No but close. The actuarialist tell me how the company can make money based on X and based on this my role to reduce entire liability Y across a wide number of claims. If I apply x in theory the company shoulder make more money. Now if Y is reduced than my bonus is higher :p.
I don’t have a personal background in economics- I am more the science person. I may go down the acturial path but I think I will return to science.
fogelson as you feel misrepresented notice that I have addressed my posts to others. No need to defend your viewpoint to a simple minded person as my self 
The argument that West Africans have better genetic disposition for sprint running is incorrect for multiple reasons.
2-The statement “West African origin athletes have better genetics for sprint running” is large generalisation. There are numerous slow West African origin sprinters. The fast ones do not reflect genetic norm. They’re numerous faster Caucasian sprinters over West African origin athletes.
3 –The West African region is one of the most varied genetic places on the planet. Therefore distinct racial groups exist within this group with different genetic makeup. The genetics for running fast is not uniform in this region. Large variations exist within this group.
4- Genetics is not the most substantial factor at the elite level. The WR has progressed in recent times. Coaching methodology has improved and athletes are running faster based on better coaching methods. Usain Bolt wasn’t running 19.3 two seasons ago. He has substantially improved due to technical improvements in his running. If we compare Bolt and Asafa- I think Asafa has greater excitability of the nervous system and higher composition of type 11 b muscle fibers than Bolt. The substantial factor here is that Coach Francis adopts some bizarre training practices and Asafa is often injured. Bolt on the other hand has had fewer issues with injury and has more progression in training. Asafa gets hurt then chases his tail.
5- Sprinting is a skill- It’s a very technical skill and to learn to go anywhere the WR coaching is the substantial contributing factor at the elite level. The fastest 100m runner is not determined by who has the highest number of type 11 fibres or mechanical advantage in limb length.
Since the inception of this website 9.7 is a much more common occurence. I think many top coaches are adopting CF system and the results are apparent. Even at the local club level I know coaches who have implemented CF system and taken 11.2 runners to 10.6. 
So, is it a race or one’s genes?
From anthropological point of view how many different racial types exist in W. Africa?
I have studied more European types than African racial types and can say that there are more than a dozen of different racial types among white Europeans. So, is it the colour of skin or something else?
Mediterranean Proper
Atlanto-Mediterranean
Pontic Mediterranean
East African
http://racialreality.110mb.com/subraces.html
And many other racial types;
Irano-Afghan
Corded Nordic
Danubian Nordic
Hallstatt Nordic
Keltic Nordic
Borreby
Brünn
Tronder
Alpine
Dinaric
Noric
Armenoid
Ladogan
East Baltic
Neo-Danubian
Lappish
All of them are WHITE but some are better at something than others, right?
Nobody has EVER claimed that sprint running is solely genetics. Reread the posts and arguments if you believe people have stated otherwise.
Again, not being argued. The argument is that within their population there exists genes and traits that are more predisposed towards success in sprinting. That does not guarantee that the entire group or even the median of the group will be incredible, but that within their population the genes that allow for the greatest success are more likely to be there than within other populations.
Which is again, not the argument being made and another strawman. A great variety within a population (which is, by the way, unsubstantiated to say the least) does not mean that genes predisposing people towards success are less likely to be there. In fact, quite the opposite would be true if there was an advantage to have those genes in the first place. Look at, for example, at the work done on genes that code for skin pigmentation and hair type. Certain traits were incredibly beneficial and spread quickly within the population. Your argument is that, because variation exists, there cannot be a predisposition for a certain trait within the population. You stating that shows to me that you have never taken a class on population genetics.
What does “the most substantial” factor even mean? That does not even make sense. Do you mean that it is not the most important factor? Well, every elite sprint coach ever must disagree with you since pretty much all of them have said something along the lines of “A donkey will never win a Kentucky Derby” and “You can’t shine shit.” Your arguments that coaching methodology has improved is not without criticism–perhaps it is simply that athletes in certain areas are able to train at all or take up athletics seriously. You are correct that Bolt didn’t run 19.3 two seasons ago, but he did run 19.9 when he was 17 and barely had any training at all. Your comments on the training methods of Stephen Francis are, to say the least, without merit or substantiation (that is how you use that word, by the way). Until 2008, Bolt had 3 straight years that involved injuries, so your comments are again without merit.
A substantial amount of coaching is needed, sure, but the current WR holder ran 19.9 with minimal coaching or training. Mind you, that is before he finished puberty or even began resistance training. While coaching is incredibly important, it is only one aspect of the situation and no one has argued otherwise. What you have continued to strawman is an argument that genetics is not the only contributing factor, when NOBODY said it was the only contributing factor.
Too bad it didn’t take you from 11.2 to 10.6.
how fast are “native” west Africans currently? Do they have the same morph bio mechanics as African-Caribbean and African-American sprinters?
From my understanding and I am no geneticist there are 6 major races and all the races fall under the following major racial groups.
Sub-Saharan African
Indo-European
East Asian
South Asian
Aboriginal
Native American
A common misconception is that all Kenyans have good genetics for distance running. Kenyans success in distance running comes from 4 main tribes in Kenya (Kikuyu, Kambia, Kissi, Kalenjin. )75% of Kenyans international runners come from one particular tribe the Kalenjin which represents 10% of population. Overall in Kenya there are 40 tribal groups therefore statistically its really one main tribe that produces phenomenal success in distance running.
I suggest a similar phenomen exist within West African origin athletes. It probably could be traced to few main tribal groups in West Africa. We know the long history of deporting slaves from West Africa and it would be apparent that tribal groups with the strongest would be first option for the slave trade.
I am willing to accept the argument that certain tribal groups within a race could have genetic traits that are advantageous to sport but in no way I am willing to accept that entire race/region can inherent these same traits. That’s why statements like Kenyans are better distance runners or West African origin athletes make better sprinters -are misleading. Its only small tribal groups within the main racial group that inherent these traits for distance or sprint running.
Sharmer
My personal view in this discussion is close with your view on some points but also I note that fogelson has greater knowledge on this subject than me. I do not have a formal education on this subject however I have studied some areas as an amateur-hobbyist.
A common misconception is that all Kenyans have good genetics for distance running. Kenyans success in distance running comes from 4 main tribes in Kenya (Kikuyu, Kambia, Kissi, Kalenjin. )75% of Kenyans international runners come from one particular tribe the Kalenjin which represents 10% of population. Overall in Kenya there are 40 tribal groups therefore statistically its really one main tribe that produces phenomenal success in distance running.
I am not sure about the facts you have stated as I have not checked them but will take them as such. This just proves the same point I wanted to address when assessing races and sub-races (types) based on their anthropological features (including colour of skin). We need to know what particular sub-race type, if you will, from the western Africa has been the closest “relative” to those runners from the West Indies or the USA/Canada/Britain. Once we know what the sub-race is then we will know that we can not say - it is because the black people run faster, or the people from the western Africa run faster or similar.
We can not/should not generalise because it (running fast) depends on so many different factors that you all already have stated, and agreed to…
It is also important not to overlook two important factors;
African-Americans have undergone a harsh selection during the years of slavery. Only the fittest and strongest survived. Over the centuries this must have played a role in “natural” selection to some degree;
socioeconomic environment
I would say - genes play an important role while the colour of skin - does not.
I just have read your two last paragrafs;
I suggest a similar phenomen exist within West African origin athletes. It probably could be traced to few main tribal groups in West Africa. We know the long history of deporting slaves from West Africa and it would be apparent that tribal groups with the strongest would be first option for the slave trade.
I am willing to accept the argument that certain tribal groups within a race could have genetic traits that are advantageous to sport but in no way I am willing to accept that entire race/region can inherent these same traits. That’s why statements like Kenyans are better distance runners or West African origin athletes make better sprinters -are misleading. Its only small tribal groups within the main racial group that inherent these traits for distance or sprint running.
We share the same opinion.
The arguments in this discussion supporting West African origin athletes having inherent genetic traits for sprint speed have been fallacious for numerous reasons. No genetic proof has been forwarded indicating the specific genes responsible for physiological traits that enable sprinters to run fast. These questions need to be answered if West African theory on sprinters is to true.
1- What are the genes that give the ability to run fast?
2- Are they recessive or dominant?
3- What are the genotype ratio that gives phenotype characteristics of sprinters?
4- Is fast type 11 physiology dominate over slow type 1 physiology- do hydrids arise? What are the characteristics of the hydrids ?
5- What are the specific genes that give muscle elastic properties?
Fogelson has not touched on any of these questions and has aloofly avoided them. He hinted towards some athropometric variables within differing racial groups however the studies he cited can be printed out and used as TP because the sample sizes were poor.
What are the physiological traits responsible for speed? The obvious answer would be high % type 11 b fibres. The answer is not that simple. The winner of OG final or WR holder isn’t the athlete with the high % of type 11 b muscle fibres. Complex biomechanical factors come into play. This has a large technical element, which is subject to coaching, and the athlete’s ability to learn new motor patterns.
What makes a successful sprinter? The answer is multifaceted and involves physiology, biomechanical and skill traits. Anthroprometric features are also variables for success. Now researching all the genes behind this, now that would be interesting PHD topic.
The arguments in this discussion supporting West African origin athletes having inherent genetic traits for sprint speed have been fallacious for numerous reasons. No genetic proof has been forwarded indicating the specific genes responsible for physiological traits that enable sprinters to run fast. These questions need to be answered if West African theory on sprinters is to true.
1- What are the genes that give the ability to run fast?
2- Are they recessive or dominant?
3- What are the genotype ratio that gives phenotype characteristics of sprinters?
4- Is fast type 11 physiology dominate over slow type 1 physiology- do hydrids arise? What are the characteristics of the hydrids ?
5- What are the specific genes that give muscle elastic properties?
Fogelson has not touched on any of these questions and has aloofly avoided them. He hinted towards some athropometric variables within differing racial groups however the studies he cited can be printed out and used as TP because the sample sizes were poor.
What are the physiological traits responsible for speed? The obvious answer would be high % type 11 b fibres. The answer is not that simple. The winner of OG final or WR holder isn’t the athlete with the high % of type 11 b muscle fibres. Complex biomechanical factors come into play. This has a large technical element, which is subject to coaching, and the athlete’s ability to learn new motor patterns.
What makes a successful sprinter? The answer is multifaceted and involves physiology, biomechanical and skill traits. Anthroprometric features are also variables for success. Now researching all the genes behind this, now that would be interesting PHD topic.
bump for Charlie, KK, PJ, Top Cat or James Smith or others thoughts on whats being discussed?
We also have only recently the human genome. That doesn’t mean those genes do not exist and a great amount of evidence indicates such a predisposition. We also didn’t know the genes that predisposed somebody to Huntington’s Disease or somebody to having green eyes for quite a long time, but it was pretty obvious that is was a genetically inherited trait. You are simply playing games at this point as nobody said that the specific genes that predispose one to success in sprinting are known, but that West Africans, as a group, simply have them. There is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that. Remember that gravity too is just a theory, but you are welcome to prove that one wrong anytime you wish.
1- What are the genes that give the ability to run fast?
There is some work done here to some of the genes, but we do not know all of them, clearly, so this question cannot be completely answered. If you spent more than 5 minutes you actually could find the work done on genes that contribute towards dopaminergic tone and numerous other traits associated with high levels of sprinting performance and more (I am throwing out the dopaminergic one so you actually have to do some research of your own since I know that will go over your head quite quickly).
2- Are they recessive or dominant?
lol now I know you do not know a damn thing of what this is about.
3- What are the genotype ratio that gives phenotype characteristics of sprinters?
Do you even understand what this means and the implications? I am talking about beyond first year high school biology.
4- Is fast type 11 physiology dominate over slow type 1 physiology- do hydrids arise? What are the characteristics of the hydrids ?
5- What are the specific genes that give muscle elastic properties?
- Studies on genetic variation within differing racial groups would need to use large sample sizes.
Fogelson has not touched on any of these questions and has aloofly avoided them. He hinted towards some athropometric variables within differing racial groups however the studies he cited can be printed out and used as TP because the sample sizes were poor.
All of the questions you just mentioned are incredibly stupid on the whole (in that they are the wrong questions and indicate your lack of understanding of the science at hand) and not even worth discussing. I am also going to take a stab and guess that you really don’t know much about statistics either (wait, you work at an insurance company
What are the physiological traits responsible for speed? The obvious answer would be high % type 11 b fibres. The answer is not that simple. The winner of OG final or WR holder isn’t the athlete with the high % of type 11 b muscle fibres. Complex biomechanical factors come into play. This has a large technical element, which is subject to coaching, and the athlete’s ability to learn new motor patterns.
Why would a high percentage of Type IIb fibers be the answer? I’d be curious about that since there is nothing to indicate sprinters have a particularly larger number or size of fibers than say, Olympic lifters or shotputters or numerous other groups of athletes for that matter. And yes, clearly the issue is multi-factorial. I am assuming I am not talking to a 5 year old and I am talking to someone who presumes that the issue is more complex than a single gene or quality.
I’m done responding to this nonsense from a person who misrepresents what is said and has such a complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about even simple issues in genetics and biology.
Not to get into the middle of this, but to those that think there are no biological differences between the races…
Anatomical differences in the psoas muscles in young black and white men
PATRICK HANSON a1 c1 , S. PETER MAGNUSSON a1 a2 , HENRIK SORENSEN a1 and ERIK B. SIMONSEN a1
a1 Department of Medical Anatomy C, Laboratory for Functional Anatomy and Biomechanics, The Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
a2 Team Danmark Test Center/Sports Medicine Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract
The anatomy of the psoas major muscle (PMA) in young black and white men was studied during routine autopsies. The forensic autopsies included 44 fresh male cadavers (21 black, 23 white) with an age span of 14 to 25 y. The range for weight was 66–76 kg and for height 169–182 cm. The PMA was initially measured in its entire length before measuring the diameter and circumference at each segmental level (L1–S1). At each segmental level, the calculated anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSA) was more than 3 times greater in the black group compared with the white (P<0.001). The psoas minor muscle (PMI) was absent in 91% of the black subjects, but only in 13% of the white subjects. These data show that the PMA is markedly larger in black than white subjects. The marked race specific difference in the size of the PMA may have implications for hip flexor strength, spine function and race specific incidence in low back pathology, and warrants further investigation.
But star, where is the gene? :rolleyes:
Mine are in my closet, I’m wearing shorts today.
Your arguments are paradoxical, contradictory and self-defeating.
You need to review the following topics, as you clearly demonstrate no understanding of these topics.
1- Review basic physiology
2- Review basic biomechanics and motor learning
3- Review athropometrica
3- Understand the multifaceted nature of sprinting
You will only end up embarrassing yourself if you wish to allude to these sciences. I didn’t bother responding to your reference of athropometric data or your statements on sprinting from the motor learning perspective because you clearly have shown a primary school understanding of these topics. Now since you want this discussion to be purely about science- I will review your earlier statements and demonstrate your viewpoint is 99.9% pseudo science & what your saying just opinion.
Fogelson paradox 1.
In one instance Fogelson states
First and foremost being that sprinting is one of the most basic and essential activities in humans. While one can train for it, it is still nothing compared to genetic predisposition.
and then two posts later, Fogelson blantantly contradicts himself when replying to Charlie Franics.
In fact, in sprinting, there are probably numerous things equally important as genetics
Your argument for genetics predisposition is absurd. It’s self-denying itself – in one instance you point to the importance of genetic predisposition than two posts later you deny it by saying there are probably numerous things equally important as genetics.
Let me formulate your argument.
Nothing compared to genetics… probably numerous things equally important to genetics :o
Talk about contradicting yourself! a tad Embarrassing !
More valuable reviews to come.
I am going to address further lies and misrepresentations of what I have said. Taking things out of their context is always fun–something an “also ran” seems to be quick to do.
The first comment you bolded was a comment regarding training versus genetic predisposition. As in, genetic predisposition is of stronger influence than sprint training ever will be. Case in point, Bolt ran 19.9 when he was 17 with minimal training and consistent injuries during those years. Houston McTear’s marks from high school would still be elite today even with poor lifestyle and minimal training. I could given numerous other stories and anecdotes about this.
The second comment is in light of the fact that genetic predispositions cannot be realized nor expressed if basic nutritional and quality of life standards are not met. That was in comment towards why West Africa is not the sprint capitol of the world, even though most of the elite sprinters are of West African descent (though there are plenty of sub 10 runners that are from West Africa).
anthropometrica not athropomorphic
Note the repetitive use of the word anthropomorphic by Fogelson.
And on top of that, there is the issue of anthropomorphic differences, which are perhaps the most obvious. Even with everything else being equal, this would be huge in sprinting
the studies which have showed physiological differences in individuals who do not even train, the anthropomorphic differences which are minimal influenced by anything other than genetics, and more that make me come to this conclusion.
I quote a common definition of the word on the internet
anthropomorphic.
“ Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena” or “attribution of human qualities to nonhumans.” Examples includes Roger Rabbit,Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse. LOL
Is fogelson an anthropomorphic cartoon character :?:rolleyes:
Now the field of science that is relevent to this discussion is- anthropometrica which relates to the measurement of human body.
And it’s ironic that you accuse me of not understanding science when in fact you don’t even know the field of science which supports your arguement. What a hilarously stupid error.
For your reading I do have level 3 criterion anthropometric accreditation and I will provide further information on this topic- which is contradictory to the information you have provided.
Next I will review your comments on physiology. As I have earlier stated if you wish to pedantically discuss science you will only end up embarrassing yourself. However I still need to recover from the tears of laughter from your misuse of the word anthropomorphic. I can’t help and laugh at the irony of this situation, you continuously label my comments as stupid and you say I have a high school level education. These comments couldn’t be further from the truth. When your posts are reviewed with further scrutiny it only shows that you lack any real understanding of the topics here. It’s easy to make sweeping generalisations and berate others. In this situation, however, you’re the one who’s ended up with egg on your face.
Well Sharmer you have yet again proven that you are interested in only mischaracterizing, misrepresenting, and outright lying about what I have said, in addition to taking words and sentences out of context.
If anyone seriously is interested in this discussion, PM me because Sharmer clearly has other interests.
And I think Sharmer meant to say he is “accredited” to do skinfold tests :D, though I don’t see him among any of the “level 3 criterion” (that doesn’t even make sense).