Fact or Fiction: The Extra Leg Muscle in African Americans

Great Debates
61

quicken78. Are we talking about genetics as they affect athletic performance, or as they affect body type and appearance? You’re taller than most Asians – I grant you that. But you’re taller than the global norm, anyway. It’s not about the average – average performance usually sucks. Does your height, physical fitness and current training allow you beat a trained Asian athlete of whatever height in a jumping competition? Could you beat a 6’1" Masaai? They ceremonially jump all the time. Is that due to mystery leg muscles?

lucwarm. Cite, schmite. So far, the extra leg muscles thing is unproven myth. Once you discount the notion of a clear physiological edge in running that’s related to LEG MUSCLES, the only factors left are likely down to psychological prepardness, training, diet, stamina, skill, terrain, climate and use of performance enhancing drugs. So whether you’re Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France – or Ben Johnson before he got banned for life for illegal steriod use – top performance in closely timed competitions comes down to what you did to get there and who’s hungrier for victory.

So no, lucwarm, it’s not purely cultural acceptance or socioeconomic motivations (i.e., those athletes coming from poor families have more to lose when they don’t perform well), but those are bigger factors than imaginary differences under the skin.

62

Look, you’re the one who claimed that there are folks running around saying that successful black athletes succeed because of “natural athletic ability” as opposed to lots of hard work. If you won’t back up your claim, I’ll assume that you were just looking for a straw man to attack.

In any event, it’s certainly not my position.

**

If I understand what you’re saying, I disagree. The presence or existence of an extra leg muscle is not the only possible difference that might have a genetic cause. For example, the size and qualities of leg muscles; the size and qualities of other muscles; the length of ones’ legs. etc. etc. etc.

**

I’m not sure what you mean by “comes down to,” but there’s no question that success in athletics is a result of natural talent AND hard work. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone could seriously deny this.

**

By “imaginary differences” are you trying to suggest that such differences do not exist?

And let’s make sure I understand your argument. You seem to be saying that (1) training and other nurture factors are usually the deciding factor in success among top athletes; therefore (2) nurture is the dominant factor in the success of top athletes; therefore (3) nurture is the dominant factor explaining the observed racial disparities in all sports.

Is that your argument?

63

I’m with you ** lucwarm **. The explanation for seeing an entirely African (by origin) line up at the 100m finals EVERY year is most certainly not due to nurture alone.

64

I suppose this debate is over, but I`ll answer the Q directed at me.

I live in Milwaukee, which has a very high percentage of black population. I grew up in the near inner city and went to a mostly black high school. I spent lots of time in the local pool halls, bars, rec lounges, etc. I was the only white guy on my high school basketball team, I currently work with many younger black people, etc, blah blah blah… I think I spoke with some authority when I made my earlier statement.

What grounds do you site for possible dominance in bowling?

Bowling requires more consistency than anything else. My grandmother could bowl a 300 if all the stars lined up. She almost did, she piled up 7 strikes in a row once. There is nothing about bowling that lends itself to natural ability and or race.

65

Borzov?
Wells?

66

Just to throw something in the mix. I heard a similar rumor supporting this. Supposedly, the lack of dark skin when hunting made it so that the brain would have to evolve more in whites then in other races. It went on to explain that thats why Asians are also smart, and just started falling apart after that.

To answer the question; no, African Americans don’t have an extra leg muscle. I don’t have a cite right now, but like someone mentioned earlier, the shape of their muscles is somewhat different then those of other races.

67

Point three is all wrong. I never commented on “all sports” and I don’t believe I have argued racial differences so much as cultural and ethnic ones. But points one and two pretty much sums up my understanding and beliefs in human physiology and maximizing human performance, yes. I have assumed that the athletes in question were in all cases physically similar build, and we aren’t talking about 6’1" foreign visitors to the far east wanting to engage in jumping contests.

I mean, we have in one corner – NATURE. What you’re born with: dumb luck of confluent genes, a crapshoot of geographical location regarding birth, a ready mix of matched chromosome pairs with little deviation, parents who may not have a clue.

In the other corner we have – NURTURE. Inclination. Accessibility. Training. Study. Practice. Diet. Encouragement. The examples of Antecedents and Precendents of Those Just Like You, or at Least Whom You Identify With. Mentoring. The climate where you live and train. Cultural interest. Societal Approval. Early successes. Willingness to sacrifice, submit and subliminate. Adoration. Monetary investment. Opportunities to hone your abilities and skills against like-minded opponents of similar body shape and mental prepardness. Use of performance enhancing drugs. Painkillers. Medical treatment. Surgery. Endorsements. Pride. Fame. Influence. Wealth. Glory.

The Event – Sprinting, Boxing, Cycling, Rock-climbing, Loogie-spitting, Dog shows, Legal Training, Musicianship, Accounting, Art, whatever. It’s not just limited to sports, luc.

Of course it’s nurture.

68

Deperately trying to attempt a keen insight about how money and fame influences human performance that instead had people going, “Whuh?”

Statement retracted.

69

So ** Askia **, you are saying that nature AND nurture are factors that affect the success of a given athlete. I do not disagree with that. Do you also accept that there are physiological differences between blacks and whites (generally) that mean that, however hard a given white/asian/indian tried, he would NEVER be able to run as fast as the fastest black guy who had trained just as hard?

70

My question to you was about “racial” disparities. That racial disparities exist is indisputable. If you have no opinion on the cause of such disparities, then there’s nothing for us to discuss.

As far as “all sports” goes, there’s no need to quibble. Let’s limit things to sprinting and try again:

Based on your posts, it seems to me that you believe the following:

(1) training and other nurture factors are usually the deciding factor in success among top sprinters; therefore (2) nurture is the dominant factor in the success of top sprinters; therefore (3) nurture is the dominant factor explaining the observed racial disparities in sprinting.

Your position is wrong for a couple reasons. First, even if nurture is the deciding factor as between individuals in sprinting competition, it does not follow that nurture is the dominant factor.

The reality is that all top sprinters are the result of an exceptional combination of nature AND nurture.

Will you concede that the majority of people could NEVER be top sprinters, no matter how much training, hunger, etc?

The second reason your argument is wrong is that even if nurture were dominant at an individual level, it does not necessarily follow that nurture is dominant at a group level.

**

While you’re at it, why don’t you assume that all the athletes in question are similar in quality of muscles and any other factor that might have a genetic cause.

Then voila, you can prove that genetics is irrelevant by assuming it to be so.

:rolleyes:

71

Geez, quicken78…Um… cautiously, yes. If you were to single out one specific athlete and compare him/her to another specific athlete, and the "tale of the tape’ provided all sorts of stats regarding physiology, bloodwork and health screening tests between the two, and I was also given details about their training regiments and found them essentially similar, THEN I suppose I might be persuaded to concede that, in that specific comparison, there probably exists a physiological difference tied to a unique genetic mix that may explain one athlete’s superior performance, yes.

Way to pin me down, by the way.

Of course, the danger of inductive reasoning is that findings that exist in a small sample may not be true at all when extropolated to a much larger group.

72

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**My question to you was about “racial” disparities. That racial disparities exist is indisputable. If you have no opinion on the cause of such disparities, then there’s nothing for us to discuss.

(Well, I have postulated that these “indisputable racial disparities” you keep bringing up are actually explained by ethnicity, culture and lifelong nurturing factors. “Race” is an artifical construct.)

As far as “all sports” goes, there’s no need to quibble. Let’s limit things to sprinting and try again:

(Ahhhh, but how can I ever resist quibbling?)

Based on your posts, it seems to me that you believe the following:

(1) training and other nurture factors are usually the deciding factor in success among top sprinters; therefore (2) nurture is the dominant factor in the success of top sprinters; therefore (3) nurture is the dominant factor explaining the observed racial disparities in sprinting.

(Essentially. But you don’t like it when I quibble, so…)

Your position is wrong for a couple reasons.

(Thanks loads.)

First, even if nurture is the deciding factor as between individuals in sprinting competition, it does not follow that nurture is the dominant factor.

(buh-buh-but how can NURTURE not be a dominant factor if even when you’re prepared to acknowledge it is a deciding factor? Especially when there are so many effective ways to nurture an athlete?)

The reality is that all top sprinters are the result of an exceptional combination of nature AND nurture.

(Agreed… if by “all top sprinters” we are looking at all the top sprinters in history, regardless of “race”.)

Will you concede that the majority of people could NEVER be top sprinters, no matter how much training, hunger, etc?

(Yup. You said it and I agreed.)

The second reason your argument is wrong is that even if nurture were dominant at an individual level, it does not necessarily follow that nurture is dominant at a group level.

(I dunno… NURTURING works in every other aspect of society as dominant method of assuring top performance. That’s why we have mentoring, perks, salary tiers, corporate fast-tracking, political pork projects, adolation, etc.)

While you’re at it, why don’t you assume that all the athletes in question are similar in quality of muscles and any other factor that might have a genetic cause.

(They essentially do have similar quality muscles. Genetic causes all come down to the same group of dominant and recessive genes, diseases – we haven’t talked about how THOSE affect performance yet… While I read tons of superhero comics, I still don’t believe in supermuscles. Unless it’s porn star stamina.)

Then voila, you can prove that genetics is irrelevant by assuming it to be so.

(Never said it was irrelevent. Good genes are a sound basis for building an optimal athlete. I just don’t think it’s the bottom line. Perhaps I will someday see a more detailed report of athletic physiology and it might change my mind.)

73

Don’t people of different “Races” have different limb porportions? Having long legs and arms is a big advantage in basketball, long jump, and short distance running.

74

We can argue about explanations, but there is no question that there is a racial disparity in sprinting results.

**

So are ethnicity and culture. So what?

**

Easily, since deciding is not necessarily the same thing as dominant. In competition, minor factors can become deciding if major factors are evenly matched.

And this is also why dominance of one factor at an individual level does not imply dominance of that factor at a group level.

**

You’re now making a different argument, but I would point out that we also have recruiting; SAT Examinations; and the like.

The simple truth is that outstanding performance in virtually every field of endeavor is the result of nature AND nurture. You can pontificate all day long about the importance of nurture, it doesn’t change the fact that nature is important too.

**

Is anyone claiming that good genes are “the bottom line” for building an optimal athlete? Or are you just looking for straw men again?

75

Well, I never meant for this to frow into such a large debate that begins to stray from its original path…for those of you with racial questioning; I did not intend to offend or disrespect anyone. By saying “African American”, I had only meant that I was specifically referring to the African Americans. Other such ethnic variations, like Kenyans, I can understand have a higher tolerance for running because their natural elevation causes their muscles to train harder. Then in America, running is child’s play, depending on where they are competeing. When I say “African Americans” I am referring to the ‘Americanized’ individuals. In any case, yeah, I can understand that this can be a touchy subject, but please remember that all I was looking for was some verification as to its rumor. I was in strong disbelief, but wasn’t 100% sure, that’s all. Thanks for your input.

76

-nitpick- Strong Man competitions are usually dominated by Northern Europeans, actually… Magnus Ver Magnusson and John Pall Sigmarsson, the only 4 time winners, were both Icelandic, and only 5 non-Scandinavians have won in the last 25 years.

This may be slightly off-topic, but I have an extra bone in each foot. Its called an accessory navicular, and it essentially means I have flat(ish) feet. (Most flat-footers are thus for other reasons, though, they don’t all have the extra bone).

However, it isn’t because of my ancestry, or at least, is no more common in any given ethnic or racial grouping, and the only benefit is that I can stay on those mechanical surfing games at carnivals pretty much indefinitely no matter how high the speed/bump setting.

77

Actually, Indians and Russians dominate chess; the world’s distribution of grandmasters is anything but evenly spread.

Perhaps I’m going to get pitted for this idea, but something profound just occurred to me. Well, possibly. We’re going to exclude Africans from this part of the discussion (since the OP did) and focus on American sprinters. Beyond Linford Christie, its fairly safe to say that African Americans have essentially dominated top class sprinting for the last twenty years. Now, consider the history of American blacks; I honestly don’t know what percentage of said group are descended from former slaves, and a half-hour of googling hasn’t helped. However, I would guess it is safe to say that the majority of American blacks have at least one ancestor who was a slave. It seems fairly obvious to me that slaves would have been selected based on their physical qualities, given the fact that they were used (particularly males) largely for physical labor. Thus, the majority of the poor souls shipped to the Americas would have been powerfully built and possessed of good stamina; smaller individuals with less muscle mass would have been passed over. Thus, the African American gene pool represents the physically gifted subset of the west African (the source of most of those sold into slavery) gene pool. This then translates into sub-4.5 second 40 times and 42-inch vertical leaps, and Terrell Owens… in other words, African Americans have been artificially (rather than naturally) selected for physical qualities.

78

dutchboy208, I think your theory has some merit. Only the hearty would have been taken and only the hearty would have survived the journey under the conditions of the voyage.

79

And what of all the Kenyans that dominate marathons? There are far more marathon runners in the first world nations, with superior training, better diets, and top of the line equipment, and yet they lose to Kenyan runners born into poverty. How can this not be evidence of genetic factors at play? Yes, Kenya has high altitude, but Kenyan runners who have trained and grown up in other nations still do as well as their countrymen.

As for why blacks dont dominate other sports like hockey and tennis, well its because the majority of them aren’t exposed to it like they are to basketball or football. I grew up in both black neighborhoods and white ones. Anecdotally speaking, the white parents invested far more time, effort and money into their children’s athletics (summer football camps, expensive weightlifting programs, private coaching, etc) than their black counterparts. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much true all across America. So why then do blacks dominate over whites in these sports? In pure numbers of children playing sports (and aspiring to turn pro), whites will vastly outnumber the blacks in America. But a far higher percentage of blacks make it to the college, and then pro level. Football and basketball are good examples of sports that are excelled with superior physical conditioning. Now contrast that with baseball, which is more based on technique and training and you can see that the racial makeup of the pros is pretty varied, with no one race dominating.

80

The top 8 100m sprinters.
The top 8 100m swimmers.
The top 8 heavyweight boxers.
The top 8 flyweight boxers.

Can anybody seriously say that people from certain areas are not more naturally equipped for some sports?
(Apart from Borzov and Wells, of course…)