While I don’t think there is anything wrong saying “whites swim better”, “blacks jump higher” if it happens to be true, but the fact of the matter is that black, white, slavic, etc. are all pretty slippery definitions that are more rooted in culture than genetics. Almost all cultures have been swapping genes with their neighbors and randy sailors for thousands of years.
[quote]Pinto wrote:
While I don’t think there is anything wrong saying “whites swim better”, “blacks jump higher” if it happens to be true, but the fact of the matter is that black, white, slavic, etc. are all pretty slippery definitions that are more rooted in culture than genetics. Almost all cultures have been swapping genes with their neighbors and randy sailors for thousands of years. [/quote]
Exactly. These are just generalizations.
Olympic lifters have the best genetics.
Duh. Haven’t any of you been paying attention?
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
I wouldn’t be suprised if African-Americans had the best genetics. Their ancestors were used to work after all.[/quote]
five hunderd years of artificial selection(breeding slaves to be better workers) could make a huge impact on a given population. i dont think black africans are any better off than the rest of the world, and sports skills are really important, but if i was a slave owner id try and get the hardiest motherfuckers(good strength athletes) and breed them to make more to sell. its like horse bloodlines and stuff. slavery is wrong.
im a fat lazy white kid and i got a 50 inch box jump yesterday so i doubt that genetics makes a huge difference. or maybe im as gifted as RJ24 j/k
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
scottiscool wrote:
I thought I posted on this topic this morning but maybe not. I basically said what Phil did, different sports favor different genetics.
undeadlift wrote:
I wouldn’t be suprised if African-Americans had the best genetics. Their ancestors were used to work after all.
And then this sort of comment comes out and the thread will spiral totally out of control. Joking or not which I hope you are.
Well, I hope nobody here’s too sensitive. It was just an objective comment.
Let me expound anyway as to avoid any misunderstanding. If you and your children and their children and their children’s children, etc. become gym lovers and lift heavy, chances are that your descendants will inherit genes conducive to heavy lifting. It’s simply an adaptive response that has shaped the genetics of many people.
Actually heredity doesn’t work that way. Unless the genetics were already there and/or throughout the lineage people were procreating with people who had better genetics for lifting. If its just something they do in the family there is no guarantee they would be any good at it no matter how far back it goes.[/quote]
he means that they would be selecting mates(possibly unknowingly) who would have genes that are better to make them strong. Then the slew of critters they have have 2 parents(assuming parent 1 and 2 both have good strength genes) passing on genes to make them better athletes.
Its like if 2 people have a family history(aunts uncles etc) of retardation then its more likely there crumgrinders will be retarded. anyways its all really complicated so who would even know for sure.
Those Black Russians definitely.
Russians. My avatar is proof. Case closed.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
I agree that they dominate for those sports. What about swimming? That sport is dominated by white people. The same appears to hold for gymnastics, etc.
[/quote]
Swimming is dominated by those that can afford pools and have the space to do it. Not being rascist but swimming is for Yanks and Aussies.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:
Actually heredity doesn’t work that way. Unless the genetics were already there and/or throughout the lineage people were procreating with people who had better genetics for lifting. If its just something they do in the family there is no guarantee they would be any good at it no matter how far back it goes.
This is correct. the same thing with the giraffe analogy:
The ancestors of Giraffes didn’t necessarily have long necks to begin with. Instead, the Giraffe-like animals who had the genes for slightly longer necks were better equipped to reach food from high branches, and in this respect more likely to survive and pass on their genes. So over the generations more and more giraffe-animals inherited this gene for a longer neck, which became more pronounced because of the selective breeding. So nowadays you have giraffes with very long necks who have a this dominant gene for a very long neck.
Natural selection.
[/quote]
See, that’s what I never understood. Giraffe A has a neck that places his mouth 20" above the ground and Giraffe B has a neck thatplaces his 18". Therefore giraffe A is more likely to survive, pass on its genes, etc.
But isnt this only relevant if the branches hang down to 19"? I mean, if the branches hang 18" both can eat, if they hang 21" they both starve. So are the giraffes’ ancestors just incredibly lucky that nature placed the branches at the EXACT height needed to starve their rivals yet continue to feed them? Or do I just have this all backwards.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:
Actually heredity doesn’t work that way. Unless the genetics were already there and/or throughout the lineage people were procreating with people who had better genetics for lifting. If its just something they do in the family there is no guarantee they would be any good at it no matter how far back it goes.
This is correct. the same thing with the giraffe analogy:
The ancestors of Giraffes didn’t necessarily have long necks to begin with. Instead, the Giraffe-like animals who had the genes for slightly longer necks were better equipped to reach food from high branches, and in this respect more likely to survive and pass on their genes. So over the generations more and more giraffe-animals inherited this gene for a longer neck, which became more pronounced because of the selective breeding. So nowadays you have giraffes with very long necks who have a this dominant gene for a very long neck.
Natural selection.
See, that’s what I never understood. Giraffe A has a neck that places his mouth 20" above the ground and Giraffe B has a neck thatplaces his 18". Therefore giraffe A is more likely to survive, pass on its genes, etc.
But isnt this only relevant if the branches hang down to 19"? I mean, if the branches hang 18" both can eat, if they hang 21" they both starve. So are the giraffes’ ancestors just incredibly lucky that nature placed the branches at the EXACT height needed to starve their rivals yet continue to feed them? Or do I just have this all backwards.
[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a matter of the branches hanging at exactly a certain height, but the giraffe with the longer neck will be able to feed from a greater variety of trees. So because they have access to more food they have increased survivability, or something like that.
African americans also have the highest rate of obesity by ethnicity last time I looked.
Anyone who has to fucking work hard to get ahead in life. I think best genetics is often confused with the social environment people are brought into. Compare the poverty rates of caucasians and african americans. Compare the average life of an American kid raised in the suburbs with Sasha the Eastern European kid who is put to work at age 10 to help feed his family. People who aren’t raised to be pussies always rise to the top in competition.
how would a chimpanzee do in a pl comp? it would only have to move the bar a few inches for DL so it could pull good but what about other lifts?
lets take this thread to a new level of asinine.
[quote]rander wrote:
how would a chimpanzee do in a pl comp? it would only have to move the bar a few inches for DL so it could pull good but what about other lifts?
lets take this thread to a new level of asinine.[/quote]
a chimp could never beat an orangatang. Ever seen “Any which way but loose” those things are strong.
[quote]Pinto wrote:
While I don’t think there is anything wrong saying “whites swim better”, “blacks jump higher” if it happens to be true, but the fact of the matter is that black, white, slavic, etc. are all pretty slippery definitions that are more rooted in culture than genetics. Almost all cultures have been swapping genes with their neighbors and randy sailors for thousands of years. [/quote]
Bam. And there you have it folks.
Race isn’t even a genetically determined phenomenon, it’s a socially constructed phenomenon.
“Black” have better genetics? Oh, really? So, are we talking about Nigerians or Rawandans? What about the Pygmies? Or, what about West indians?
Honestly it’s pretty ridiculous to attempt to lump people into neat little categories and then make predictions about their genetic make up.
Does anyone here really believe that “African” Americans are of “pure” African descent?
Individuals have better or worse “genetics”. From here on out let’s just forget the race crap.
Good training,
Sentoguy
Speed Demons: The Domination of Blacks in Sports
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=459790
Interesting Article worth checking out they did a few years ago here. You just never know whats in the archive 
This is why I didn’t even want to touch on race in bodybuilding. Too many issues get involved in these type of conversations and nothing usually comes out of it.
[quote]rander wrote:
how would a chimpanzee do in a pl comp? it would only have to move the bar a few inches for DL so it could pull good but what about other lifts?
lets take this thread to a new level of asinine.[/quote]
ive heard that chimps are up to 7x as strong as the average human… that compared with the fact that as u pointed out their DL ROM would be much shorter im sure we could def see a chimp pull over 1400 lbs
but dude thats not cool to compare black ppl to monkeys i think ur post really took it too far
[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
but dude thats not cool to compare black ppl to monkeys i think ur post really took it too far[/quote]
I never even made that connection. The connection that I made with it was that every race is extremely diverse. Given that diversity, asking which race is genetically superior is in itself a racist comment. Therefore he was calling attention to the fact that it is rediculous.
You know who would have a real advantage is those primates with the really long arms and the really short legs. Think about it … their deadlift stroke would be nothing, and on bench they could hold the bar with their feet, and the bench stroke would be nothing.
And then the raw guys and the anti-drug guys could complain because back in the day, nobody had opposable big toes to hold onto the bar with…