Michael Johnson says black atheletic have superior atheletic gene

[JayEnn]

Our ancestors were bred for performance as livestock....We don't refute the breeding of animals for performance, production, and attributes.

I agree with this. There will be a number of other factors that are relevant too: techonolgy, training facilities, general health and diet, but I do believe that those decending from slaves will have a natural advantage.

[Denny]

Watching the show on Channel 4 anyone else watching in the UK

[PammiePC]

I remember watching a show that talked about this topic extensively. I wish I could remember what channel or program it was. But it was a bunch of scientists discussing the truth/myth behind it (probably on Discovery, Science, or History Channel)

I agree with this. There will be a number of other factors that are relevant too: techonolgy, training facilities, general health and diet, but I do believe that those decending from slaves will have a natural advantage.

They did say that the whole "it's because their bred from slaves" thing is bs. Especially when talking about African Americans and saying that this specific group of people are athletic because of slavery in America. I have to say, I completely agree. Genetics and evolution is a hell of a thing, especially in humans and especially when you consider the fact that no amount of "breeding" in humans will give the breeder full control over who reproduces with who. The fact of the matter is that about 300-400 years of slavery cannot make that big of a difference in a genetic pool. Throw in the millions of people who aren't descendents of slaves having children with those who are, there is just way too much genetic variation over such a short period of time for slave breeding to be a legitimate cause (especially when speaking about athletes who are alive today).

As far as genetics in general, it's a very interesting debate. Body types, conditions, diseases do vary by race and geographies. But they also vary within race and geographies. I agree that the excelling of blacks in sports probably has more to do with means and opportunity than it does genetics, especially when you're talking about Olympic level athletes.

Also, take into consideration how participating in certain sports and activities forces your body to adapt and excel in that specific area. For example, gymnasts. Any male or female who begins gymnastics at a young age, regardless of their race or body type, will fit into a very specific body type by the time they are 16. Their body will also show very specific occupational stress markers for centuries after their death. This applies very evidently to swimmers as well. So perhaps these professional and Olympic level athletes have bodies that are able to perform these tasks extraordinarily better than others simply because they started performing at early stages in life. And then, perhaps, them performing these tasks at early stages in life has everything to do with their culture, ideals, hobbies, way of life and nothing to do with their genetics.

[Ororo]

If there is a 'West African gene' then present day West Africans not just people of West African descent would dominate sprinting today.

Even if there was a gene, having better coaches and training counts for quite a lot. How would you make up the difference in advantage?

They did say that the whole "it's because their bred from slaves" thing is bs. Especially when talking about African Americans and saying that this specific group of people are athletic because of slavery in America. I have to say, I completely agree. Genetics and evolution is a hell of a thing, especially in humans and especially when you consider the fact that no amount of "breeding" in humans will give the breeder full control over who reproduces with who. The fact of the matter is that about 300-400 years of slavery cannot make that big of a difference in a genetic pool. Throw in the millions of people who aren't descendents of slaves having children with those who are, there is just way too much genetic variation over such a short period of time for slave breeding to be a legitimate cause (especially when speaking about athletes who are alive today).

Also, take into consideration how participating in certain sports and activities forces your body to adapt and excel in that specific area. For example, gymnasts. Any male or female who begins gymnastics at a young age, regardless of their race or body type, will fit into a very specific body type by the time they are 16. Their body will also show very specific occupational stress markers for centuries after their death. This applies very evidently to swimmers as well. So perhaps these professional and Olympic level athletes have bodies that are able to perform these tasks extraordinarily better than others simply because they started performing at early stages in life. And then, perhaps, them performing these tasks at early stages in life has everything to do with their culture, ideals, hobbies, way of life and nothing to do with their genetics.

ITA with the bolded. It just doesn't seem like a large enough amount of time. Also, how can you successfully isolate one variable when there are so many others like training methods, knowledge facilities, which are dependent on wealth, etc.?

I came across a few articles discussing this topic and trying to explain why people of west African origin are better at sprinting and why Caucasian people are better at swimming. They said it was not genetic or racial. It's a difference in torso height. Something like 3cm of difference (or maybe more)that makes West African people and those descended from them better at sprinting. The difference seems negligible, but elite records are broken by tenths of a second. If this is all true, then the difference in skills and results of Americans of West African descent and West Africans would be training, wouldn't it? If we gave the same advantage to the latter, then I wonder if they'd achieve the same results.

[Ororo]

^^ I take a lot of that back. Most of the people winning these sprints or ending up in the top four are Black American, Bahamian, Jamaican, Trinidadian, and from other islands. There were also Ivorians making it to the finals. There were a good number of Nigerians, but I don't recall how far they made it. Is the training just better in these countries?

[GalaxyGirl2012]

^^ I take a lot of that back. Most of the people winning these sprints or ending up in the top four are Black American, Bahamian, Jamaican, Trinidadian, and from other islands. There were also Ivorians making it to the finals. There were a good number of Nigerians, but I don't recall how far they made it. Is the training just better in these countries?

also in those countries they are more focused on sprinting sports which means there's going to be more funding available for training.

if the ex slave gene produced awesome athletes, then any sport where descendents of slaves participated in they would dominate (for instance cullen jones would be michael phelps).

as an another example of how funding plays a role in sports, just compare the male and female US soccer programs . US women don't dominate because they have better genes than the US men, it's mainly a bunch of financial things that stalrt off in grade school and eventually lead to US men soccer not being as successful as the US women's team.

[Ororo]

True, but it depends on what your body is suited for. Body type plays a part. Plus West Africans tend to be sprinters and East Africans tend to be long-distance runners.

Training, body type, genes (don't believe the slave gene stuff), funding- I guess it's more multi-faceted than any one thing. But about funding- how much funding will any one sport have in poor nations?

Quoting my post above, there were articles about why west Africa-descended ppl are better sprinters.

Ever wondered why world's swiftest sprinters like Usain Bolt or Michael Johnson are all of West African ancestry? Scientists say it's because they have "a higher centre of gravity" compared to their white peers.

Using laws of locomotion, researchers at the Duke University found that black sprinters have a 0.15 second advantage over their white rivals because they tend to have a higher centre of gravity, meaning they can fall to the ground more quickly between each stride.
...

The researchers, who looked at elite athletes over the past 100 years for their study, believe that these differences are not racial, but rather biological.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...gravity-blacks

[GalaxyGirl2012]

yeah but my point i is that were true then why isnt every person of primarily west african descent a better sprinter than every person of non west african descent? when i played rugby i trained and i ran sprints, but there were girls (white girls) who were naturally faster than me. does that mean they have more of the african gene than i do?

the problem with attempting to make rules out of exceptions is that the rules end up not making much sense when applied to a larger sample. looking at an Usain Bolt as if he's some random Raykwon from around the block oversimplifies genetic issues.

But about funding- how much funding will any one sport have in poor nations?

kenya puts a lot into their running program in terms of training and incentives. samoa and tonga both put a lot in their rugby programs. just because a nation is poor doesnt mean they arent willing to spend money on sports programs. in fact they are more likely to do so in programs where they know they will be able to create people who will do well.

[Denny]

^ Plus a lot of athletes these days train in the USA where the facilities are superior to their home nation e.g Mo Farrah lives in the USA, Kerani James lives in the USA, and if its just genes why don't Black British runners who are also West African descendants dominate the track, they barely make it to the finals.

[Denny]

I'm biased, considering how Indian culture views black people (worse than shit on their shoes) and loves their skin bleaching I question the motive for the article from the Times of India