Why some groups are more natural athletes

[zinedine kilbane]

"The Sports Gene" by David Epstein will answer many of these questions. Basically since the origins of the human race begin in Africa, there is more genetic variance there since there has been more time to evolve and adapt. This means that the tallest people probably come from Africa, and by comparison so do the shortest....There is also the whole Malaria debate, where the adaptation to fight malaria caused groups in the west of Africa (where Malaria has feasted on humans for thousands of years) to exhibit more explosiveness. Something about their blood cells evolved to be able to function with less oxygen, thereby killing the virus by suffocating it but not enough to kill the blood cells. So the body learned over the years to produce force quickly since there was less oxygen available. This is also why you never see a person of West African descent ever winning marathons or other endurance events. There bodies, in general, are more adapted and customized for quick and explosive events like weightlifting and sprinting

Epsteins book is pretty good but leaves out one huge factor; Doping. It spends a lot of time talking about the genetics behind Jamaica’s sprint dominance as they really were very dominant at the time. Subsequently however we have found out they basically had no anti-doping programme throughout their peak years and now that they are being forced to test they have really dropped off. We’re experiencing something similar with Kenyan long distance running at the moment. They were very dominant, turns out they weren’t testing, have about 50 athletes banned now and so they’ll drop off.

There is definitely some genetic component here, just look at any pace/power sport (nfl, soccer, track) and black people are massively over represented. But differences in doping can really amplify things. For example you could probably write a book about how Eastern Europeans/Russians must be genetically pre-disposed to Olympic weightlifting due to their success over the years, not sure how much of that is genetic though…

Or you can look at individuals who smashed records through better doping. Paula Radcliffe doesn’t look very Kenyan etc

[gadders]

Epsteins book is pretty good but leaves out one huge factor; Doping. It spends a lot of time talking about the genetics behind Jamaica’s sprint dominance as they really were very dominant at the time. Subsequently however we have found out they basically had no anti-doping programme throughout their peak years and now that they are being forced to test they have really dropped off. We’re experiencing something similar with Kenyan long distance running at the moment. They were very dominant, turns out they weren’t testing, have about 50 athletes banned now and so they’ll drop off.

There is definitely some genetic component here, just look at any pace/power sport (nfl, soccer, track) and black people are massively over represented. But differences in doping can really amplify things. For example you could probably write a book about how Eastern Europeans/Russians must be genetically pre-disposed to Olympic weightlifting due to their success over the years, not sure how much of that is genetic though…

Or you can look at individuals who smashed records through better doping. Paula Radcliffe doesn’t look very Kenyan etc

I always like this tweet about Usain Bolt:

"Of the 30 fastest men's 100m sprint times ever, only nine have been run by an athlete NOT banned for drugs - all 9 by Usain Bolt."

I guess they just needed to be clean for in-competition testing.

[novicejay]

You will want to read the following (which will undermine some of your beliefs):
1. Peak by Dr. Anders Ericsson.
2. Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.
3. The Handbook of Expertise by Dr. Anders Ericsson (really all his books and studies are gold).
4. These books will lead you to others.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Let's say I don't want to read these three books. Or I don't have time. Summarize them for me.

[zinedine kilbane]

You will want to read the following (which will undermine some of your beliefs):
1. Peak by Dr. Anders Ericsson.
2. Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.
3. The Handbook of Expertise by Dr. Anders Ericsson (really all his books and studies are gold).
4. These books will lead you to others.

I hate to break it to you buddy but nature is just as important as nurture. Particularly at the pointy end of the distribution.

10,000 hrs practice might make most people pretty good at basketball but if you’re a 5’8 white guy with a 20” vertical you’re not going to make the nba

Similarly 10,000 hrs deliberate practice isn’t going to make you a chess grandmaster if you have an I.Q of 90

Then it’s even more evident on the pure athletic events. Deliberate practice will barely make a dent in your 100m time if you have a shit vertical leap.

These theories largely ignore the base level of raw talent you need to get in the door.

[anticausal]

These theories largely ignore the base level of raw talent you need to get in the door.

"Rudy" was a heartwarming story of someone working absurdly hard to misallocate resources.

[TommyGun]

I hate to break it to you buddy but nature is just as important as nurture. Particularly at the pointy end of the distribution.

10,000 hrs practice might make most people pretty good at basketball but if you’re a 5’8 white guy with a 20” vertical you’re not going to make the nba

Similarly 10,000 hrs deliberate practice isn’t going to make you a chess grandmaster if you have an I.Q of 90

Then it’s even more evident on the pure athletic events. Deliberate practice will barely make a dent in your 100m time if you have a shit vertical leap.

These theories largely ignore the base level of raw talent you need to get in the door.

“Talent is Overrated”, which I read, applies more to non athletic endeavors. The author primarily details the amount and intensity of practice as it relates to playing the violin, for example, or playing chess.

And David Epstein? Anytime a writer is on the staff of The NY Times (strike 1), then goes to Pro Publica (strike 2), don’t bother with the book. Those writers at both places are under tremendous pressure to publish a book, so its not always rigorous.

[novicejay]

I hate to break it to you buddy but nature is just as important as nurture. Particularly at the pointy end of the distribution.

10,000 hrs practice might make most people pretty good at basketball but if you’re a 5’8 white guy with a 20” vertical you’re not going to make the nba

Similarly 10,000 hrs deliberate practice isn’t going to make you a chess grandmaster if you have an I.Q of 90

Then it’s even more evident on the pure athletic events. Deliberate practice will barely make a dent in your 100m time if you have a shit vertical leap.

These theories largely ignore the base level of raw talent you need to get in the door.

I hate to break it to you but you have not read the books or the research and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Let me put this in context for you: I never, ever, question Coach Rippetoe on lifting weights. Why? He is the expert. In fact, this has lead to many, many heated conversations with several Olympians that I work with because they THINK they know about lifting but the reality is, like yourself, they don't know they are ignorant. You are just like them, i.e., ignorant of this subject matter. It is okay to be ignorant. What is not okay is pretending you are not ignorant and spreading nonsense on the internet.

[TommyGun]

The question by the OP is an important one and goes to a crucial point that Rip has been saying. Unfortunately I didn’t grasp the full meaning until recently. What we (SS) do by strength training is force an adaptation (in our case, increased strength). But significant adaptations can occur without using the barbell - let the local environment do the heavy lifting over a long enough time scale, with some real severe perturbations (stressors) occur as well. The result: the same gene but with a very different expressed phenotype. That’s the macro and helps to explain reptiles, humans, etc.

We don’t have the luxury of long time frames so we program the stressor to achieve the adaptation. What Selyes Law or General Adaptation Principle achieves on the cellular level, the local environment achieves on specific populations geographically. Hence why certain populations are physically different and may excel at specific physical tasks.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I hate to break it to you but you have not read the books or the research and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Fine. Now, again: Why some groups are more natural athletes