I’d be surprised if that were true-- that genetics is a very small part in the equation. On what are you basing this?
I’ll certainly agree that genetics, without training, is unlikely to get you very far in elite sports. But training without genetics? Not buying it. Not in something like sprinting. Maybe in something like golf or table tennis.
Here’s a scene from the human family tree, which illustrates that point. Starts at 40:36.
The evidence points NOT to the ABSENCE of a European gene, but to the PRESENCE of a West African gene. And since no one has claimed that elite sprinters have zero European genes, I can’t fathom why you think this is relevant.
I met a guy who visited north Harlem once, does that count?
Yes, I’ve met people from all over Africa. And Lewis is within the realm that would be considered black. Possibly not within a country like Zimbabwe, but certainly outside of Africa.
Again, not sure why you’re bringing this up. It has nothing to do with any point I have made. Or others. (Though I could be wrong about that.)
I admire your persistence, but I think it’s like trying to convince a Creationist to pay attention to evidence of evolution…
I agree with John Mace that nothing is proved conclusively, but I guess I interpret the data differently in that I think it strongly suggests Jamaican sprinting success is due to a very particular genetic adaptation which has been identified and which has been strongly correlated with success in sprinting (I thought that is what people in the early part of this thread were saying would constitute some level of proof?)
The whole discussion of what constitutes a “population” seems like a red herring at this point. They’ve identified the adaptation that gives you “strong” fast-twitch muscles, and they’ve shown (not sure how conclusively) that it’s more prevalent in the current Jamaican population than in current U.S. population. How homogeneous those populations are in other respects doesn’t matter…
It’s really not much like that. The people you are arguing with have cited their own scientific evidence, which creationists rarely do, and you’re at times you’re arguing “look at the gold medals/NFL positions and it’s so obvious,” which is not similar to the kinds of arguments made by the proponents of evolution. It reminds me more of what you see from creationists, actually, when they play the “have you ever seen a cat give birth to anything but a cat?” card. (I mention this because it’s happening in another thread right now.)
I vote for John Mace as person you disagree with who you wouldn’t mind getting stuck on a desert island with…
I’d just add idea that, though it’s way less studied, there is some indication that genetics does play a big role in “high-skill” sports like tennis. None of us could ever play like Roger Federer because he’s a neuro-muscular freak–you get a visceral sense of that watchinghim.
(I think people have actually objectively tested this with him, but not sure…)
Saw it on TV already.
It’s important to note that he’s analyzing y-chromosome data (for men) and mt-DNA data for women. It does’t necessarily tell you where the bulk of your ancestors come from, just the one ancient guy or gal he happens to pick up. Hence the black guys who end up with the Europeans because they have a European y-chromosome, even if the bulk of the DNA is African.
I haven’t seen any refutation of the studies I cited which are quite strong in concluding a “strong genetic influence”:
: “Why are Jamaicans so good at sprinting” (Slate.com):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...me_speedy.html
ACTN3 Genotype Is Associated with Human Elite Athletic Performance - PMC)
The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes, by Jon Entine
Conversely, I haven’t seen any study saying “training and resources” drown out genetics in endurance or power sports.
I’m not a fan of bringing any sport other running into this discussion, so please don’t ascribe those views to me. (Nor do I use the “if they look black…” type arguments–I think I’ve pretty consistently spoken of populations.)
Not sure what the cat reference is about (speciation?) or how it applies, but again, where are the studies you say opponents are citing on the issue of genetic versus cultural influence on sprinting success?
I’d just like to point out that your third cite lists this as one of its resources:
Also (I believe) neither of those papers is actually from a peer review journal and I can find any evidence that any of the author are actually biologists of any sort. I already noted that your second cite is a study of white elite athletes. No blacks are included in that study.
What gene is that?
I didn’t ascribe those views to you. On the other hand magellan01 seems to agree with you in general and he’s mentioned NFL speed positions repeatedly, so I mentioned it. I’m not sure if he was the first one to mention that concept in this thread, but he’s certainly used arguments like ‘look at NFL speed positions’ and ‘gee, I wonder who will win the sprinting events at the Olympics?’ sveeral times.
I didn’t say you did.
I was making an analogy between “cats only give birth to cats, so species can’t evolve” and “black people are the best sprinters, so they must have a genetic advantage.” Maybe it’s best if we don’t waste time running down the fine points of the analogy: I was saying the people arguing against you aren’t the ones who sound like creationists.
Not sure which you’re referring to but the one showing correlation of ACTN3 genotype with sprinting success I believe is peer reviewed (and since it’s just cited to make that point, the ethnicity of the subjects doesn’t really matter.)
Looks like you’re right that the key study showing Jamaicans being more likely to have “strong” form of genotype is not yet peer reviewed, but those are respectable researchers and results are quite strong (quoted below). It’s also supported by this peer reviewed article in Science(which is the other one I was thinking of).
Excerpt from “Why are Jamaicans so good at sprinting?” (nature and nurture):
Exercise physiologists at the University of Glasgow and the University of the West Indies are currently researching the genetic, nutritional, and sociological factors behind West Africa’s sprinting success. The team has just begun to analyze the genetic data it has collected, but preliminary findings suggest that 70 percent of Jamaicans have the “strong” form of the ACTN3 gene—which produces a protein in their fast-twitch muscle fibers that has been linked to increased sprinting performance. That’s a significantly higher percentage than in the United States, where about 60 percent have the gene variant. A further 28 percent of Jamaicans are heterozygous for the gene—which has the same effect, but to a lesser degree—compared with about 20 percent of Americans. The rest, by contrast, have the “null” form of the gene that produces no protein at all, apparently making for lousier sprinters but perhaps better endurance runners. (Ironically, a sample of Kenyans showed a lower incidence of the null form than Americans.)
Of course the vast majority of Jamaicans with active ACTN3 genes don’t go on to become world-class athletes. Cultural factors are likely to contribute to the success of Jamaican sprinters. For example, track and field has historically held a high place of honor in Jamaican culture. The annual high school Boys and Girls Athletics Championships—known simply as Champs—is a major national event the importance of which to Jamaicans rivals that of the Super Bowl to Americans. A long history of high-profile accomplishments at Champs—plus the 45 Olympic medals Jamaicans have now won in track—helps inculcate a deep sense of national pride in the sport.
Little distracting there…key point is where are the citations to support the assertion that “training and resources” drown out genetics in running. That’s what I was referring to as equivalent to a creationist assertion (because there’s so much evidence showing a strong genetic component, it’s hard not to conclude that people dismissing genetics are doing so for ideological reasons.)
So, you quote me, and then said “you’re” to refer to everyone who makes points similar to mine? Dude…
Did you read the last paragraph of what you quoted?
As for the genetics, a gene frequency of 70% in one population and 60% in another isn’t particularly impressive. Given the huge difference in overall population between the US and Jamaica, it would seem that culture is the key ingredient in why they have so many sprinting medals. We have 100x the population, so even if the gene frequency is 10% less in the US, we’re going to have well over 50x the number of people with the magic sprinting gene.
I’m just not getting what so earth shattering about this result. Maybe you haven’t been saying this, but the others arguing with you seem to be lobbying for a gene or genes that is exclusive to West Africans.
Yup. I find it weird as hell.
@J. Mace
I included the last paragraph in the spirit of fairness–doesn’t negate the idea of a strong genetic component (i.e., of course cultural factors will play some role).
In terms of why it’s striking, if you’re trying to get a great sprinter, I’d propose that genetically you need a perfect storm: fast twitch, right body type, high anaerobic efficiency, psychologically aggressive, etc. So, higher the percentage of the “fast-twitch” gene in the population, higher likelihood you’ll get someone with all the other factors needed coming together in one person.
I happen to think there will be other relevant physiological markers found in Jamaicans that haven’t yet been fully studied (e.g., higher than average center of mass, and issue of where certain key muscles in leg insert offering more leverage in a sprint). But I guess I acknowledge at this point that’s just my opinion based on my own experiences in athletics and biomechanics and won’t (now) be able to prove anything along those lines…
Doping is certainly part of “training and resources” moreover I’ve never seen any study suggesting that genetics “means everything” in comparison to “training and resources” when it comes to elite level athletics.
Yes, I’m not sure scule meant to phrase it that way. I think it might be more accurate to say that you need the right genes to be an elite athlete, but once you get to the elite level, the training and resources drowns out the differences between the athletes.
This is what I was referring to earlier. I don’t think the people who disagree with the OP’s assertion have imputed any motives to the “pro-sprinting gene” side, but again, you have a way of insisting your opponents must be ideologically motivated. You seem to think your position is overwhelmingly obvious, but once people start evaluating the evidence, it isn’t.
I don’t think it was particularly confusing since I was referring to one side of the argument and not you specifically, but I am sorry if you weren’t sure what I meant.
I know you’re new here, so I’ll just point out that this @ thing isn’t part of the etiquette here.