Be careful to accept in absolutism any study that invlovles race these days, esp. when involving blacks.What study from that 90'sar youreferring to? What was the sample size used for both groups black and white. Were the athletes trained or untrained or both? I'm not saying that there isnothing to be learned from their observations but only question the vaildity of such sweeping conlusions.For instance, any one remeber the Cornell University study that conlsuded that whites were gentically inferior to blacks because, after observing a sample size less than thirty people, they lacked diversity and were more susceptible to illness (all of which was total hate filled, Marxist baloney, btw)?
What is the motive here? When we observe black dominance in some field,say certain sports, the scientificcommunity will look for genetic reasons to validate it. But when whites dominate some aspect of society, say academic success, sociologists will postulate white racism and denounce the Bell curve. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice
ffice" />
Back to fast twitch lore: We can sure as heck find evidence on our side refuting thatblacks have more of thise kind of muscle; a muscle that has now been locked into black athletic lore along with having "extra" muscles and in their calves that make them jump higher. How about the highfast twitch fiber makeup of Olympic lifters, all of whom are white? How about the study that observed Olympic lifters untrained in the sprintsout perform black spirnters over 20 meters at the 1960 Mexico Games?What those studies don't bother to talk about here is the environmanetal and social factors. I guess all that fast twitch black fiber is the reason why they dominate the mail delivery industry too.
Edited by: Alpha Male
