www.slate.com/.../
In a nutshell
"Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians. The published evidence is massive: blacks have longer limbs than whites, and because blacks have longer legs and smaller circumferences (e.g. calves and arms), their center of mass is higher than that in other individuals of the same height. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower.
These structural differences, they argue, generate differences in performance. Using equations about the physics of locomotion, they analyze racing as a process of falling forward. Based on this analysis, they conclude that having a higher center of body mass in a standing position is advantageous in running but disadvantageous in swimming."
I recently heard on NPR that probably owing to humanity's African origin that there is more genetic diversity there than any where else.Some populations there living relatively close together have less in common genetically than a Western European has from an East Asian.
Eliminate race from that statement, and I would agree with you. Race is not a physical attribute. That is the point. There are greater genetic differences between any two individuals than there are between any two races.
It sounds to me like you disagree with the following two paragraphs from the article. True?
Taking "race" out of the equation makes a substantive difference: It focuses the conversation about heredity on populations, a more precise and scientifically accepted way of categorizing people. In the press release, for example, Jones explains, "There is a whole body of evidence showing that there are distinct differences in body types among blacks and whites. These are real patterns being described here—whether the fastest sprinters are Jamaican, African or Canadian—most of them can be traced back generally to Western Africa." Western African ancestry differs genetically from Eastern African ancestry. Population, unlike race, captures that difference.
The authors also help the conversation by pointing out that "environmental stimuli" caused differential evolution in different parts of the world. There's nothing inherently good or bad about being West African or Eastern European. All of us are evolving all the time. As environmental conditions change in each part of the world, they change the course of natural selection. Ten thousand years from now, the average center of body mass might be higher in Europe than in Africa.
Jimmy the Greek was ran out of town and his career from saying this decades ago.
Actually he was fired over a comment implying that African Americans were great athletes because slave owners had bred them to be bigger and stronger.
To my knowledge there is no genetic basis for race. Consequently, we should not attribute one's ability, athletic or otherwise, to an individual's race.
Supposing the colors are mixed: half this, 4th this, or 3rd or 5th this and that? Maybe a 16th of whatever mixed with 32nd of some exotic color + a bunch of other colors to equal 100%? Does the one (1) drop rule still prevail? I mean look at Obama: 50% white and 50% black, but is declared a "black president." How's that? So where does he fit in? Is he a black swimmer or white?:confused: No problem in Hawaii, for he's just hapa!:)
Race, skin color, hair color, eye color and hundreds of other physical attributes are genetic.
Eliminate race from that statement, and I would agree with you. Race is not a physical attribute. That is the point. There are greater genetic differences between any two individuals than there are between any two races.
It sounds to me like you disagree with the following two paragraphs from the article. True?
No. What the author is saying, correctly, is that race is not a scientific concept. Studying populations, on the other hand, is legitimate science.
According to the study I should be a runner and not a swimmer because of high center of mass. I really don't care for running at all, but I wonder if this is why I'm better at short swimming events.
What would be a decent time for a non-runner male 40-44, to complete the 400M run?
I would think a decent time would be to break a minute. It seems to me that if you take running times in meters, they translate fairly well into swimming times in yards at one quarter the distance.
Thus the 200 meter run equates to the 50 yard freestyle
The 400 meter run equates to the 100 yard freestyle and so forth.
This might be a bit favoring of swimmers; perhaps LCM times should be used.
One second--let me check something.
Okay, here are the Top 800 meter run times:
Rank Time Athlete Nation Date Location Ref
1 1:41.11 Wilson Kipketer Denmark 24 August 1997 Cologne
2 1:41.51 David Rudisha Kenya 10 July 2010 Heusden-Zolder
3 1:41.73 Sebastian Coe United Kingdom 10 June 1981 Florence
4 1:41.77 Joaquim Cruz Brazil 26 August 1984 Cologne
5 1:42.23 Abubaker Kaki Khamis Sudan 4 June 2010 Oslo
6 1:42.28 Sammy Koskei Kenya 26 August 1984 Cologne
7 1:42.34 Wilfred Bungei Kenya 8 September 2002 Rieti
8 1:42.47 Yuriy Borzakovskiy Russia 24 August 2001 Brussels
9 1:42.55 Andre Bucher Switzerland 17 August 2001 Zürich
10 1:42.58 Vebjørn Rodal Norway 31 July 1996 Atlanta
Here is the current world record for the 200 LCM freestyle:
200 m freestyle 1:42.00 Paul Biedermann Germany 28 July 2009 World Championships Rome, Italy
So I change my mind here. Use LCM times, multiply the distance by 4, and you will get a good approximation of a decent running time.
