Considering the ancestry of most African-Americans, AMERICAN sprinting champions are almost certainly always European-descended as well.
If what you say is true, then it would predict that “blacker” (or those with a greater portion of West African ancestry) American sprinters are faster than “less black” sprinters. Does it?
Not necessarily. Let assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a “sprinting gene” found among certain West African populations, and that was carried to the US via the slave trade. The probability of you having the gene would decrease with decreasing African ancestry, but if you need the gene to be in the selected population of “sprinters”, then those without the gene are already screened out.
The complex interplay of genetics, culture and training in sports makes it perilous to try and make scientific statements about the genetic advantages certain populations might have at sports based on observed players of those sports.
Fair enough. My main point is that American sprinters are likely to have lots of European ancestry in addition to some portion of West African ancestry.
Of course. I’ve probably posted that half a dozen times in this thread. More interestingly, there are plenty of African Americans who have more European ancestry than African. And we’re getting more and more of them all the time. African Americans are a population geneticist’s nightmare because it’s a group that is defined by social norms, not by genetics. It’s not as bad as “Hispanic”, but it’s pretty bad.
Precise statements, yes. But that’s the beginning of any scientific experiment. A phenomenon is observed, a hypothesis is formed, then the hypothesis is tested for.
I really do think there is a gene or set of genes in West Africans that make them great sprinters. I don’t think they’re better athletes, in terms of generic coordination, etc.. I see no proof of that. Besides, though they have come to almost deify NBA players, West-African-descended people still can’t dominate the NBA like they do sprinting, and they are not particularly good marathoners, on average.
I’m not making any absolute statements (how can I? Which gene(s) are responsible? Nobody knows), but the facts that they dominate sprinting completely, but not marathons, the NBA, baseball, or football, AND the fact that they dominate speed positions but not brute strength positions in football, AND the fact that they have almost no champions in strength events, all make me think that their domination of sprinting is not especially cultural.
Their dominance is just so skewed toward sprinting and nothing else in ALL those sports. It’s really a striking oddity.
Not only that, but the varied terrain of West Africa, combined with the deadly animals there, plus the year-round warm weather, produces an environment in which sprinting is a VERY useful skill. The plains of East Africa, contrastingly, are a place where long-distance running is a very useful skill.
The additional differences in lower-body musculature are also possible evidence of an advantage.
It’s enough to convince me that it’s definitely worth looking for the gene or genes, anyway. Not that such knowledge has any real-world application outside of maybe high-level sports, of course, as far I can tell.
Let’s not overstate. I think I’ve read somewhere that about 60% of self-identified African-Americans are pure Africans, as confirmed by DNA tests.
I have no idea what the real numbers are, though.
Those aren’t the real numbers. Not even close. The average for all African Americans is about 20% European ancestry. The % who are pure African is in the single digits. And probably the low single digits.
So, yeah, let’s not overstate. However, if you are operating under the assumption that 60% of African Americans have no European ancestry, that might explain the erroneous conclusions you’ve reached.
Care to comment on the much larger point he made in the post preceding the one you responded to?
Emphasis added. I agree with all of that except the underlined part. I see no reason to jump to that conclusion without actual experimental data. So far, all we have is observation. As you said, and I have said earlier in this thread, that is the begging of the process. It’s the first step, not the last, in the Scientific Method.
Having said that, I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that certain West African population(s) had a genetic advantage in sprinting. I would find it entirely unremarkable, just as I find it entirely unremarkable that certain populations have a genetic height advantage over other populations.
It’s not an actual point. It’s an anecdotal observation that during a tiny, specific period in human history, if you identify a very small number of winners in a narrow field of athletic competition, that those winners might be identified with membership in certain social groupings. It’s so flimsy and tiny that it almost disappears before you can precisely describe what you’re looking at.
When it comes to West-African adaptation for sprinting, we have our two eyes, with which any unbiased person can easily just see (in terms of body type and muscular composition).
When it comes to East-Africans and distance running, there have been studies done that reveal a lot of particularities in body type that lend themselves to success at distance running. (One of the measures that was off the charts, was something about the location of insertion points of certain muscles in the leg, offering huge mechanical advantages in a distance stride.)
Let me add that anyone trained in science knows the danger of trying to find a specific result. Never, ever invest yourself in the result. That is the best way to misinterpret the data.
I guess just I haven’t spent that much time gazing at the bodies of black men.
Well then, just look at who holds World Records in different events… That will tell you who is adapted for what event.
(And since all’s you need to take up running is the desire to run, it’s hard to argue these things are culturally determined. Somehow white Europeans have a strong cultural preference for middle distances?)
You’re late to the game here and are not making any arguments that weren’t hashed over multiple times already. Not going to repeat the process for everyone who jumps in here on page 10 of this thread. Nothing personal.
Yes, and Jews dominated professional basketball for a while. And there was once a (not very good) scientist who once computed it was physically impossible for a human to run a 4 minute mile, backed by thousands of years of failed attempts.
While observation is a good STARTING point for a hypothesis to test, it’s a horrible way, in the absence of any further corroborating evidence (especially genetic), to establish either a null hypothesis or make firm conclusions.
That point seems to be repeatedly missed, so let me repeat it.
Observation is a good STARTING point for a hypothesis. It’s a horrible way, in the absence of other evidence, to establish the conclusion.
Except that the hypothesis for East-African have above-average abilities in distance running has gone much farther to the point of identifying specific adaptations that, knowing what a distance stride is, can explain an advantage.
Sorry, I didn’t wade through all 10 pages of this thread, but the argument of why running is more directly related to genetics than other athletics is pretty solid. Doesn’t require any gear; doesn’t require specialized training or technique; doesn’t require access to specialized facilities; in summary, it’s something that’s hard-wired into all humans (unlike something like basketball).
And for those who have forgotten what we all should have learned in Jr High:
There are lots of different populations in East Africa. And what you’re describing is still the observation stage. Where is the experiment? Where is the peer review of the experiment and the repeating of the experiment to ensure that what we’re seeing is real, and not bias or error?
Sorry, we’re not there yet. We have a hypothesis. That’s it.
Point one study out and show that it’s not simply post-hoc reasoning. Remember that similar reasoning also once “proved” that a 4 minute mile was impossible.
I’m not saying it’s impossible. I’m saying that drawing a firm conclusion from the data presented is not warranted. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were true, but the evidence is not an out of the ballpark homerun right now. It’s more of a single with a possibility of a steal.
A simple counter-example is, of course, ultra-marathoning. East Africans, I can assure you, are not dominant in races of longer than 26 miles. The ethnic group that’s actually associated with ultramarathons is the Tarahumara of Mexico.
Is it possible there’s a genetic basis for their tremendous ability to run long distances? Sure, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were. But it simply hasn’t been scientifically shown, yet, either.
Since it’s unethical to do the kind of double-blind study that would be a gold standard, what would accept as a valid study? Say you took a random selection of Kenyans and measured the distance of the insertion point of a key calf muscle. Then took a random selection of Irishmen and made the same measurement.
If you could show the Kenyan average was larger than the Irish average, and, further, there’s a strong correlation between this measurement and distance running success, would you accept that?
(And further, knowing what we do about biomechanics, that you could also show that the higher this measurement is, the more force output you get per stride in a typical distance stride. Would you accept that as scientific?)