands of years of evolution. If most runners are small and country A has a higher % of smaller people than country B then country A will produce a higher % of successful runners.

That being said. Don't let genetics get you down. Just train hard.

Europeans distance runners aren't as fast as they used to be. So, does that mean that the genetics of Europeans has changed in the past 20 years or so?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Kenyans, and east Africans in general, are simply smaller due to thousands of years of evolution. If most runners are small and country A has a higher % of smaller people than country B then country A will produce a higher % of successful runners.

That being said. Don't let genetics get you down. Just train hard.

It does not matter about percentages. There are probably more people of average Kenyan size in the US than there are in Kenya. How many sprinters does Kenya produce?