Steroids and Black Athletes

[GiovaniMarcon]

SW I agree with you. For what it's worth I personally don't believe blacks are faster than whites, even on average. I was citing a general opinion -- and one even espoused by some on this site at various times -- and offering a counterpoint to render that opinion irrelevant even if it were true.

A black athlete will almost never be criticized for anything on an individual level -- he or she will at worst be part of a generalized complaint about a malady in sports. For example, if a black athlete is arrested for domestic violence, media outlets will usually temper their criticism of him by offering a similar crime committed by a white player who isn't even part of the story. I'm reminded of a recent article about Mike Vick in Riverside's Press Enterprise newspaper. The article had a tsk tsk attitude about Vick's dog abuse (cough-murder-cough) but made sure to bring up Wayne Chrebet's sex scandals of several years ago for some reason.

Or rather, I shouldn't say "for some reason" because THE reason is obvious -- for every criticism of a black athlete, there must be a counter-example of a white athlete behaving badly. If this balance isn't maintained, the universe will implode.

However, in terms of criticizing individual white athletes, it's lather, rinse, and repeat repeatedly.

Remember Michael Phelps? Newspapers tried to forget him like a Kevin Federline CD once Bolt had his victories. Can't keep the focus off the brothers if you can help it.

Of course, once Phelps got busted for toking the reefer, he suddenly became newsworthy again.

 

[SteveB]

Kevin McHale -- not that your posts aren't impressive or interesting or potentially convincing to the random reader, but I think the rest of us are talking about elite-level sprinters -- the small cadre that competes at the very highest level, where as several of the athletes whose IAAF profiles you've displayed aren't really legitimate medal threats.

The point most of us are trying to make isn't that whites are faster than blacks on average, or even AS FAST as blacks on average. In fact, I've seen it conceded on more than one occasion the opinion that the average black sprinters are slightly (SLIGHTLY, not significantly) faster than the average white sprinters.

But we're not speaking of the average sprinters; we're talking about the ones who get involved in the championship rounds. Thus the usual argument that "it's the last hundredth of a second of genetic superiority that makes the difference" -- is irrelevant.

The fact that the average white sprinter may or may not be slower than the average black sprinter is moot. We're talking about the absolute best black sprinters and the absolute best white ones. Just as if one were to search for the person with the highest IQ in the world -- averages wouldn't couldn't for a fig.

Olympic races are searches for EXCEPTIONS rather than averages.

The absolute best white sprinters -- the exceptions -- used to go stride for stride with the best black sprinters up until the 1980s. What happened?

That is what we are trying to find out. Certainly on a genetic level nothing improved the African race in only thirty years. Similarly, nothing on a genetic level degraded the Caucasian race in only thirty years.

Logic holds then that the reasons must be external. Possibilities include, but are not limited to:

1. more blacks are being exposed to sprinting and convinced of their inherent superiority, while simultaneously whites aren't recruited as much as before and are faced with a psychological disadvantage at any rate. Potentially elite white sprinters might never begin sprinting in the first place.

2. whites used to take more drugs before, which was why they could compete, but now that they don't take drugs anymore, they can't compete.

3. blacks used to not take drugs, but now that they do, they're winning.

4. everyone, black and white, is taking drugs, but they work better on blacks.

I happen to believe that the reason for the dearth of white sprinters at the championship level relative to thirty years ago is a combination of reason 1 and reason 4. I do not claim that whites have kept their skirts clean where as it's the black boys who have mucked up the works for everyone. I think everyone has their fingers in the drug pie. I think the combination of PEDs and the fact that whites as a race have generally "written sprinting off" as a sport at which they can compete accounts for the missing white runners in an Olympic final.

It is not wrong to encourage those whites who say NO to writing off sprinting -- Pickering, Wariner, and friends -- nor is it wrong to scrutinize the puzzling, sudden, and suspicious success of certain blacks in the same sport.

You have convinced yourself of Morne Nagel's guilt based on his flash in the pan success. Okay, fine. Maybe he cheated, maybe he didn't -- you've got your reasons to suspect him.

Similarly, we have our reasons to suspect Bolt, Chambers, et al.

Certainly Kenteris' missing drug exams sound really suspect. But yeah, Greene sending a check to a drug lab sounds suspect, too. Of course, like you, it could have been something completely innocuous.

But we're dealing with probability here. Maybe he's innocent. I think he's guilty.

In the end, the reason why whites aren't represented on the starting blocks of the olympic finals anymore at the short sprint isn't because whites are slower than blacks on average. Again, the point of finding Olympic champions is to find the exceptions. Otherwise, we'd all have medals on our mantles.

That post should go in the Caste Football Hall of Fame. Bravo!!

 

[StarWars]

That all being said, I also think there's a genetic component to black sprinting success. I also think there's a genetic trait that traces back to Jamaica and West Africa that makes them more prone to speed.. just like Tay-Sachs traces back to Eastern European Jews whom marry and reproduce amongst themselves, and the sickle cell gene carriers trace back to Sub-Saharan Africa. The sheer volume of sub-10.06's by black sprinters (900+), and it's corresponding, chasmic disparity of sub 10.06's by white sprinters (4) can't be so cavalierly overlooked. It's self-serving to simply attribute it to drugs, especially while turning right around, and attributing the disparity in IQ's as being almost totally genetic.

First of all I am undecided on the IQ difference. And we are not being self-serving by claiming our IQ is better. Virtually all 50 sprinters that broke ten did it in the past 20 years, which is defined by steroids. The IQ difference has been documented for a very long time. White people have proven they have fast twitch muscles, and they cannot get away with the steroid use blacks do. Yes, some of those 50 blacks were clean, probably the African ones, but neither I nor WL, or any white sprinter will EVER concede to the notion blacks are faster. I have beaten too many a black person to be that much of a defeatest.

 

[white lightning]

McHale is one of those white self loathing, want to be athletes. He probably is about as athletic as a fat pig. Just because you are slow doesn't make up for the fact that whites are the greatest athletes in the world period. If you look at it from an all around perspective, no one comes close. We dominate more sports than anyone on the planet!

Whites can run. We can jump. We can lift and we shall go sub 10 in the near future. It's more than going sub 10 however. It is about winning medals in the big championships again like we used to and we shall.

Kevin McHale(you insult this player by posting with his name) can just go sit on a couch and eat your bon, boms.Edited by: white lightning

 

[Guest]

At this point, you are in the maximum velocity phase.  You can only hold
onto this top speed for 1-2 seconds before you decelerate, so the most
important cue is to "float," relax, and let the ground come to
you.  These two phases require two chemically different aspects of the
anaerobic energy system, and as such, they must be trained differently. </span>

How does one train in order to minimize deceleration? Also, what kind of genotype may be predisposed to be strong in this area (i.e. someone who has a modest one-rep max squat but is stronger for reps or vice-versa, someone who may be carrying less or more muscle mass, etc.)?

 

[albinosprint]

Latspread,

for the most part, a taller thinner sprinter would decelerate slower than a short stocky sprinter. usually it's a stride length to stride frequency ratio. the shorter sprinters tend to have better starts with faster turnovers then a tall sprint with a slow start but a longer stride. one way to help stride length would be to run up hill. you want a hill with a 10-15% incline. you want to do is a fartlek style work out where you do 75-85% speed for about 100m uphill then a light jog back and repeat. do this for about 10 reps then rest for about 10 min. do this 4x. the trick is to always stay relaxed and never lose form or get sloppy. if you start to lose form, walk down and take longer rest between sets. by increasing you stride length you will decelerate slower. there are a bunch of other workouts that help with stride length, but I always found this one to work the best. I can go on for days about sprint workouts, but for now I hope this answers your question.

 

[StarWars]

No genotype is really made for speed endurance and top speed, but the best runners will be about 6 feet tall for the 100 meter dash. This is because they are short enough for the start and still can keep a high stride length times frequency ratio for the last 50 or so meters. Bolt is an exception, but I can guarentee in the future the new record holder (will be juiced probably) will be around 6 feet tall. This is the best height for sprinting, don't buy into the Bolt is tall it's okay hes so fast propoganda.

 

[white lightning]

I also belive that increasing stride length comes hand in hand with increasing your flexibility. Most guys are not very limber. Extra stretching, pilates, and plyometrics will all help with your stride length.

It's funny but stride length is the biggest thing anyone can do to get faster in a short period of time other than losing weight. That comes anyway when you do workouts that make you want to throw up. The results will come. It just takes alot of hard work. Good luck to you Latspread. Keep us posted on your times, etc.

 

[StarWars]

I would like to point out that no matter how bad the caste system gets, the genetic variation whites are inclined to will create an exception for the 100 meters. Whites are better starters, so there will eventually be one who can end a race well too. This is probably Lemaitre or Blum in the future. I hope we don't have to settle for that though.

 

[Guest]

Good info, gentlemen. I'm also struck by the idea that some of the better 60 meter sprinters are pretty thin and seem to peter out over the last forty meters yet the most muscular 100 meter sprinters seem always to be 60 meter and below specialists.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

O.k my theory to answer McHale is that the biggest cheater nations since 1988 have been America, Canada and the Caribbean nations. Yes, I agree that Greece has been big on cheating and you could probably throw in another Euro nation or two as "big time cheaters". But in recent history European countries like England and Germany have put forth the toughest testing methods on record against steroids.

America has finally caught up for the most part now with the Pilot Program. This may be why we weren't nearly as dominant in the short track events this Olympics. But the Pilot Program is not mandatory yet (as of my last source I checked) as it should be. We will see soon if this "Pilot Program" will result in America continuing to not be competitive with Jamaica in short sprints in the near future. I suspect Jamaica will continue to dominate until international governing bodies install a mandatory Pilot type program forcing them to change. Jamaica is big on PED use!

I think due to higher rates of ACTN3 mutations in non sub-Saharan African groups and also higher testosterone level averages, even amongst elite black athletes, blacks may respond better to steroid use. Blacks can also take on more Herculean type workout regiments with the use of steroids that they formerly couldn't have done due to having less aerobic capacity and endurance than whites on average amongst the elites.

Of course with the huge pool of population to pull from there are lots of white athletes with no ACTN3 mutation, so the first point out of those may be moot.

My theory is that "without steroids" a white sprinter will due no better than 9.9-9.95 with the ideal race in ideal conditions and a black freak sprinter like Bolt (ridiculously talented, but almost definitely juiced IMO) would do no better than 9.75-9.8.

I think for the most part in the 60s and 70s and up though the mid 80s (when roiding really took off), that other than some white freaks on the end of the bell curve like Mennea and Borzov in their days, the most elite black sprinters averaged about 0.10-0.15 seconds faster over 100 meters than the whites. This is compared to the 0.30 or so of today.

Whites seem to have the tendency for being slightly better world class athletes for acceleration up to 10-20 meters from the research I've looked at. We do just as good at 400 meters (if not better) and definitely surpass sub-Saharan Africans by 800 meters due to our better endurance and aerobic capacity.

I believe this has to due with Blacks having a tendency to have slightly longer limbs and also tend to get slightly better leg lift when running IMO. I think this is b/c blacks have a genetic predisposition for slightly stronger hamstring muscles and whites have a predisposition for thicker and/or stronger quad muscles.

I am willing to concede a slight advantage from 20 meters up until 300 meters or so to the elite black athlete over the white one. However, there is no evidence to suggest blacks have better overall football agility, have better burst, jump better vertically, are better students of sports, have better strength overall etc. In fact I think whites are the best all round athletes in the world. I think the evidence on this board proves that whites have advantages over blacks in many areas athletically and we are "WAY" underrated athletically as a race.

I am by no means a black supremacist, but I think if we continue to say that every single black that makes the Olympic semi-finals at 100 meters is a juicer and none of the top whites are we look biased.

I personally think the Americans were clean for the most part this Olympics due to the new Pilot Program which is why we couldn't compete with Jamaica this Olympics. Walter Dix ran a 9.91 at the Olympics and I think there is a good chance he is clean if he was in fact in the Pilot program. He hasn't run faster since. It may have just been the perfect race in the right lane trying to catch that "Bolt of Lightning".Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[StarWars]

O.k my theory to answer McHale is that the biggest cheater nations since 1988 have been America, Canada and the Caribbean nations. Yes, I agree that Greece has been big on cheating and you could probably throw in another Euro nation or two as "big time cheaters". But in recent history European countries like England and Germany have put forth the toughest testing methods on record against steroids.

America has finally caught up for the most part now with the Pilot Program. This may be why we weren't nearly as dominant in the short track events this Olympics. But the Pilot Program is not mandatory yet (as of my last source I checked) as it should be. We will see soon if this "Pilot Program" will result in America continuing to not be competitive with Jamaica in short sprints in the near future. I suspect Jamaica will continue to dominate until international governing bodies install a mandatory Pilot type program forcing them to change. Jamaica is big on PED use!

I think due to higher rates of ACTN3 mutations in non sub-Saharan African groups and also higher testosterone level averages, even amongst elite black athletes, blacks may respond better to steroid use. Blacks can also take on more Herculean type workout regiments with the use of steroids that they formerly couldn't have done due to having less aerobic capacity and endurance than whites on average amongst the elites.

Of course with the huge pool of population to pull from there are lots of white athletes with no ACTN3 mutation, so the first point out of those may be moot.

My theory is that "without steroids" a white sprinter will due no better than 9.9-9.95 with the ideal race in ideal conditions and a black freak sprinter like Bolt (ridiculously talented, but almost definitely juiced IMO) would do no better than 9.75-9.8.

I think for the most part in the 60s and 70s and up though the mid 80s (when roiding really took off), that other than some white freaks on the end of the bell curve like Mennea and Borzov in their days, the most elite black sprinters averaged about 0.10-0.15 seconds faster over 100 meters than the whites. This is compared to the 0.30 or so of today.

Whites seem to have the tendency for being slightly better world class athletes for acceleration up to 10-20 meters from the research I've looked at. We do just as good at 400 meters (if not better) and definitely surpass sub-Saharan Africans by 800 meters due to our better endurance and aerobic capacity.

I believe this has to due with Blacks having a tendency to have slightly longer limbs and also tend to get slightly better leg lift when running IMO. I think this is b/c blacks have a genetic predisposition for slightly stronger hamstring muscles and whites have a predisposition for thicker and/or stronger quad muscles.

I am willing to concede a slight advantage from 20 meters up until 300 meters or so to the elite black athlete over the white one. However, there is no evidence to suggest blacks have better overall football agility, have better burst, jump better vertically, are better students of sports, have better strength overall etc. In fact I think whites are the best all round athletes in the world. I think the evidence on this board proves that whites have advantages over blacks in many areas athletically and we are "WAY" underrated athletically as a race.

I am by no means a black supremacist, but I think if we continue to say that every single black that makes the Olympic semi-finals at 100 meters is a juicer and none of the top whites are we look biased.

I personally think the Americans were clean for the most part this Olympics due to the new Pilot Program which is why we couldn't compete with Jamaica this Olympics. Walter Dix ran a 9.91 at the Olympics and I think there is a good chance he is clean if he was in fact in the Pilot program. He hasn't run faster since. It may have just been the perfect race in the right lane trying to catch that "Bolt of Lightning".

You know, TJR, you make many good points. Ill bet steroids do effect black athletes more after doing research on what youve said. Also I can agree that their advantage is in their joints and hamstrings, while our advantage is in our quads and muscle.

But you say we are slower after 20 meters. Considering the strength or drive phase of a sprint is 40 meters I'd say your note even close there. I think you are trying in the back of your head to reconcile 40 times when in reality football players are slow. I love football, and play it, but whenever I or another good track player plays it we have so much ease running around the kids who think they run 4.5s. A 4.4 40 is probably closer to a 4.7 or 4.8 40 on a track with a reaction to a starting gun.

0 to 40 meters: white people
40 to 60 meters: maybe slightly black but could be myth
60 to 100 meters: how much you train

So we should be a lot closer in the 100 meter. Black athletes from the US and Carribean comprise most of the cheaters. But certainly some or most are clean.

 

[j41181]

I don't see any difference between black or white sprinters, or in any sport. The reason there are far more black sprinters, football players, and basketball players, is due to the fact they are just given much, much more opportunities than whites. Not to mention the powers behind the success of these black athletes. And when you throw in the dopes and steroids, with blacks having an unusually fair advantage to dodge the anti-doping authorities (no question that many blacks are also clean and fair), then they will always seem better than whites. No matter how hard, and determined whites train.

 

[waterbed]

O.k my theory to answer McHale is that the biggest cheater nations since 1988 have been America, Canada and the Caribbean nations. Yes, I agree that Greece has been big on cheating and you could probably throw in another Euro nation or two as "big time cheaters". But in recent history European countries like England and Germany have put forth the toughest testing methods on record against steroids.

America has finally caught up for the most part now with the Pilot Program. This may be why we weren't nearly as dominant in the short track events this Olympics. But the Pilot Program is not mandatory yet (as of my last source I checked) as it should be. We will see soon if this "Pilot Program" will result in America continuing to not be competitive with Jamaica in short sprints in the near future. I suspect Jamaica will continue to dominate until international governing bodies install a mandatory Pilot type program forcing them to change. Jamaica is big on PED use!

I think due to higher rates of ACTN3 mutations in non sub-Saharan African groups and also higher testosterone level averages, even amongst elite black athletes, blacks may respond better to steroid use. Blacks can also take on more Herculean type workout regiments with the use of steroids that they formerly couldn't have done due to having less aerobic capacity and endurance than whites on average amongst the elites.

Of course with the huge pool of population to pull from there are lots of white athletes with no ACTN3 mutation, so the first point out of those may be moot.

My theory is that "without steroids" a white sprinter will due no better than 9.9-9.95 with the ideal race in ideal conditions and a black freak sprinter like Bolt (ridiculously talented, but almost definitely juiced IMO) would do no better than 9.75-9.8.

I think for the most part in the 60s and 70s and up though the mid 80s (when roiding really took off), that other than some white freaks on the end of the bell curve like Mennea and Borzov in their days, the most elite black sprinters averaged about 0.10-0.15 seconds faster over 100 meters than the whites. This is compared to the 0.30 or so of today.

Whites seem to have the tendency for being slightly better world class athletes for acceleration up to 10-20 meters from the research I've looked at. We do just as good at 400 meters (if not better) and definitely surpass sub-Saharan Africans by 800 meters due to our better endurance and aerobic capacity.

I believe this has to due with Blacks having a tendency to have slightly longer limbs and also tend to get slightly better leg lift when running IMO. I think this is b/c blacks have a genetic predisposition for slightly stronger hamstring muscles and whites have a predisposition for thicker and/or stronger quad muscles.

I am willing to concede a slight advantage from 20 meters up until 300 meters or so to the elite black athlete over the white one. However, there is no evidence to suggest blacks have better overall football agility, have better burst, jump better vertically, are better students of sports, have better strength overall etc. In fact I think whites are the best all round athletes in the world. I think the evidence on this board proves that whites have advantages over blacks in many areas athletically and we are "WAY" underrated athletically as a race.

I am by no means a black supremacist, but I think if we continue to say that every single black that makes the Olympic semi-finals at 100 meters is a juicer and none of the top whites are we look biased.

I personally think the Americans were clean for the most part this Olympics due to the new Pilot Program which is why we couldn't compete with Jamaica this Olympics. Walter Dix ran a 9.91 at the Olympics and I think there is a good chance he is clean if he was in fact in the Pilot program. He hasn't run faster since. It may have just been the perfect race in the right lane trying to catch that "Bolt of Lightning".

You know, TJR, you make many good points. Ill bet steroids do effect black athletes more after doing research on what youve said. Also I can agree that their advantage is in their joints and hamstrings, while our advantage is in our quads and muscle.

But you say we are slower after 20 meters. Considering the strength or drive phase of a sprint is 40 meters I'd say your note even close there. I think you are trying in the back of your head to reconcile 40 times when in reality football players are slow. I love football, and play it, but whenever I or another good track player plays it we have so much ease running around the kids who think they run 4.5s. A 4.4 40 is probably closer to a 4.7 or 4.8 40 on a track with a reaction to a starting gun.

0 to 40 meters: white people
40 to 60 meters: maybe slightly black but could be myth
60 to 100 meters: how much you train

So we should be a lot closer in the 100 meter. Black athletes from the US and Carribean comprise most of the cheaters. But certainly some or most are clean.

I agree with a lot of you Starwars but not on the end speed of a 100 meter.you do it seems like that top speed has no influence in your end speed of a 100 meter.but of course it has especially in the 100 meter where the deceleration is nearly nothing for top sprinters.

 

[StarWars]

That is a good point waterbed. The deceleration does depend on top speed a lot. Even so, the top speed of blacks is either slightly better or equal to that of whites, and whites are better and stronger starters. I think whites should probably be around 9.85-9.9 when very elite and blacks should be around 9.75 to 9.8. certainly the 100 meter is the perfect race for black people in that it largely depends on top end speed, but saying speed endurance is irrelavent is wrong, even for elite sprinters. Whites should be doing better in track, and blacks should be doing worse but are not because they hae steroids and probably feel it is more feasible for them to persue the sport or run fast compared to whites. Steroids probably do effect them more too. Our larger population, genetic variation, strong starts, plyometric ability esp. in high jump, strength, and training ability should get us more medals than blacks. All they have is top speed.

 

[white is right]

I do not see you supporting white sprinters or athletes. Whites are bashed on just about every web site. This is one place where we support them. Kevin McHale needs to either stop being constantly critical of white athletes or find another board. You are going overboard in your attack on white sprinters and athletes in general. Many other boards would welcome you as you think just like they do.

We are not brain washed here. Whites used to win medals and set olympic/world records back in the day. We can compete again and will in the near future if some of the cheats can be caught. From Justin Gatlin to Tim Montgomerey, they are cheating left and right. Especially in Jamaica. If you don't like it, then find a new board to post on. The truth will come out eventually and guys like Asafa and Usain will be caught. It is only a matter of time.

Mchale's Navy has been on this board in other forms. He was Maximus, Manifest Destiny and other "pro white terms". He will be back. I have no clue whether he is a white self loather or a black "super fan". I do know that he believes in black sprinting supremacy and isn't willing to concede that Jamaica has become the new East Germany. like Brutal and other black sprinting supremacists all he cares about is the end results. His head is in the sand on the how to....

 

[Guest]

I get really sick of people saying that blacks have higher testosterone levels than whites. I've seen no legitimate study that even suggests this and can basically guarantee it isn't true. Further, if you're going to talk about something like that you would have to compare one ethnic group to another not take a sample of one very specific kind of white and use that as your sample for the entire white race...same with black sampling.

Irrespective of the average testosterone levels of whites as a whole, I can assure you that there are White men with testosterone levels as high (and almost certainly higher) than anyone. Thus, there are White athletes who will respond to steroids as well or better than anyone.

Same goes for the supposed black advantage in hamstring and glute strength and size. Even if whites were at a disadvantage on average (I'm skeptical of even this) there is certainly enough genetic diversity within the White race that white athletes can be the best at anything and everything. I know for a fact there are white men with asses and hamstrings as strong, huge, and muscular as any you'll find (probably more so), complete with high cut calves and all the trappings of a natural speed athlete.Edited by: Latspread

 

[white lightning]

Great post Latspread. I agree with you 100%! People just cannot imagine the thought that a white athlete is on a level playing field with a black athlete. The mental brainwashing of whites in general for the last 4-5 decades has helped to push the declining rate of white athletes participating. Hell if it were not for Europe, almost all sprinters would be black. Most countries like America just push whites away from athletics in general.

With the moderate to good success that they have had in Europe from small countries, imagine what they could do if the whites in america fell in love with sprinting. Try taking almost 200 million whites and then you will be talking. Hell even Australia has had stars. Only in the USA is there no white talent to be found. Why? Because the powers that be want to keep it that way. No one is looking out for white sprinters/athletes in the US. This must stop. We need more Wariner types to inspire the youth to take up track. Just like we need more McGuffie types in football, and Hansborough types in basketball.

 

[StarWars]

I get really sick of people saying that blacks have higher testosterone levels than whites. I've seen no legitimate study that even suggests this and can basically guarantee it isn't true. Further, if you're going to talk about something like that you would have to compare one ethnic group to another not take a sample of one very specific kind of white and use that as your sample for the entire white race...same with black sampling.

Irrespective of the average testosterone levels of whites as a whole, I can assure you that there are White men with testosterone levels as high (and almost certainly higher) than anyone. Thus, there are White athletes who will respond to steroids as well or better than anyone.

Same goes for the supposed black advantage in hamstring and glute strength and size. Even if whites were at a disadvantage on average (I'm skeptical of even this) there is certainly enough genetic diversity within the White race that white athletes can be the best at anything and everything. I know for a fact there are white men with asses and hamstrings as strong, huge, and muscular as any you'll find (probably more so), complete with high cut calves and all the trappings of a natural speed athlete.

Precisely. We are stronger, quicker, more explosive athletes. I would i have seen many blacks with good balance which indicates tendon and hamstring strength, while we are more explosive and stronger, though. It is extremely possible that better white runningbacks are overlooked distorting my opinion on this. Either way, we should AT LEAST be on even ground as blacks in the 100 meter. Why else are European whites so much faster and more athletic than Americans? Why do all the basketball players derive from Eadtern Europe? Why is the second fastest African a white man? Why do only ELITE blacks test postive for roids compared to ELITE whites? We got the same genes, but Europeans have more chances than us.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

O.K, to answer Latspread. I did admit that my point about the ACTN3 gene may be moot (I was basically playing Devil's advocate about steroids having a stronger effect on blacks in a second way, instead of saying that basically all the top blacks are cheating and the top whites are not). I read only 10% of sub-Saharan blacks have the mutation of the ACTN3 gene that causes the effect of less fast twitch muscles and more endurance. East Asians have the highest rate of this mutation causing them to be be much less likely to be purely explosive athletes. I forget what the Caucasian rates were precisely, I read the report a while ago, I think it may have been 40% of whites without this mutation- this is still 40% of 70% U.S demographics (28% of the population), which is still higher than the 90% of the black 13% population. This would give us plenty of fast twitch white athletes to draw from.

My main point is that from a few reads I have done and just watching athletics, I believe that whites have an edge in quad strength and blacks in hamstring strength amongst the elites. Blacks having a tendency for longer limbs also helps with their stride at 100 meters. They have a higher rate of elite athletes with hamstring strength advantages who also have longer legs to draw from in the population. And with steroids they can bulk up their hamstring muscles even more than before, which increases their hamstring strength advantage tendency.

Whites dominate many track events including the high jump which uses precise skill, quad and calf strength and a lower ratio of pure hamstring strength than the 100 meter and long jump (the hamstring is very important for getting great leg lift). Whites also prove to be the best all round athletes by winning the decathlon the most, and we are just as good (if not slightly better) football players. We are the best power-lifters, probably prove better as MMA fighters and we are now dominating the heavier weights in boxing. We are now also becoming more competitive in the long jump yet again!

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Observer]

TJR, good post above summarizing many things. I poked around a little, and I think the below is about the most recent on the testosterone situation. Happy Easter to you also.
----------
Adult black and white American men have the same testosterone levels. Earlier studies were not using comparable population samples. Black men do have, however, higher levels of the FEMALE hormone estrogen. Mexican-American men have higher testosterone levels than whites and blacks.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jc.2007-00 28v1

"Serum Estrogen, but not Testosterone Levels Differ between Black and White men in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans

...Previous studies comparing hormone levels by race might have been limited by size, restricted age variation, or lack of representation of the general population.
...
Results: After applying sampling weights and adjusting for age, percent body fat, alcohol, smoking, and activity, testosterone concentrations were not different between non-Hispanic blacks (n=363; geometric mean 5.29 ng/mL) and non-Hispanic whites (n=674; 5.11 ng/mL; p>0.05) but was higher in Mexican-Americans (n=376; 5.48 ng/mL). Non-Hispanic blacks (40.80 pg/mL) had a higher estradiol concentration than non-Hispanic whites (35.46 pg/mL; p<0.01) and Mexican-Americans (34.11 pg/mL, p<0.01). Non-Hispanic blacks (36.49 nmol/L) had a higher SHBG concentration than non-Hispanic whites (34.91 nmol/L; p<0.05) and Mexican-Americans (35.04 nmol/L).

Conclusions: Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men. However, blacks had higher estradiol levels. Mexican-Americans had higher testosterone than whites, but similar estradiol and SHBG concentrations. Given these findings, it may be equally, if not more important to investigate estradiol as testosterone in relation to diseases with racial disparity."Edited by: Observer

 

[dwid]

from what ive read the only group with higher testosterone levels are mexicans, which really isnt a race, and they arent that explosive when it comes to athleticism

edit: someone beat me to it

and from what ive read about the ACTN3 gene, it doesnt really mean you wont be explosive. I think it all depends on what you train for and what type of body frame you have. You can't narrow it down to one gene, genetics are very complex. Theres different exercises to work out the different muscle fibers.

"Importantly, the latter two studies suggest that the proportion of the variance in strength and sprint performance in the general population explained by the ACTN3 variant is around 2-3%. So for most of us lazy slobs this gene has a pretty trivial effect - almost completely drowned out by noise from the effects of diet, exercise levels and other genes. (Certainly there are dozens or even hundreds of other genes influencing physical performance, some of which - like the ACE gene - have been fairly well-studied, but most of which are completely unknown and uncharacterised; and environmental factors play about as large a role as genes do in traits like muscle strength and cardiorespiratory performance.)"

"The difference in frequency between Jamaicans and Europeans is not as great as it would appear. The articles quoted above describe the proportion of individuals who have two copies of the 577R ("sprint") version of the gene; a more appropriate comparison is the proportion of individuals who have at least one copy of 577R (that is, including both R/R and R/X individuals), since it's only the complete absence of α-actinin-3 that is reliably associated with reduced sprint performance. This starts to look less impressive: it's 98% in Jamaicans compared to about 82% in Europeans. In other words, in both populations a sizeable majority of individuals have an ACTN3 status compatible with elite sprint performance."

"The ACTN3 frequency reported for the Jamaicans by Morrison is not unique to Jamaicans, nor is it particularly surprising - our group has previously reported virtually identical frequencies in individuals from both West Africa (the ancestral source of the bulk of the Jamaican gene pool) and East Africa, in a collaboration with the same group at the University of Glasgow that Morrison has been working with on the Jamaican study. In fact, that study showed that an even higher frequency of α-actinin-3 expression (99%) is found in Kenya - in members of tribes whose members dominate international long-distance events, but have a notable dearth of representatives in track sprinting; we have more recently found similarly low frequencies in populations across sub-Saharan Africa. There's simply no clear relationship between the frequency of this variant in a population and its capacity to produce sprinting superstars."

"the effects of almost any genetic variant you have depends on the context - dozens or possibly hundreds of other genetic variants in your genome. You may have the RX combination of ACTN3 variants, but whether you are a great sprinter almost surely depends on variants in many other genes (and of course environmental factors). With a 'bad' combination of other genes, your ACTN3 RX genotype may be meaningless, and in fact you may be a better distance runner than sprinter. The research done by the University of Sydney group showed that the RX ACTN3 genotype probably had an impact in some elite athletes, but certainly not all, and the study said nothing about those who are non-elite athletes"

"Let's look at the numbers from the study: 52% of the 'control', non-elite-athletic subjects were RX, 45% of elite sprinters were RX, and 45% of the endurance runners were RX. If you look at just females, the differences are more pronounced: 50% of controls were RX, compared with 57% of sprinters and 35% percent of distance runners. In males, the distribution was reversed: only 39% of sprinters were RX and 52% of distance runners were RX.

In other words, if you pick any one individual out of the study and look at that person's ACTN3 genotype, it doesn't tell you very much."Edited by: dwid

 

[StarWars]

You guys make several good points. The studies sourced above indicate that although the average Jamaican may be predisposed to sprinting compared to the average white, we still have a vast majority of our people predisposed to the gane ACTN3, and other sprinting genes. Becasue our population is greater, we have just as much or more potntial to be sprinters than black athletes. Not only this, but we are more explosive and stronger, which is why we are so quick and good starters. Sure, there are white guys who are predisposed to be longer distance runners compared to West Africans but worse than East Africans because of altitude and probably height; but as far as sprinting is concernned most of our population (roughly 3/4 or 82% above) is born to sprint.Edited by: StarWars

 

[j41181]

You folks have all made outstanding points about whites being born athletes and sprinters. But sadly, I doubt the average white folk will even buy such beliefs. Most are DWF's, so when one sees either a Dirk Nowitzki, a Klitschko, or a Jeremy Wariner, the reaction would be: "their nothing compared to my Lebron James, Lennox Lewis, or Usain Bolt." My brother and father both dismiss the Klitschkos as great boxers, and I'm the only one in my family who thinks they are brilliant (quite a shame).

So as truthful and awe-inspiring your statements are, it all depends now of the successes these current white star athletes, and those of the near future. To inspire and motivate a new generation of young whites to excel in whatever sport they choose to take up. Edited by: j41181

 

[StarWars]

You folks have all made outstanding points about whites being born athletes and sprinters. But sadly, I doubt the average white folk will even buy such beliefs. Most are DWF's, so when one sees either a Dirk Nowitzki, a Klitschko, or a Jeremy Wariner, the reaction would be: "their nothing compared to my Lebron James, Lennox Lewis, or Usain Bolt." My brother and father both dismiss the Klitschkos as great boxers, and I'm the only one in my family who thinks they are brilliant (quite a shame).

So as truthful and awe-inspiring your statements are, it all depends now of the successes these current white star athletes, and those of the near future. To inspire and motivate a new generation of young whites to excel in whatever sport they choose to take up.

My goal is for a few people to read this thread and wake up. Then they will tell the people they know, and so on. I may be just a dreamer though

.