Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes

Great Debates
141

(Damn MSN, I’ve been held incommunicado for three days…)

I take full responsibility for bringing up in another thread the assinine fast-twitch muscle argument re: West Africans, as well as the similarly dim-witted argument about East Africans (particularly Kenyans) possessing an elite genetic endowment that allows them to shatter world records in the distance races.

First, let me confess my insight stemmed from being steamed at Collounsbury. Instead of doing any research, I basically fabricated that whole rack of B.S. about West African fast-twitch-muscle superiority. Sure, sprinters have a preponderance of fast-twitch muscles (or else they would never win) and, yes, a relative handful of black Americans are great sprinters, but to make any larger inference is nutty. (see related argument below)

Second, were present-day African-Americans (and I knowingly use that imprecise term) able to trace their heritage back to Africa with any precision, a significant number would discover that their ancestors came not from west Africa, but from central Africa instead. Throughout the centuries, the slave trade cast a wide net across the African continent. Moreover, the hundreds of ethnic groups within Africa have interbred for millennia.

Third, I read a profile on the Kenyan running team in Sports Illustrated (?) recently, an article in which the writer portrays what is tantamount to a huge industry in Kenya, etc. that grooms their best runners from an early age and culls the also-rans along the way. Long distance running is a national obsession in much of east (and parts of northern) Africa. That, coupled with the obvious advantages of their high-altitude living and absolutely ass-grinding training regimen, which culls out even more of the also-rans, accounts for their success, the author and his experts strongly suggest. Hell, in Kenya, great long distance runners are national heroes. Here, in America, they are nobodies.

This analogy is similar to the Sherpa of Tibet. The Sherpa aren’t able to lug huge loads up the Tibetan mountains due to some genetic superiority or because their eyes are brown. Their sterling record as human SUV’s is attributable to the fact that only the strongest Sherpa stick with it. Lots of Sherpa young today want nothing to do with the tradition–it’s too hard, too dangerous, too scary. Moreover, because the Sherpa live at 12,000-14,000 feet in elevation year round, their hemoglobin-rich blood carries an abundance of oxygen. (And they too benefit from lifelong “training.”) Another factor is the height differential: the difference between Sherpa villages and Everest’s peak is about 15,000 feet, compared to a 29,000 foot differential for Americans and Brits from coastal areas.

Last point: How many American teenagers from the burbs do you see involved in track and field today? Hardly any. Track has little sex appeal. Most kids are either working part-time jobs, hanging with friends, getting stoned, or playing marathon video games. The pool of developed talent is much smaller today–not larger–and few kids in the burbs are willing to put in the years of grueling work for the honor of being regarded as a nobody.

I might also add that if West Africans did have a genetic advantage in terms of concentrated fast-twitch muscles–only to later “dilute” this advantage through centuries of interbreeding with us slower Caucasians–wouldn’t we find the world’s best sprinters or athletes coming from west Africa? Other than Frankie Franks (Nigeria), I’m not aware of any world-class sprinters from west Africa. And where are the great “negroid” sprinters and world-class basketball players from Central and South America? Plenty of African slaves were exported there.

You might also be interested in knowing that world-class sprinters in swimming have comparable levels of fast-twitch muscles as 100-meter sprinters. Guess what? All of 'em are white.

Some even have brown eyes!

142

Well of course! The reason we don’t see many blacks in swimming is purely cultural. Swimming costs money and the better pools and training programs are in the suburbs. Furthermore, those blacks with athletic potential are most likely already diverted to the more popular sports. Culture is clearly the factor where blacks are under-represented due to the socio-economic** barriers**and racial discrimination prevalent in American society. However, whites can claim no socio-economic barriers that apply across the board in this large population. Hence for whites to be vastly under-represented in an area providing individual returns of millions of dallars annually,(NBA), leads me to view with suspicion any claim for a cultural excuse on its own.

On the brown eyes, you make my point exactly.

143

I hate to point this out, but fast-twitch versus slow-twitch is most probably also a cultural/upbringing/training since childhood thing. Muscle fiber types switch throughout life, depending on what type of activities in which you take part. In fact, with nerve death in diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS = Lou Gehrig Disease), one of the diagnostic criteria is the observation of fiber-type switching in muscle biopsies. This happens because as the motor neuron dies, the neighboring ones sprout new ends to innervate the denervated muscle fibers. Since fiber type goes with neuron, a type I muscle fiber newly innervated by a type II motor neuron (simplified) will switch to a type II muscle fiber.

So scratch that whole line of argument, please.

144

No reputable source offered by you Edwino although I have nothing to dispute your facts on muscle fibre. However your conclusion disagrees with Scientific American as I previously posted and which my opponents have chosen to ignore. i will repeat the Scientific American’s statement.

As I understand it the ratio of fast twitch muscles vary within the muscle groups, but we are born with varying default ratios. The average person or couch potato runs 50-50. The endurance runner can train for over 90% Type I slow twitch. However the percentage of Type II fast twitch increase over default due to training is limited if at all.

145

Edwino, though I agree with your thinking up to now, what I’ve read on this topic agrees with what, um, Grienspace says in his last post. (sigh) The issue of F-T muscles is a lot like VO2 max–very difficult to increase over a certain percentage and largely fixed by inheritance. (I’ve talked to world-class mountain climbers about this–big name folks who have worked closely with research physiologists.)

Elite sprinter swimmers have F-T muscle percentages in the 90s, whereas most folks have half that. The thrust of the research is that you can work out like a fiend from infancy on up, but if you don’t have the elite genetic inheritance, you have no chance of competing at a world-class level.

I stand by my other point: If AA’s are athletically superior, where are the great black sprinters/ball players from Central and South America?

146

I would prefer you asked ifsomeAA’s…

I think the Carribean classifies as central America, and Barbados certainly and even Trinidad I think have medal holders in the 100 meters. A couple of the Carribean sprinters emigrated to Canada to further their career to win gold medals for Canada in the 100 meters.(to be fair, one of them achieved a world record but their medal was withdrawn due to drugs). These aren’t the only Carribean athletes in Canada, but the implication is clear. Cultural/environmental limitations in their native country limits the full potential of their athletic careers. As for South America, I think of Pele (Ithink that was his name} and a significantly black soccer team for Brazil although I can’t be sure. In any event, I don’t think the countries down there either have significant black populations or resources to foster a significant presence for blacks in athletics.

147

grienspace and tsunamisurfer :

The conclusive experiment that would have to be done is to take two members of your “genetically advantaged” long distance or sprint running population, raise them in separate environments with precisely the same amount of athletic conditioning, altitude, caloric intake, and a host of other factors, and still show a statistically separatable difference between those and the “general population.” This would be a difficult experiment to perform, but I am not saying it can’t be done nor that it is not possible to show a difference. I am just saying that it is probable that the vast majority of fiber type determination is dependent on activity, not on genetics. And therefore, the vast majority of athletic ability comes from activity, not genetics.

It is firmly established that exercise is good for you. It improves muscle function, it improves heart function, it improves lung capacity, it improves lactate capacity, and a host of other functions. In short, if you exercise, you get more fit and can exercise more. In order to establish a firm role for genetics, you have to take all of this exercise induced fitness out of the picture. You have to control for each one of these factors, as a slight difference in any of them overwhelms any 1% genetic difference. Note that we are not talking about any adaptation to being a better sportsman, just ones that go hand-in-hand with race.

Here are some cites to back me up. Sci Am, while being the best of the “popular” science magazines, is still just that – a “popular” science magazines. All of the articles (with a few notable exceptions) are of the caliber of very general review articles. Even Nature or a Science (which are the two best short-article journals) are not immune to reports of spurious results due to flaws in experimental design. Hype permeates everything, and therefore one guy writing for Scientific American who is bucking the larger trend of genetics (and anthropology, archaeology, physiology, and sociology) does not an argument make.

Anyway, for your enjoyment, cites. Note that these are quite difficult to find, as it is the nature of scientific literature that negative results are not often published. I did not, however, find ANY primary conclusive study on race being correlated with athletic ability. If you could kindly point me the way, it would be appreciated. I will note that I found many studies noting a difference between African and European runners, but none took into account training and selection bias.

Hochachka PW, Monge C. “Evolution of human hypoxia tolerance physiology.” Adv Exp Med Biol 2000. 475:25-43.

An interesting article (from the abstract). It basically finds similar adaptations to altitude in widely spaced populations – this may be viewed as a “exercise endurance phenotype.” Note that no correlation to “race” has been noted – it has basically said that several widely separated isolated populations have retained the same selective advantage from the “base state” of humans in Africa. Basically, widely spaced populations can retain the same advantage. There can be a genetic preponderance to sports, but this article seems to imply that this particular one has absolutely nothing to do with “race.”
Lewis JF. “Considerations for racial differences in the athlete’s heart and related cardiovascular disease.” Cardiol Clin. 1997 Aug. 15(3):485-91.

What is known about racial differences in heart performance? African Americans seem to get LV hypertrophy more readily? Is this societal in origin? Perhaps, data is insufficient. Are there any firm links to race and heart performance? No. Are there any shaky ones? Yes. Are AfAms underrepresented in studies of Marfan syndrome and cardiomyopathy? Yes. Should we research this farther? Of course.

Saltin B, Kim CK, Terrados N, Larsen H, Svedenhag J, Rolf CJ . “Morphology, enzyme activities and buffer capacity in leg muscles of Kenyan and Scandinavian runners.” Scand J Med Sci Sports.1995 Aug. 5(4):222-30.

I include this because it was written by some of the same people as your Scientific American review. They measured a small pool of Scandanavian and Kenyan runners who trained in Kenya under similar conditions for 2 weeks. They divided their small group (n=15 total) into 4 groups – Kenyan and Scandanavian juniors and seniors. Small ns bode ill for study accuracy. They measured some differences in the muscle biopsies, though:

Mean number of capillaries – Kenyan seniors have the highest and the Kenyan juniors the lowest values.
Citrate synthase (CS) activity – Similar in Kenyan seniors and Scandinavian runners. Kenyan juniors were 10-15% lower.
3- hydroxyacyl-CoA-dehydrogenase (HAD) activity – 20% higher in the Kenyan than in the Scandinavian runners, but increased all around after training.
Ratio of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) isoform1-2 and isoform4-5 – increased in Scandavians to Kenyan levels when training at altitude due to a lowering of LDH4-5.

So, take your small n size, you notice some differences. Can these be separated due to race? IMHO, no, because it is a 2 week training period where you move Scandanavians into the Kenyan environment. The Kenyans have been there all along. What do you notice? By and large, Scandanavians start to look more like Kenyans.

Weston, et. al. “African runners exhibit greater fatigue resistance, lower lactate accumulation, and higher oxidative enzyme activity.” J Appl Physiol. 1999 Mar. 86(3):915-23.

There have been some studies showing an increase in oxidative capacity, fatigue resistance, and a decrease in lactate accumulation in African versus Caucasian runners. This is the best of the bunch, IMHO. While I will say that this study is somewhat better in the number of controls performed, societal issues such as nutrition and running experience since childhood was not addressed. Also, a vast majority of the results were acheived through measurements on 10 test subjects (4 African and 6 Caucasian muscle biopsies performed). Far reaching conclusions should not be made on such scarce data, IMHO.

I hope this clarifies my point of view.

148

**

**

Edwino, please read what I post before responding. I clearly stated that athletic ability is not a function of race and that race itself is a flawed construct. I take no responsibility for what Grienspace or others have said, especially re: that contemptible line about kinky hair, broad noses, blue vs. brown eyes, etc. etc.

You have been a voice of reason on many posts and threads dealing with incredibly stupid, borderline racist Op’s. Don’t blow it now. Sadly, just as this ridiculous thread comes to a welcome end, your logic completely fails in your explanation of how world-class athletic talent is developed. Yes, you provide plenty of impressive cites, but the conclusions you draw from them are appalling. (Unless you were attempting satire? If so, congratulations!)

While training inarguably improves athletic performance, there is a huge difference between a good athlete and a world-class contender. World-class athletes are endowed with considerable genetic advantage upon which they build through rigorous training, diet, coaching, performance-enhancing drugs, etc. etc. I pray you are not suggesting that most anyone who starts exceptionally young, trains exceptionally hard, eats exceptionally well, and stays exceptionally focused can transform her/himself into a world-class contender. Good grief, do I really need cites to disprove that? (Blame the vituperative tone on Collounsbury; he’s a bad seed, I tell you.)

So, take your small n size, you notice some differences. Can these be separated due to race? IMHO, no, because it is a 2 week training period where you move Scandinavians into the Kenyan environment. The Kenyans have been there all along. What do you notice? By and large, Scandanavians start to look more like Kenyans. I hope this clarifies my point of view.

Clarifies, yes. States the obvious, doubly so. Welcome aboard. I have already attributed this performance differential due to factors of selection, training, culture and more, as have many other posters.

(SIGH) This pointless thread has dragged on and on and on. I suppose I share culpability. The original post was stupid, inartfully phrased, borderline racist, and without scientific merit. What is amazing to me is how much time the reasoned voices within this and other related threads have spent buttressing their arguments—often lapsing into vulgarities that are completely beneath them—while those posters who do believe race determine athletic outcome never bothered to read their cites, research, and reasoned responses in the first place. Hence, Sisyphus.

Whoever offered to Collounsbury to create a handy-dandy reference page on the web re: this general subject has a great idea, inasmuch as this same tired discussion will be revisited over and over and over again–with the same sad results and the same wasted effort. Great Debates? Hardly. This is a monumental waste of life, electrons, and talent. Makes me wanna become an Olympic gold medallist.

149

Comrades.

I think we have beat this damn horse into a bloody pulp. I confess to not being able to convince Greinspice of the error of his thinking and also to have lost the desire to try.

I think fatigue has led to much talking past each other. And me to be even pissier than I normally am.

Errr, TS, I do believe that Edwino was developing a rather more sophisticated response than what you are crediting him with. I understand that everything is blurring together but if I may…

Edwino way making the argument that poorly conceived research in re the question at hand. I do not read Edwino as making an argument it’s all about training but rather research in this area is poorly concieved. I happen to agree, but that’s another argument.

So, one last item:

True, very true, but I’m 100% Natural damn it! No bio-engineering in me! Well, not yet at least. However, given my new worm obsession…

150

Yeah, err… what Collounsbury said.

Sorry if you misunderstood me tsunamisurfer, but my point was to shoot holes in grienspace’s argument, which is solely based on that one Scientific American review. My point was to say that there are other readings of the data possible.

I state again that there is a genetic role in athletic ability. I cited a study which shows such a role, just one that is not correlated with race. I just think that this is a minor factor in comparison to training. I don’t believe my conclusions were appaling. I believe that they were a valid scientific reading of the data. This is starting to drift from the OP, so I’ll keep it short. If you want to debate this further, please start a new thread.

I don’t believe there have been any studies that would allow you to come to the conclusion that you couldn’t raise a world class athlete if you started very early with a terrific training program, regardless of the genetics. There are just too many variables that can be tweaked by early, complex training regimens that I think (IMHO) would outweigh any genetic differences. This is not to say that there aren’t any inborn unchangeable genetic factors for being a sports star (for instance height in basketball), but I believe the vast majority of athletic skill comes from training. In fact, I believe that you could show that most of the world-class athletes in any sport started young with hard training, whether it be tennis camp, Tiger Woods’s father, Pop Warner football, neighborhood basketball, or anything else.

As for the specific point of fast-twitch versus slow-twitch muscle fibers: further reading has shown that this transition is a little harder to observe in humans than in the system with which I am more familiar (mice.) I still don’t retract my arguments, and I can make and advance a plausible hypothesis to this increased ratio that you see in sprinters. I believe that certain amounts of hyperplasia occur in the muscle during training. This is different than the hypertrophy that you classically think of with muscle building. There are muscle stem cells (satellite cells) that are known to respond to damage, and presumably could respond to increased use in the same fashion. These satellite cells could undergo late differentiation into mature muscle fibers and pick a fiber type, at which time they could skew your so called “fixed” ratio. I also believe that it is plausible, given the fiber type grouping seen in nerve damage, that switching does happen in humans at a low rate. It happens in most other mammals observed, but people tend to object a lot more to muscle biopsies (which are a fairly invasive procedure).

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my opinion. I’d be glad to have a debate on this. Much of this is personal opinion, and if you could provide me with convincing cites in either direction, I am open to suggestion.