what an idiotic statement. Slavery does not automatically code for an individual to be of a certain physique. The slaves weren't able to pass their labor-induced physique down to their children BECAUSE IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. :facepalm:

and @punani-62, you are an imbecilic individual. That has got to be one of the dumbest statements ever. I mean, I'm black, my parent's are black, and I'm sure my parents have never had to run away from the police for anything. AND HOW DOES RUNNING AWAY FROM POLICE ALTER A GENERATION'S PHYSIQUE? :closedeyes:

Your point is stupid, and the idiots that gave you a positive rating are even more imbecilic.

it was a joke

Reply 104

OurConcern

Original post by snozzle

Has anyone actually succeeded in defining what is the difference between 'black' and 'white'?

This is really the one response that makes complete sense to me. Agreed.

White dog , black dog. Female dog, male dog.Still a dog.

Its a good question. Why are black sprinters better than whites? Im not sure. I think its for the same reasons why one white sprinter is better than another white sprinter , genes & nurture.but the whole concept of slavery being a big factor doesnt make any sense.

Reply 105

Arturo Bandini

Original post by OurConcern

There are general biological differences though.

Bone density, muscle fiber types, tendon length, muscle insertion. Studies have proven this.

Reply 106

OurConcern

Original post by Arturo Bandini

There are general biological differences though.

Bone density, muscle fiber types, tendon length, muscle insertion. Studies have proven this.

I don't think these biological differences should be applied so generally though. This could very easily lead to a lot of error.Simply because there can be extreme differences between two black or two white people. I haven't seen any studies myself, so I can't comment on their accuracy. I think it would be more accurate if we were to isolate situations rather than generalise.

Reply 107

Arturo Bandini

Original post by OurConcern

But what if the studies are on random samples of black africans versus random samples of caucasians, and on average the black africans have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fiber and longer tendons?

Reply 108

perfectsymbology

I bet I could've outrun Barry White in the 100m when he was still alive.

*insert joke about Barry White running 100m in record time to get some food*

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 109

OurConcern

Original post by Arturo Bandini

'Random Samples' of sprinters.Yeah,ok. What about countries/races who have never regarded printing as a real sport and have completely neglected practising it, most likely western countries. Do you put these into these random samples? How would compare them to a lets say a nation in which sprinting as almost part of the culture.

Do you have a link for such a study? I would interested in seeing it.

Reply 110

Arturo Bandini

Original post by OurConcern

I didn't say random samples of sprinters. The two studies I read were random samples of students at the university (college) performing the studies. They didn't mention whether they were athletes or not but they certainly weren't professionals.

This was a while ago, but I'll try to find a link to one or more online.

Reply 111

Arturo Bandini

Original post by OurConcern

Original post by Arturo Bandini

Couldn't find the exact ones I've read before but there are a few which show similar findings. There are more about bone density and hormonal differences too.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/61/5/1758.short
"Results indicated that Caucasians had a higher percent type I [slow twitch] and a lower percent type IIa [fast twitch] "

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2006/08000/Ethnic_Differences_in_Triceps_Surae_Muscle_Tendon.9.aspx
"African American women had shorter gastrocnemius muscles and longer tendons and performed walking more economically. "

http://www.ajcn.org/content/55/1/8.short
"Black females had greater appendicular skeletal muscle (P less than 0.001), bone mineral (P less than 0.001), and total body potassium (TBK) (P = 0.05) compared with white females. ... This study confirms that black and white females differ in body composition "

Edit - By the way, I'm in NO way suggesting that cultural differences don't play their part. Just that I think it's a combination of the two.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 112

DK_Tipp

Original post by Wilfred Little

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-14679657

Apply that same logic to sprinting and a different tribe and you have your answer as to why black people are better sprinters than white people.

Interesting article but it kinda ignores that in recent times Kenya's neighbours Ethiopia have been even more successful. I've read studies that suggest the biggest advantage East Africans have over Europeans is lighter limbs which makes them more energy efficient. Also distance running is a cultural phenomenon, like soccer in South America, rugby in NZ, springing in Jamaica etc.

Reply 113

Doigovic

Every reason has already been listed as to why, obviously.

However that been said they need a lot more training to become good sprinters, they can run very quick naturally but their form is clumsy and slows them down, mostly in the arm movements.

However white sprinters i.e. Have had to better their form in order to become quicker, and can adapt that change a lot easier, I can run 11.2 but once ran 10.87 for 100m (people assume that this is quick but remember on game day it depends how you run, and the milliseconds over are what counts.) However with the right training they become quicker in a flash.

I've noticed people who play football tend to have a really good top speed but it slows them down in sprinting competitions, I myself play and I tend to set my hips lower when I run as it equals better exit angles to keep acceleration when turning.

Reply 114

DK_Tipp

Original post by Drunk Punx

I would test that, but I'm in a good mood :wink:

Back on topic: I read somewhere that it was to do with the size of their lungs (tribes in mountains need bigger lungs due to the oxygen being thinner). So, in essence, genes.

Obviously having big lungs doesn't automatically make you a decent sprinter, you need to put in hard work, training, etc.

Whether that's true or not is beyond me though, it might just be someone's speculation.

Lung capacity wouldn't really be a deciding factor in an event lasting less than 10 seconds!

Reply 115

snozzle

Original post by OurConcern

Well we are dividing people up into races on a basis we are not even sure of, then when we find some characteristic or trait is more prevalent in that 'race' we a) see it as evidence of some essential quality of that 'race', b) see it as evidence that our concept of 'race' is objective and natural.

Neither are rational conclusions.

The question "why are blacks better sprinters than whites", contains at least two lesser propositions, one is that racial concepts are objective and natural, the other is that all blacks are better sprinters than whites. The second proposition is empirically wrong even if you agree with the first, so it is actually a nonsensical question.

Reply 116

Steevee

Original post by Wilfred Little

No way was he. Malcolm X fought for equality, I don't care what he said when in the NOI, as he said he didn't speak for himself and his goal was different to that of Griffin, I am not a supporter of the NOI and find the likes of Farrakhan crazy as bat**** anyway, plus he later compared his role in the NOI to that of a zombie and like said earlier in the thread, most of what he said was factual and not opinionative. He apologised to whites for any offense caused upon completing Hajj and converting to Sunni Islam.

Now compare that to Nick Griffin who proposes the following:

So basically, blacks can stay as long as there's a small number and Britain remains white. :rolleyes:

Given his definition of British, this means white people will be treated better than blacks or other ethnic minorities. If that is not racism I don't know what is.

Oh and:

This is going off-topic considering the thread is about sprinters. IF you wish to continue this my inbox is empty.

The difference being then that Malcolm X was a minority, and Nick Griffin is part of the majority. Malcolm X wanted rights for his people, Nick Griffin wants to maintain the way the country is, without degredation, in his view. Not so different in my opinion. The reason you see one as a racist and one as a hero is....because one is a minority and one is part of the Majority. I think neither of them are people to look up to.

Also the irony of you posting a picture of a young Nick Griffin when we have clearly shown that Malcolm X was a racist extremist in his early days :lolwut:

Reply 117

OurConcern

Original post by snozzle

Yes of course we are. Race has been used as some sort weapon and armour for a while now. Its certainly isnt an objective concept but why do you say its not natural? I thought the whole thing is just natural human/animal instinct something we use to protect ourselves.Looking at it logically of course its just shambles.Its destructive.

I guess I sound as if i'm contradicting myself?I know what you mean but its a fun question for me because of all those questions that arise from it. There are so many ways to look at it. If we were asking on a serious scientific note the question would only need to be'what makes a good sprinter?'