Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:22:31 GMT

Probably. Then all competitive people are race-ists ;-) Interesting pun Steve!

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:35:30 GMT

Ethnic background and nationality are noted by a physician in the assessment of a patient just as we observe whether an individual is, say, obese or elderly, as certain diseases are more prevalent in those two populations as well. So should the obese be a race unto themselves? They do afterall share physical attributes.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

__steve__ — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:44:26 GMT

Some swimmers are a race too, they race at meets.:) Ha ha ha

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Jim Clemmons — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:29:35 GMT

Some swimmers are a race too, they race at meets.:) Ha ha ha Isn't that called, like, "race-ism"? :cool:

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:59:59 GMT

as for the charge that race is not scientific, there are about 150,000 scientific studies involving race in the readily searchable medical literature. almost every clinical trial and medical topic includes consideration of race. ignoring race in human studies and medical care would be anti-scientific and offer less than optimum health care delivery. hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care providers are not racists for considering race. in some fields, the term race is declining in usage, eg anthropology - the study of the human species race is not simply an attitude, though I suppose it can be, especially for racists as this sensitive topic shows, the subject generates much heat and finger pointing by some

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:23:32 GMT

The problem is nomenclature. It isn't consistant, for some athletes are lumped together in a particular color, while others are separated w/o any color. The recent census is guilty of this.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:22:38 GMT

For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. I like to think that no one on this site is racist. People here are way too open minded to be racists. Like you said, it's more of a semantic thing. That said, the topic of this study implies some sort of discrimination, based on skin color, in both swimming and running. It would be much more productive and less controversial to approach it from a cultural social perspective. Because I am absolutely convinced, for so many reasons, that physical attributes or differences can not, in themselves, explain anything. Would have been little more accurate to talk about Blacks born in this or that country vs white born in this or that country. Because there are far more difference physically speaking between a Black Tuty Rwandaise and a short Masai Kenyan runner (both black) than between a short Masai Kenyan runner and a short Japanese runner. There are not that many differences between slim cuban runner and a slim deutch runner etc etc.... Attempting to discriminate, no matter the reason, between 'black' and 'white' regardless of ethnic background or origin, without narrowing the differences down to cultural and social is severely missing the point in my humble opinion. As far as swimming is concerned, as a rule of thumb, you need to be tall and slim to perform well on the world scene in Pool events (not a place for a Masai Kenyan, but would fit our 6'5 avg Tutsi if they were fortunate enough to have a pool in their country). Open water, world class, pretty much anything works, as long as you can remain in 60deg water for 10 consecutive hours without falling in hypothermia.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:02:51 GMT

The concept of race, which is not scientific, has been used to perpetuate stereotypes and to justify unequal treatment. Physicians do not have an unblemished record when it comes to matters of race. Tuskegee is a notable example. Even today African-Americans are less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization in the setting of acute coronary syndrome than their white counterparts.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:32:24 GMT

Trying to reconcile that race has no scientific basis with the claim that race is a useful medical diagnostic tool has been generating cognitive dissonance all evening. As Wikipedia says: The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics. In that sense it is easier to guess whether someone has African ancestry than to perform genetic testing to determine whether they have the gene that causes sickle cell disease. The question that arises in my mind is whether the concept of race actually aids the diagnostic process in any way. Can you not just leap directly from having African (or Mediterranean or Middle East or Indian) ancestry to increased probability of the sickle cell trait without the intermediate step of classifying the patient as being of a "race"?

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:01:58 GMT

Race is a broader term that loosely defines certain physical characteristics. I agree... very loosely. Webster's dictionary; Ethnic; 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background 'll leave to science the task of defining them. Cause I may be mistaking, but I think science stresses on comparing genetic background to help defining these ethnic groups. One thing is sure taruky, races are there to stay. And if you find it handier to categorize human being in races, it's really up to you. I see nothing wrong with this. I think that makesense mentioned about scientific literature even referring to this concept. All we're saying is that it ain't a matter of opinion. This concept evolved into something more accurate. Not simpler. Course it will always be simpler to define people as either black, asian, white, hispanic, jews etc... But black is a color, asia is a whole continent including russia, hispanic is a culture, jew is a religion...... But it's fine. If it's what you want.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:54:26 GMT

Brazilian is a nationality, not an ethnic group.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:39:32 GMT

Lefty was wrong to say that a caring physician is a racist and worm

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

taruky — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:32:28 GMT

Brazilian is a nationality, not an ethnic group. Webster's dictionary; Ethnic; 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background "hey, let's go to an ethnic restaurant tonight", they might be talking about Thai, no?

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

sydned — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:11:57 GMT

One of the things I studied during grad school was the development of "hard sciences" as a set of disciplines as subject to the social norms of their time and as malleable as any other discipline--regardless of the presumption that it's based on "facts." Facts are created by people. Check out the book Making Sex, by Thomas Lacquer (and it doesn't relate to anyone's sperm count), talking about the studies of women's reproductive biology which echos some of these same "race-based" studies.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:18:31 GMT

according to UNESCO...... en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Race_Question That, to the best of my knowledge, is the most up-to-date position adopted by Unesco. The Race Question is a UNESCO statement issued on 18 July 1950 following World War II. The statement included both a scientific debunking of race theories and a moral condemnation of racism. It suggested in particular to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups." So again, find a scientifically recognized list, and your persistence in trying to make your semantic point will makesense. As simple as that. Again, the basis on which we argue with you makesense isn't even a discrimination one. I coudn't care less about this, although some might though. The basis on which Gull, I and several scientists are arguing with the concept of human race is that it tries to oversimplify something that is far more complex than skin color, or curly hair etc... In Rwanda alone (my girlfriend is Rwandaise), there are two very distinct ethnic groups probably displaying scientifically significant genetic differences (my girl is by far the shortest of her family, at 5'9. My mother in law is 6', sis in law is 6'2, brother in law 6'3. The avg Tutsi being probably little over 6feet tall). Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler (A. Einstein). What this great scientist meant in issuing this quote, is that it's fun and practical to simplify stuff into categories, but if you try to simplify it past a certain point, you're loosing some meaning, some precision, some accuracy, some usefulness....

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:02:23 GMT

according to UNESCO... "A race, from the biological standpoint, may therefore be defined as one of the group of populations constituting the species Homo sapiens which populations are capable of interbreeding with one another, but which by virtue of the isolating barriers which in the past more or less kept them separated, exhibit certain physical differences as a result of their somewhat biological histories. In short, the term "race" designates some concentrations, relative as to frequency and distribution, of genes or physical characters, which appear, fluctuate, and often disappear in the course of time by reason of geographic and/or cultural isolation. These are the scientific facts. Unfortunately, however, when most people use the term "race" they do not do so in the sense above described. The only characteristics which anthropologists can effectively use as a basis for the classification of human groups are physical and physiological characteristics. Such differences as exist between members of different ethnic groups have no relevance to problems of sociological and and political organization, moral life, and communication between human beings." Agreed. I am not using the xenophobic or 'most people' meaning of race. Differences between ethnic groups can have relevance to research interpretation and health care. I would also say that what UNESCO considers 'scientific facts' can fairly be considered scientific.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:44:45 GMT

Obviously certain genes and certain diseases are more prevalent among different ethic groups, and clinical trials must reflect this. +1. In total agreement. And to a very large extent, certain ethnic groups suit certains sport discipline better. The short Kenyan Masai are built for longer distance running. They would fail miserably at the 100m. Just a simple and obvious example. But Masai is an ethnic group, not a race.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:39:30 GMT

Obviously certain genes and disease processes are more prevalent within different ethic groups, and clinical trials must reflect this. The point is that the concept of race as we know it is not a scientifically sound way to categorize humans and has been abused throughout our history (eg the Aryan race).

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:19:39 GMT

as for the charge that race is not scientific, there are about 150,000 scientific studies involving race in the readily searchable medical literature. Any attempt in making your point, even though It's just semantic will meet some resistance and trigger controversy. In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'". Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies. (Keita et al. 2004); (empleton, 1998); (Long and Kittles, 2003). Now don't get me wrong. It's not a sin to speak like that. It is just blurred and is severely lacking accuracy. as this sensitive topic shows, the subject generates much heat and finger pointing by some Which is just normal. That is why UNESCO proposed in the 50s, to stop using this term. Not only because it could lead people to discriminate, but rather because it generally leads nowhere. Again, for the avg white folk, Black is a race. However, the differences between genetic backgrounds showed by Blacks belonging to various ethnic groups is such that , you'd have to split the Black race into multiple races. What about those blacks from Cuba, Brazil, Ethiopia, etc.... How many races would you define for these? Find me a solid human races classification, and I'll agree to talk about human ethnic background differences in term of race. The the truth is that such a list does not exist. If there are no race classification list, then why bother continuing talking about races? That is the idea behind UNESCO's proposal. Why bother talking about something that is pure classification, when no classification can be made. almost every clinical trial and medical topic includes consideration of race. ignoring race in human studies and medical care would be anti-scientific and offer less than optimum health care delivery. hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care providers are not racists for considering race. Of course, you now know what I (as well as several others) think about this statement... It case it wasn't clear enough, science has to rely on scientifically accepted means. If they can't even validate their 'race' (as you call it) classification against a scientifically accepted list. Find this list, and your comment will makesense.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

taruky — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:09:04 GMT

For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. Absolutely differences in people exist and need to be recognized. My only issue is with trying to group people into races. You mentioned Filipinos and African Americans. Are these races or ethnic groups? I prefer to think of them as the latter. Knelson, the problem with grouping as ethnic groups is this. Ethnic groups can consist of different races. Pele and Kaka might both consider themselves ethnically Brazilian, but the chance that Pele would carry the sickle cell trait is much higher. Race is a broader term that loosely defines certain physical characteristics. Another example; an African American and an immigrant from Nigeria might have little in common ethnically. But going back to the sickle cell example, they are both at risk to carry the trait. An Irishman and a Chechen might both be blond and blue eyed but have little in common ethnically. However, medically there are some risks they share as caucasians. I suppose if you have a homogeneous ethnic group then you can use ethnicity. A good example would be Ashkanazi Jews, who have many genetic disorders because historically they tended not to intermarry. I understand the connotation of race. The word causes people to shudder. Keep in mind, though, that studies are not trying to force people into categories. They are simply observations about risk factors in people who share certain characteristics; physical in some cases, social in others. Some of these risk factors continue when the the particular subject relocates, some do not and may be more a function of environment. But studies today are very well designed, especially when published in reputable journals. They account for environment.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

jim thornton — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:25:20 GMT

For most men, women tend to decrease sperm count. At least temporarily. www.latimes.com/.../la-he-swimming-20100719,0,6313213.story Ah, but the anticipation of women increases it. Especially those who we in the animal husbandry world refer to as novelty stimulus females, who are capable of inducing the Coolidge Effect: One day the President and Mrs. Coolidge were visiting a government farm. Soon after their arrival they were taken off on separate tours. When Mrs. Coolidge passed the chicken pens she paused to ask the man in charge if the rooster copulates more than once each day. "Dozens of times" was the reply. "Please tell that to the President," Mrs. Coolidge requested. When the President passed the pens and was told about the rooster, he asked 'Same hen every time?" "Oh no, Mr. President, a different one each time." The President nodded slowly, then said, "Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge." --A possibly true, possibly apocryphal anecdote widely related as a joke in the 1950's. ... In the 1940's and early 1950's, animal husbandry researchers trying to improve artificial insemination techniques in cattle made an interesting discovery. While attempting to increase semen production in prize-winning bulls, they learned what countless farmers had no doubt observed firsthand for millennia--that a bull apparently exhausted by sex will immediately find his vigor and sperm count restored to full potency if he is given a fresh cow to mate with. By continually bringing in new mates as soon as the bull's interest in a given cow begins to flag, the researchers could stimulate the bull into intromitting for days. This same behavior was soon found to exist in a host of mammalian species, from goats to rats to chimpanzees. Originally, the phenomenon was known in the scientific literature as the Novelty Effect. But in the early 50's, two experimental psychologists, inspired by the famous presidential anecdote, casually referred to it at a scientific meeting as the Coolidge Effect. They expected to stimulate some laughter or at least some curiosity from their stolid peers. But evidently, everyone had heard the story already, and not so much as an eyebrow was raised by what must have seemed to them all a perfectly apt neologism. The term Coolidge Effect thereafter slipped quietly into the literature where it has remained ever since--a curious, and, at least to thinking mammals like me, somewhat depressing biological fact of bestial life. {From my article, Do Men Need to Cheat, published in Glamour Magazine, 1987.} Short Answer: Probably not, but if given much encouragement, real or imaginary, then probably yes.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Michael Heather — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:37:03 GMT

We are clearly getting away from what is really important in this discussion: my sperm count of 965,000,000 and what the women of USMS can do to help increase it. Why not shoot for a billion? For most men, women tend to decrease sperm count. At least temporarily. Back to the real topic. Here is another take on running vs. swimming: www.latimes.com/.../la-he-swimming-20100719,0,6313213.story

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

aquageek — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:14:41 GMT

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

jim thornton — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:39:26 GMT

We are clearly getting away from what is really important in this discussion: my sperm count of 965,000,000 and what the women of USMS can do to help increase it.

RE: Interesting Study (Blacks vs Whites in Swimming and Running)

Former Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:35:19 GMT

There is plenty of relevance to putting people into "finite buckets". So if I am to do a study on melanoma risk, should I just look at everyone and take an average? Never mind the fact that there are dark skinned African Americans and pale skinned Irish Americans in the study. But they live in the same area, so I guess we should group them all together. How about a blond, straight haired patient comes to me with severe back pain. Am I supposed to be color-blind and give strong consideration to the possibility that he is having a sickle cell crisis? Because he lives in the same population as African Americans. Or how about a child who is neurologically degenerating. Is the fact that he is of Ashkenazi Jewish background irrelevant? exactly