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).
Lemaitre 10.04 (+0.2)
Collio 10.06 (+1.2)
Eriguchi 10.07 (+1.9)
Guliyev 10.08 (+1.3)
Tsukahara 10.09 (+1.8)
I don’t think the chances of a white person (I know Japanese are not caucasion) breaking 10s have ever been as good as they are right now. Moreover, Lemaitre and Guliyev are only 19 years old, and Eriguchi is 21.
I’m not interested in those discussion about blacks and whites. By the time we find out the genes making fast some of the backs, most of the population will be mixed anyway.
Here’s what I can empirically state via personal coaching experience and what I, and the rest of the world, have observed via watching the worlds fastest sprinters for many years.
From a visual standpoint, the fastest sprinters seem to share the following anthropometric characteristics:
- small waists/hips
- long legs/short torso
- relatively long achilles tendons
From a morpho-biomechanical standpoint we know these sprinters must have:
- high percentage of white fiber
- favorable tendon insertions distal to the joint they cross
- high musculo-tendonous elasticity
From a neurological/neuromuscular standpoint we know that reaction times seem to be related much more to genetic factors versus trainedness
and more recent studies (the Japanese study on Powell, etcetera) seem to suggest the cross-sectional diameter of the psoas may be linked to sprint potential. While more studies would have to be conducted in this regard it certainly makes sense.
Taking all of this, and more, into account a very large research study would have to be conducted at a global scale in order to determine which populations have the highest concentrations of the requisite characteristics.
For what it’s worth, speaking strictly in terms of my own coaching experience, which has included working primarily with African American and Caucasian athletes, I am able to state that a greater percentage of my African American athletes share the requisite characteristics that are observable from a visual standpoint.
Additionally, my fastest Caucasian and Hispanic athletes, while fewer in number, share the same visually identifiable anthropometric characteristics as my fastest African American athletes.
My concern only extends to the exclusion of talented athletes because of perceived limits
There is no misrepresentation here. You have clearly used the term athropomorphic repetitively when anthropometrica is the field of science you were referring to. Now you want this discussion to be PM because you can’t stand the logical scrutiny of me reviewing your posts. Note these are not simple grammatical errors that I am picking up. You have mixed up a field of measurement in science with cartoon characters!
Now I haven’t begun my review on physiology and motor learning which will be just as illuminating for our readers. It is only fair that I continue with my logical review because you wanted this discussion to be based on science.
This all indicates that your points on genetic predisposition are invalid as it comes from an incompetent source- one who mixes up measurement of the human body with cartoon characters. “No mischaracterizing, misrepresenting, and outright lying” on my behalf. The error is for everyone to read and it is clear as light.
Unfortunately I have found the same phenomena inside Olympic Lifting. There have been Commonwealth Games level Nigerian Sprinters both male and female adopt OL in Sydney. This sport is heavily represented by Eastern Europeans, Greeks, Turks, and Iranians. One of the earliest remarks was that Nigerians don’t make good OL. These athletes got overlooked in training and subsequently left the sport. Definitely the reverse happens with West African athletes within OL in this instance. Could I suggest that a similar phenomena happens with black swimmers?
Most of the evidence which supports the genetic advantage of race for sprinting is based on misinterpretations of anthropometric data. It’s not the anthropometrist who propose these racial advantages. Level 4 Criterion Anthropmetrist have many years of experience in the field with a high level of theoretical knowledge, most have been involved in athropometric projects and have publications in anthropometry. The Level 4 Criterion Anthropmetrist would not be so ignorant to propose racial advantages for sport based on their data. Sprinting is multifaceted - biomechanical, physiological and skill traits are just as significant.
Its mostly the less learned who forward these dogmatic divisive points of racial advantage.
Why are some people so scared to suggest there are racial differances? Why Sharmer, do you feel the need to extensively study in literature, what your own eyes can tell you via basic observation and perception? What is your motive? In your insurance company, you talk about liability. Do you think it is a liability on my part, to suggest there are some racial differances? Usain Bolt has the hip width of a fourteen year old boy and the strength of an Olympian. Surely this gives him an allmighty advantage at controlling hip rotation than say; yourself. Look at black peoples’ noses. They tend to be wider. The theory is that the white person has had more time to adapt to the colder European environment, whereby a narrow nose warms up the air a little better as it passes through the nose. Does that suggest I am saying Europeans are more advanced? Not really. Perhaps the Afrcian nose is just a little better in warmer climates, than say the europeans, although both do just fine, in both climates.
If i were to say that whites and Asians have an advantage over black athletes in olympic wrestling (because of slightly lower center of mass) would you find that to be a bad comment. I put it to you that whites have a very slight advantage over blacks for swimming, as many studies suggest the black athletes have slightly higher density. Don’t give me the blacks aren’t as much in to swimming, because most of the people in the swimming pools where I worked were black and asian. Yet the swimming club itself, only had one black swimmer.
So if I say that the most gifted black sprinters have about a 2% advantage over the most gifted white sprinters, why is that offensive to some people?
What is it you are concerned about? Political correctness?
When I was five years old, the school headmaster told all of us that “God created all men equall”. I wanted to believe that. The thing is, my observations of the world suggest otherwise. What’s the problem and who takes offense and why?
I don’t give a dam that the top black athletes seem ( to me) to have about a 2% advantage compared to the top white sprinters, but to ignore what your eyes tell you is silly, when you have watched the sport for over twenty years. Yes, I still believe a white sprinter will eventually run a 9.7 second 100 meters, maybe faster. I believe their are many factors involved in sprinting because I have seen many people dramatically improve their sprint times, even though their genetic disposition didn’t change, even if their physiology (spelling?) changed slightly.
Sharmer, why do you have to go on about the Asians dominating the game of chess? Why do you have to throw that one in? Are you trying to bait us, so that you can call us racist? Is that not an side stepping tactic on your part?
Who knows why the Asians dominate chess. Is it because of cultural reasons or more opurtunity for education or perhaps they might have more of whatever you need, that can also help the game of chess. I couldn’t give a crap, because chess is not what I’m in to. I’m in to track and field. I know the ancient Sumarians (spelling?) were a very advanced culture and ofcourse so were the Egyptians and Aztecs. There is a lot of ‘black’ in those ancient races. Ofcourse there are more differances from individual to individual than from race to race, but to pretend there are no race influances is blindness. I think there are very slight race differances that are a part of, but do not fully account for all of the total dominance of black athletes in the 100 meters since 1982.
Also, if Christian Demeitre of France is trained correctly for the rest of his career, he could possibly end up running a 9.7 second 100meters. That is unless he becomes such a big shot celebrity, stuffed with endorsement deals, that he ends up not getting enough time to train properly during the winter months. ( A bit like Usain Bolt, who didn’t train properly through out the winter, but can survive on talent, and only upping the training from about May of this year. But then he does have great anatomical leverage advantage over the other sprinters - including the other black sprinters.
Is my post null and void because of some spelling mistakes here and there? Spelling is not my strongest point, I had to edit a few times, and still it is not perfect grammar, but surely the phillosophy in a post a is a little more important to argue or agree with than the spelling.
At 100m Jamaica has 21 sub10.10 sprinters, Cuba has 4. (i’m not even including Johnson, Bailey, Fasuba, Christie, etc who have jamaican origins).
At Triple Jump, Jamaica has 1 jumper over 17.25, Cuba has 14.
Same proportions are seen in female all-time lists.
(Jamaica’s population is 2,825,928 vs Cuba 11,423,952).
What’s the genetic theory behind this?
At the World Class level, the dominance is less genetic (i assume Cubans and Jamaicans are the same population in your book?) than training related.
Ethnic makeup of Cuba: mulattos 51%, whites (primarily of Spanish descent) 37%, blacks 11%, Chinese 1%
Ethnic makeup of Jamaica: black 90.9%, East Indian 1.3%, white 0.2%, Chinese 0.2%, mixed 7.3%, other 0.1%
The Ethnic makeup you posted surely isn’t representative of the population practicing athletics and selected during major events for Cuba.
No. It is clearly the black minority that performs best in the sprints and jumps.
Or perform at all (social consideration).