Do French Women tend to be less endowed than other Women?

"Jeremy Henderson" :

1 Are slim
2 Dress well
3 Smell like heaven
4 Fcuk like rattlesnakes
5 Don't rush off to the shower after sex (see 3)

I could not decipher 4. What the **** is fcuk?

Rejnold Byzio wrote in
:

"Jeremy Henderson" :

1 Are slim
2 Dress well
3 Smell like heaven
4 Fcuk like rattlesnakes
5 Don't rush off to the shower after sex (see 3)

I could not decipher 4. What the **** is fcuk?


a design house French Connection UK LOL (really)

Earl Evleth writes:

You don`t have too, many are accessible by the web. The one I cited
I had posted before, so I had it at hand. Not in my files but
a google group search and a key word will bring up immediately
that information.

Why do you assume that finding something on the Web makes it credible?

Basically, Maxi, you don`t seem to be organized.

You seem to resort regularly to personal attacks when you cannot or will
not provide more cogent and relevant arguments.

It is CDC data, and I seem to remember the methodology given?

All I see is a page of figures.

Basically, this data is not recorded by a Fed Gov agency on a regular
basis so a large number of Whites and Blacks are not monitored
and that makes the data weak.

I agree.

Memory if faulty and plastic, it changes with time.

Whereas the Web is entirely reliable.

His basic conclusion is that there is a lot of myth involved in
supposing that a certain race is naturally superior are this or that.

Then how does he explain racial disparities in sports?

Lets take the current idea that east Africans are better natural runners
than anybody else in the world. True or not true?

Certain Africans are ridiculously overrepresented in certain running
events. That fact cannot be disputed. So how would you explain it?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:53:44 +0100, Jeremy Henderson
wrote:


I'll make a definite point of making the appropriate
anthropologically-inspired observations in future ...


Come on, that's not funny at all. Stereotypes make this thread bigger
:-)

Jeremy Henderson wrote:


Lets not forget the rest of the stereotypes. French women:

1 Are slim
2 Dress well
3 Smell like heaven
4 Fcuk like rattlesnakes

That presents some curious images in my mind, and I have to ask if that is a
good thing or bad.



5 Don't rush off to the shower after sex (see 3)

Have I missed one?

J;

On 10/01/04 21:52, in article , "Jeremy
Henderson" wrote:

Maybe I'm just living in ignorance and prejudice here, but I would have
thought it obvious that there are differences between races that have
implications for sports. For example Ethiopians and Kenyans dominating long
distance running. West Africans (and their descendents?) seem to be heavier
built and do better in sprints.


I chased down that one too, and found a British investigator, expert in
sports who went over the running abilities of some east African groups.`

Here is what I found and previously posted. But basically, don`t
swallow racist arguments easily, they are too easy to believe.
I should note that I am a scientist by training and conditioned to
ask questions. This whole issue is not that simple.

Earl

$$$$

If you google "sports, blacks, genetics" you`ll get virtually no
academic web site hits. Occasionally one will run into a "wait a minute"
analysis--

for instance ------ from a Brit. A pretty good one and recommending
that we not forget that champions train. We should not short change
them by concluding that is not important and only genes count. Most
recently I have the example of Lance Armstrong in mind-almost pure
grit. We should celebrate that and not skin color.


******

What research tells us about African runners : are they really genetically
more gifted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

African runners are genetically superior to white runners . Compared to
whites, blacks are better suited for sports which involve short, explosive
bursts of energy. Individuals from West Africa 'make' good sprinters,* while
people from East Africa are endurance types..

Those are strong statements. Many people believe them. And implicit in the
statements are two inferences that usually remain unstated: (1) If* blacks
are physically exceptional, then they don't have to go through the mental
turmoil of constructing a rigorous training programme; they can just let
their bodies work their magic. (2) Whites are at a disadvantage. Since
they're handicapped by bad genes, and therefore by their anatomy and
physiology, they will never be able to compete equally with Africans..

Of course, believers in black 'super-genes' haven't been able to explain
exactly how Africans have managed to corner the market on superior genetic
material. When the Finns dominated the running world in the 1920s and again
in the 1970s, no loud voices proclaimed that Finnish runners were
genetically superior. Instead we pondered the merits of reindeer milk and
called Lasse Viren a potential blood doper. When the Brits dominated
middle-distance running in the 1950s and 1980s, there was no talk about
brilliant British genetic material. Rather, we heard about British pluck and
hard work. And when the Chinese women ran wild in 1993, it was because they
were drugged, not because red-hot genetic material had fired up their
performances. But now that Africans are running wild, the genetics lessons
begin. Somehow, Providence has chosen to bless only African runners with
top-quality DNA..

Opinions, not facts
It's time for a reality check. Although beliefs about genetic differences
between African and non-African runners are widely held, it's important to
remember that these beliefs are opinions - and nothing more. There's simply
no scientific evidence to support the idea that African runners are
genetically superior to European, North American, Asian, or South American
athletes..

Why isn't there any evidence? At present, we don't even know WHICH genes are
necessary for topflight performances! Since we don't know which genes are
important, it's impossible to measure the relative frequencies of
performance-enhancing genes in different groups of athletes. In addition, as
explained at the end of this article, the available scientific research
suggests that genetic factors are less important than non-genetic factors
(including training and lifestyle) in determining performances..

Still, when Mr. Gebrselassie of Ethiopia rips through the 5K in a
world-record 12:44 or Mr. Kiptanui from Kenya slashes the 3000-metre
steeplechase mark, the familiar refrain begins again: Africans have the most
slender upper bodies, the thinnest bones, the most rail-thin calves, the
most tent-like lungs and the most reservoir-like, elephantine hearts - all
because they have the optimal genetic make-ups. As a result, we don't need
to concern ourselves too much with how the Africans train, or how they think
about running, or what motivates them to run far ahead of everyone else.
It's enough to believe that they were born with a vast talent which places
them head and shoulders above the pack..

Why? Now ask them how?

Continuing to rely on the 'genetic explanation' for African superiority has
negative consequences. After Africans win the vast majority of distance
medals at the Atlanta Olympics - as they inevitably will - and then return
to their continent, anyone saying that they won their hardware because of
their genes is giving a huge insult to their untiring work and relentless
motivation. And summoning up the hocus-pocus of genetic differences makes
the running community less eager to actually learn something useful from the
top African runners . You've probably noticed that people aren't exactly
beating down the Africans' doors in order to understand how to train, even
though the Africans have blown the socks off runners from the rest of the
world. Instead, we continue to 'learn' from the same old coaches and gurus
who have worked with and trained runners considerably slower than the
current crop of Africans..

That's a bit strange. In the business world, we ask the top executives how
they've managed to make their companies so successful. In the medical field,
we ask the very best surgeons specific questions about their surgical
techniques. But do we ask the Africans for training information? Why is it
so much more convenient to believe that Africans have risen to the top
because of inborn talent?

What the research actually says

There are just three relevant studies in the scientific literature that have
examined physiological differences between Africans and non-Africans, and
none of the three actually looked specifically at gene quality. That's no
surprise; since, as mentioned, scientists don't actually know which genes
code for endurance performance, they can't possibly determine whether
Africans have a lockhold on superior genetic material. We don't know what
'superior genetic material' actually is..

So, instead of looking at actual genetic differences, scientists have made
inferences about genes based on the physiological differences which they
detect between blacks and whites. In a study carried out by Claude Bouchard
and his group at Laval University in Quebec, 23 black male students and 23
Caucasian male students were compared. The black students hailed from
Cameroon, Senegal, Zaire, the Ivory Coast and Burundi (mainly, that is, from
the western and central parts of Africa), while the Caucasians were born in
Canada and were of French descent. Both the Africans and Caucasians had an
average age of 25, weighed about 154 pounds and were about 5'9' tall. All
the students were sedentary at the time of the study..

No gene frequencies were measured, but Bouchard found that both groups had
the same percentage (about 18 percent) of type IIb muscle fibres - the cells
which are critically important for sprinting (so much for the idea that
western Africans have muscles uniquely suited for high-speed running!).
There were two key differences in muscle composition between whites and
blacks: Caucasians had a higher percentage of type I cells (41 vs. 33
percent), while Africans checked in with more type IIa muscles (49 vs. 42
percent). As you know, type I fibres are great for prolonged, moderate-speed
endurance performance, as in an event like the marathon, while IIa cells
promote faster running times in shorter events like the 5K..

Although Africans had more IIa cells and fewer type I cells, we can't say
that these differences are genetically based. For one thing, studies show
that muscle fibre type is not tightly regulated by genes. Also, an
individual's muscle-fibre composition can change over time. IIb fibres can
probably become IIa cells, and IIa cells may be able to become type I
fibres. Thus, it's impossible to say that the blacks' higher frequency of
IIa fibres was a genetic thing..

The only other key difference between the Africans and Canadians was that
blacks had higher concentrations of 'anaerobic' muscle enzymes, which are
chemicals that spur the production of energy during short, intense running,
whereas whites showed up with greater levels of 'aerobic' enzymes needed for
continuous, endurance exercise. Again, there's no reason to conclude that
these physiological differences are caused by genetic differences. The
increased anaerobic-enzyme density in blacks might have simply been the
result of their higher frequency of IIa cells..

The Laval scientists concluded that 'black individuals are, in terms of
skeletal muscle characteristics, well endowed for sport events of short
duration'. That's a somewhat shaky conclusion, since blacks and whites had
exactly the same concentrations of IIb cells, the ones which are critical
for sprinting, although it was true that blacks had higher amounts of
anaerobic enzymes. As mentioned, it was impossible to say why the blacks'
muscles were more tilted toward IIa fibres and away from type I cells. It
might have been genetics, but it might have been the result of lifestyle,
too..

What Tim Noakes found...

In a separate study carried out several years ago, Tim Noakes and his
colleagues at the University of Capetown compared elite black vs. elite*
white South-African runners . Although both groups had similar 5-K times
(about 13:45), the blacks were considerably faster in 10-K and half-marathon
races. VO2max, running economy, maximal running velocity, training mileage
and the percentage of type I muscle cells were exactly the same in the two
groups, but there were some differences: (1) blacks ate more calories and
carbohydrate per pound of body weight, compared to whites, (2) blacks
trained considerably faster than whites, (3) blacks produced less lactate
while running at race speeds, and (4) blacks were quite a bit shorter than
whites (5'6' vs. 5'11') and weighed less (123 vs. 154 pounds)..

Note that only point four can be firmly pinned to genetics. Body height -
although influenced by the environment - is fairly strongly determined by
genes, and body weight tends to follow from height. Eating more calories and
carbohydrate (point 1) is a lifestyle factor. Running at higher training
speeds (point 2) often is part of an overall training
**** philosophy that emphasises intensity rather than volume and is not
necessarily coupled with a particular genetic constitution. Producing less
lactate while running at high velocities (point 3) might simply be a
long-term result of the more intense training carried out by blacks.
Overall, Noakes' work provided no solid evidence that blacks were
genetically different from whites..

*...and Bengt Saltin

The most revealing study on this topic was carried out by the renowned
Swedish exercise physiologist, Bengt Saltin, who compared sedentary
adolescent Kenyans, Kenyan high school runners and elite Kenyan runners with
top-level Scandinavian runners . Saltin unearthed a number of important
facts. First, relatively sedentary adolescent Kenyans had exactly the same
aerobic capacities as sedentary Danish teenagers. If the Kenyans were really
genetically superior, you would expect them to have higher VO2max than their
Scandinavian counterparts (unless their 'superhuman' genes only revealed
themselves in response to training)..

Second, young Kenyan runners trained with astonishing intensity: About 50 to
60 percent of their total mileage was done at heart rates of 90 percent of
maximum or higher! This was significantly higher than the Scandinavians'
total and is much higher than anything European and American runners do
generally..

Third, and following directly from point two, Kenyan runners - including the
high schoolers - were more economical than the elite Scandinavians and also
produced less lactate during high-speed running. This makes sense: one of
the best ways to boost economy is to train fast, and the Kenyans have the
corner on intense training. Also, fast training boosts the aerobic qualities
of fast-twitch, type IIa muscle cells and lowers their lactate output, which
probably explains why the Kenyans have lower lactate levels during strenuous
running. Since high lactates are associated with fatigue, that's a very good
thing! The fourth finding - a critical one for our discussion of whether the
Kenyans have a genetic edge - was that sedentary adolescent Kenyans had
VO2max readings of 47 (the same as Scandinavians), very active (but
non-training) Kenyan teenagers had VO2max of about 62, and seriously
training high school Kenyan runners checked in with average VO2max of 65 to
68. Senior elite Kenyan runners have had their VO2max levels measured at 75
to 85. This progression in aerobic capacities from the mid-40s to high-70s
and low-80s is exactly the same as the one observed in Americans (sedentary
American youth have VO2maxame in Kenyans as it is in Americans! In addition,
as high school Kenyans become elite senior runners , they increase their
number of blood vessels per muscle cell and also enhance the concentrations
of energy-producing aerobic enzymes inside their muscle cells. Those are
natural* responses to hard training and aren't necessarily caused by
superior genes..

Calling all Kalenjins

Proponents of the genetic theory often point out that of the more than 35
tribal groups in Kenya, a single tribe - the Kalenjins - has produced most
of the great runners (Lelei, Loroupe, Kiptanui, Keino, Kiprotich, Cheromei,
Sang, Rono, etc.). The Kalenjins were traditionally a pastoral people who
roamed the beautiful Rift Valley of Kenya with their cattle, so one might
argue that genes which enhanced the ability to move long distances were
'selected' over evolutionary time. In contrast, members of another large
Kenyan tribe, the Luo, have traditionally fished for a living and have
produced few top runners ..

However, political and social forces inside the country tend to favour the
development of Kalenjins at the expense of other tribes. In spite of this,
the recent trend in Kenyan running has been for non-Kalenjins (Ndeti, Kamau,
Kinuthia, Masya, Osano, Asiago, Osoro, Karori, etc.) to become more
prominent as time goes by, rather than for Kalenjins to increase their
dominance. Most notably, the Kikuyu tribe, always a fine source of running
talent (five-time world champion John Ngugi is Kikuyu), is beginning to
produce more and more excellent runners , even though the Kikuyus have not
interbred with Kalenjins and historically were not a nomadic people. In
fact, running talent may be fairly equally distributed among Kenya's tribes.
In other words, the Kalenjin-genetic hypothesis weakens once you take a
closer look at what's really going on. How could so many different groups
of non-interbreeding people produce top runners , if genetic factors were
really the paramount factor?

So what's the real reason?

If genes aren't responsible, what accounts for the difference between
African and non-African running? The African approach to training differs
from the American-European method in a number of ways, including intensity
(Africans usually train more intensely but with less mileage), the amount of
hill training (there's no comparison here; the Africans are almost always
working on hills), periodisation (Africans vary their training more -
favouring big upswings and then gentle troughs; in fact, many Africans take
a month or two away from running while their American and European peers
continue to plug away without a break), and diet (Africans eat more
carbohydrate, less protein, and less fat). Africans also benefit from a
decade-long 'base' period - just running back and forth to junior school at
moderate speeds - before they take up serious running, while Americans and
Europeans tend to simply plunge into competition in more senior school
without a prolonged, strength-boosting build-up..

Many of these factors have already been studied in scientific settings.
We know that intensity is the most potent producer of fitness, yet American
and European runners still preach the merits of high mileage. We know that
hill training is better than flat-ground running, yet American and European
runners often limit hill work to once a week. We know that the African diet
is more conducive to elite performances, yet American and European runners
continue to edge toward more protein and fat..

In addition, our book on periodisation - how to structure training over
rather prolonged periods of time in order to produce the best-possible
performances - is still empty, or - rather - it's filled with lots of theory
and little hard data, so it's perhaps in this area that the Africans can be
our pragmatic teachers. It's clear that the African pattern of very hard
work followed by very thorough rest fits better with human physiology than
the American and European scheme of hard work - and then more hard work. The
human body always reaches optimal functioning more readily when stress is
combined with recovery, rather than when stress is continuously kept at a
taxing level..

The bottom line?

Rather than speculating about superior genes, let's ask world champions like
Mr. Tergat and Ms. Tulu what they are doing in January, March, July and
September, and throughout the whole year. Chances are good that we'll pick
up some useful information from them. Let's face it, there's no evidence
that Africans have a lock on the genes needed for world-record running
performances. After all, we don't even know what those genes are, and (as
the following note explains) most research has suggested that training and
lifestyle - not genetic factors - account for more of the variation in
athletic performances. So let's give the Africans credit for earning their
world-beating performances. And let's learn from them about how to perform
at the best-possible level..

Research footnote

Could geneticists ever demonstrate convincingly that Kenyans are genetically
superior? Of course! They would simply have to identify the genes which are
important for endurance performance and show that those genes are more
prevalent in Kenyan runners ..

This can't be done at present. We simply don't know which genes are critical
for enhancing performance, so we can't measure their frequencies in Kenyans,
Americans, Slovenians, Siberians, or anyone else. Identification of such
genes will probably happen, but not for another five to 10 years at least..

In the meantime, we might try to look at genetic differences indirectly - by
examining physiological differences between Kenyans and non-Kenyans and then
making inferences about genetics. For example, we might compare Kenyan and
American five-year-olds, before either group has had a chance to do any
training (even a smattering of training might make one group look better
than the other). If we found no physiological differences, it would appear
that the Kenyans did not enjoy an inherent genetic advantage..

However, even if the Kenyans were fitter, it would be hard to argue
convincingly that the difference was genetic. After all, the Kenyan kids
would probably eat differently than the Americans (fruits and vegetables
versus Snickers bars), their everyday activity patterns would be different
(Kenyans would gather wood and haul water while Americans would watch the
box), and many of the Kenyan youngsters would probably be residing at
altitude. All of these factors - diet, habitual activity and altitude
residence - can have a strong impact on physiology, so the Kenyan kids' edge
might have nothing to do with genetics..

How about training previously sedentary groups of Kenyans and Americans of
various ages and then observing their responses to training? Of course, we
would try to make everything as similar as possible: Americans and Kenyans
would have the same training history and be the same weight, height, age,
etc. If the Kenyans improved by 30 percent in response to our training
programme while the Americans went up by only 15 percent, wouldn't that show
that Kenyans had special genes which boosted their responsiveness to
training?* Well, no. Again, the Kenyan difference might simply be due to
prior lifestyle factors such as diet, altitude, daily activity, etc. The
bottom line is that you can't look at Kenyan world-beating performances and
say 'Aha! It's genetic!' Too many other factors can account for performance
differences. As the great geneticist Claude Bouchard, Ph.D., says: 'There's
currently no evidence that the Kenyans are genetically superior.'
*

On 11/01/04 0:40, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Earl Evleth writes:

You don`t have too, many are accessible by the web. The one I cited
I had posted before, so I had it at hand. Not in my files but
a google group search and a key word will bring up immediately
that information.

Why do you assume that finding something on the Web makes it credible?

I am selective and avoid think tank stuff, go for academic sites.

For instance, there is a lot on global warming, but the academic sites
on paleoclimatology are quite good. The special interest think tanks
are not. Some of them put out junk science. So I am selective.

Next, I am a scientist by training, I am use to referencing. When doing
a peer reviewed journal article one has to really go through the literature
and select pertinent references and cite them. One does not cite junk,
however, since a referee will rip "you" apart if you do. So you write
article choosing references and then play the role of the referee and
search out where your arguments are weak. One way of dodging criticism
of referee is to be self-critical in the paper, making some conclusions
tentative etc. It is a an art form.

Basically, Maxi, you don`t seem to be organized.

You seem to resort regularly to personal attacks when you cannot or will
not provide more cogent and relevant arguments.

A constructive criticism. Can do better!



It is CDC data, and I seem to remember the methodology given?

All I see is a page of figures.

Basically, this data is not recorded by a Fed Gov agency on a regular
basis so a large number of Whites and Blacks are not monitored
and that makes the data weak.

I agree.

Memory if faulty and plastic, it changes with time.

Whereas the Web is entirely reliable.

You really don`t understand this resource when you use the word
"entirely". In not backing up what you say you assume infallibility
on to yourself, that you have no need to learn.

Again, you can do better. Try.



Certain Africans are ridiculously overrepresented in certain running
events. That fact cannot be disputed. So how would you explain it?

They try harder, sports is now and open door which was previously closed
to them. Why are Jews so "over" represented in Academia? If they
are so smart why are they not more represented in the higher positions
in the Corporate world. What are the processes of exclusion which kept
them limited in the Corporate world and not the Academic?

Basically, I will bet on social rather than biological determinism any time.


Earl

On 11/1/04 9:35 am, in article , "Earl
Evleth" wrote:

On 10/01/04 21:52, in article , "Jeremy
Henderson" wrote:

Maybe I'm just living in ignorance and prejudice here, but I would have
thought it obvious that there are differences between races that have
implications for sports. For example Ethiopians and Kenyans dominating long
distance running. West Africans (and their descendents?) seem to be heavier
built and do better in sprints.


I chased down that one too, and found a British investigator, expert in
sports who went over the running abilities of some east African groups.`

Here is what I found and previously posted. But basically, don`t
swallow racist arguments easily, they are too easy to believe.
I should note that I am a scientist by training and conditioned to
ask questions. This whole issue is not that simple.

Earl

The article you posted would be improved if it distinguished scientific
discussion from political polemic. Specifically, it addresses the straw man
of whether African achievements in sport can be dismissed as "just good luck
with genes". I don't remember anyone denigrating African athletes on that
basis.

As I've said elsewhere, it is self-evident that genetic differences between
races have implications for athletes. To take an obvious example Chinese and
Japanese are on average shorter than the Dutch, and hence are less adapted
to high jumping events. I would imagine that there's a whole host of other
differences, some large, some small, that are probably genetically based. I
don't see that as a criticism. Some people are better at sports than others
- what else should we do - handicap all sportsmen to compensate for natural
ability so that all we see on the field is the result of training?

Given small natural differences, these will be accentuated by social
factors. Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that black Americans are very
slightly taller than whites. Blacks may then perceive they have an advantage
in basketball and increased numbers take it up. If more blacks are trying to
play basketball, then you increase the chance of finding the ones that are
actually any good at it. You can make the same argument for tennis players.
(Are British players worse than, say Swedes, or are there just more Swedes
getting the opportunity to play, and hence more chance of finding the good
ones).

J;

Earl Evleth writes:

I am selective and avoid think tank stuff, go for academic sites.

Their reliability is not necessarily any better. They can't even agree
among themselves.

Next, I am a scientist by training, I am use to referencing. When doing
a peer reviewed journal article one has to really go through the literature
and select pertinent references and cite them. One does not cite junk,
however, since a referee will rip "you" apart if you do. So you write
article choosing references and then play the role of the referee and
search out where your arguments are weak. One way of dodging criticism
of referee is to be self-critical in the paper, making some conclusions
tentative etc. It is a an art form.

If it's art, it's not science, is it? But that does not surprise me.

They try harder, sports is now and open door which was previously closed
to them.

Show cause and effect.

Why are Jews so "over" represented in Academia?

Jews of Eastern European ancestry have a much higher average IQ than the
general population. Nobody knows why, but the fact is not disputed.

If they are so smart why are they not more represented in the higher positions
in the Corporate world.

They _are_ overrepresented in many parts of the corporate world--it's
just not as extreme. However, high intelligence isn't as important for
these positions, whereas other social factors are more important, when
compared to more academic pursuits.

What are the processes of exclusion which kept
them limited in the Corporate world and not the Academic?

There isn't much of any exclusion today.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth writes:

Here is what I found and previously posted. But basically, don`t
swallow racist arguments easily, they are too easy to believe.
I should note that I am a scientist by training and conditioned to
ask questions. This whole issue is not that simple.

Explain why blacks have lower rates of melanoma, using the same
reasoning.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.