|
|
Post by Sharratt on Mar 28, 2010 23:30:51 GMT -5
Does anyone know where I can watch a video of the race?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 29, 2010 6:55:30 GMT -5
Other than nice little summations like yours, there has yet be be a single study to validate your point in anyway. Here is a study (or at least a summary of one) that suggests Kenyan dominance is likely a result of several factors. sweatscience.com/?p=679Key quote: "Possible reasons for this performance superiority range from the physiological to the biomechanical, social, and economic, but none of them appears to be exclusively responsible." |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 11:44:43 GMT -5
Those who point to the current African dominance in distance running as resulting from some kind of "genetic advantage" are forgetting that it is not so much that Africans are so good as that non-African countries have been stagnating for decades now (with only the U.S. showing signs of turning things around). A normal progression among non-African athletes from the 70s and 80s to the present would have them on a par with the Africans in both quality and quantity. Remember, even a guys as good as Rono and Ngugi would not be able to run with "the Africans" today (and not ALL of this is due to doping). Back when more non-Africans were able to run with, or beat, the best Africans-- a time when the numbers of good Africans competing, while not quite as high as today, were still pretty high-- you didn't hear much about "African genetics" in distance running. As for the increase in the relative numbers of top Africans, much of this just has to do with incentive structures; the extra money involved, in addition to the fact that non-African athletes have basically ceded the whole sport to Africans, has drawn young Africans into the sport in record numbers. But, again, the very best of the bunch are still no faster than the best non-Africans SHOULD BE by this point in history. Another important consideration is simple demographics: African societies are very young societies, with the average age being well below ours, creating a much larger pool of potential athletes. And we all know that numbers are big drivers of performance at the macro level. Other poor world societies are relatively young too, but this is not meant to be a mono-causal explanation.
Talk about "genetics" strikes me as the worst kind of cop-out, as well as being of very dubious scientific validity.
BTW, if genetics are so important, how come there aren't more top sprinters from West Africa itself? Not enough West Africans around?
|
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Mar 29, 2010 20:33:51 GMT -5
Those who point to the current African dominance in distance running as resulting from some kind of "genetic advantage" are forgetting that it is not so much that Africans are so good as that non-African countries have been stagnating for decades now (with only the U.S. showing signs of turning things around). A normal progression among non-African athletes from the 70s and 80s to the present would have them on a par with the Africans in both quality and quantity. Remember, even a guys as good as Rono and Ngugi would not be able to run with "the Africans" today (and not ALL of this is due to doping). Back when more non-Africans were able to run with, or beat, the best Africans-- a time when the numbers of good Africans competing, while not quite as high as today, were still pretty high-- you didn't hear much about "African genetics" in distance running. As for the increase in the relative numbers of top Africans, much of this just has to do with incentive structures; the extra money involved, in addition to the fact that non-African athletes have basically ceded the whole sport to Africans, has drawn young Africans into the sport in record numbers. But, again, the very best of the bunch are still no faster than the best non-Africans SHOULD BE by this point in history. Another important consideration is simple demographics: African societies are very young societies, with the average age being well below ours, creating a much larger pool of potential athletes. And we all know that numbers are big drivers of performance at the macro level. Other poor world societies are relatively young too, but this is not meant to be a mono-causal explanation. Talk about "genetics" strikes me as the worst kind of cop-out, as well as being of very dubious scientific validity. BTW, if genetics are so important, how come there aren't more top sprinters from West Africa itself? Not enough West Africans around? For your enjoyment, Oldster: www.flotrack.org/videos/speaker/4476-micah-kogo/323084-duncan-gaskell-talks-about-micah-kogo-and-martin-mathati-in-parelloop-10kYou can skip to the last question which starts around 8:10. I assume you know Duncan Gaskell... |
|
bbw
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by bbw on Mar 29, 2010 21:14:15 GMT -5
|
|
tree
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by tree on Mar 29, 2010 22:46:41 GMT -5
Light frames, barefoot running, environment, social influence, economic factors, and almost ingorant belief all contribute to the african dominance in distance events.
No one can seriously deny that genetics are a part of the reason. I'm not saying that genetics don't work in our favour sometimes too, but cooomme on. Just take a look at the top 20 athletes at worlds. Running machines, every single one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sharratt on Mar 30, 2010 9:53:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Moulton on Mar 30, 2010 10:16:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 30, 2010 11:07:38 GMT -5
Those who point to the current African dominance in distance running as resulting from some kind of "genetic advantage" are forgetting that it is not so much that Africans are so good as that non-African countries have been stagnating for decades now (with only the U.S. showing signs of turning things around). A normal progression among non-African athletes from the 70s and 80s to the present would have them on a par with the Africans in both quality and quantity. Remember, even a guys as good as Rono and Ngugi would not be able to run with "the Africans" today (and not ALL of this is due to doping). Back when more non-Africans were able to run with, or beat, the best Africans-- a time when the numbers of good Africans competing, while not quite as high as today, were still pretty high-- you didn't hear much about "African genetics" in distance running. As for the increase in the relative numbers of top Africans, much of this just has to do with incentive structures; the extra money involved, in addition to the fact that non-African athletes have basically ceded the whole sport to Africans, has drawn young Africans into the sport in record numbers. But, again, the very best of the bunch are still no faster than the best non-Africans SHOULD BE by this point in history. Another important consideration is simple demographics: African societies are very young societies, with the average age being well below ours, creating a much larger pool of potential athletes. And we all know that numbers are big drivers of performance at the macro level. Other poor world societies are relatively young too, but this is not meant to be a mono-causal explanation. Talk about "genetics" strikes me as the worst kind of cop-out, as well as being of very dubious scientific validity. BTW, if genetics are so important, how come there aren't more top sprinters from West Africa itself? Not enough West Africans around? For your enjoyment, Oldster: www.flotrack.org/videos/speaker/4476-micah-kogo/323084-duncan-gaskell-talks-about-micah-kogo-and-martin-mathati-in-parelloop-10kYou can skip to the last question which starts around 8:10. I assume you know Duncan Gaskell... Thanks for this, mpd. What we need is less talk about some hypothetical "genetic advantage" and more demystification of African success. I'm not saying this is going to lead to the end of African domination of the sport in our lifetime, but understanding the reasons for African success-- much of which can be explained in less immutable terms than genetics-- is a start when it comes to getting back into the game. In addition to the basic incentive structure and demographics mentioned above (not to mention knowledge of the sport bequeathed by European colonialism), we need to consider the fact that East African subsistence peasants are among the last people on earth to lead the hard and simple, yet generally healthy, lives characteristic of pre- and early colonial peoples in that part of the world. Coupled with the fact that they are a pedestrian culture with immediate access to the kinds of open spaces conducive to distance runnning, these factors alone are sufficient to explain why East Africans are very good at the sport. To explain their total dominance of the sport, however, we need to understand the reasons for our (we non-Africans) failure to improve in 20-30 years. The best non-Africans from 20, even 30, years ago would still be among the best non-Africans of today; whereas, the best Africans from 20-30 year ago would get their asses handed to them they by the best Africans of today. What does "African genetics" have to do with OUR failure to progress beyond the standards of 20-30 years ago? Interestingly, the biggest long term threat to East African success in distance running will probably be demographics-- in particular, depeasantization/urbanization. The steady collapse of subsistence agriculture, and the consequent displacement of the communities of peasants out of which the top African runners are coming, will quite likely end the culture of distance running in East Africa, much the same way that demographics and cultural change has undermined the sport in Europe and North American (relative to East Africa, at least). In fact, if industrial development hadn't been such a failure in African over the past 30 years, the process of depeasantization would be far more advanced-- as it is in, for instance, in large parts of Asia. The persistent failure of development in East African has, in other words, kept more people "back on the farm", having larger families, and enjoying all that open space (it's a lose-win situation in many respects). Nevertheless, subsistence agriculture continues to become more and more un-viable, forcing a desperate migration to the margins of Africa's big cities. And life in these semi-urban environments is NOT conducive in the least to the sport of distance running, nor to big families, as anyone who has ever seen a poor world slum will tell you. Taking it back to running, and to the question of what those of us who want to challenge the Africans should do, I think we need to look closely at how the Africans live and train. If more of our runners are willing to live and train in this way, more of them will realize that the whole "genetics" thing is a cop-out. To paraphrase Karl Marx (who had more to say than just "workers of the world unite), if essence and appearance corresponded directly, science would be superfluous. Translation: things are rarely as they seem from simple observation; hence we need to go beyond it to really understand anything. That the East Africans now dominate distance running may make it appear "obvious" that genetics are the explanation; but, a closer and more systematic look at the total situation reveals a range of different possible explanations. And, given all that we have recently learned about genetics, if there were an obvious genetic advantage exclusive to a micro-population of people, you would think it would be relatively easy to find-- as, e.g., the genes for the predisposition to various diseases have been easier to isolate. Alas, to my knowledge, no one has been able to isolate any such gene or set of genes, in spite of the small scientific cottage industry that has grown up around trying to explain the secret of African running success. |
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Mar 30, 2010 11:32:15 GMT -5
Taking it back to running, and to the question of what those of us who want to challenge the Africans should do, I think we need to look closely at how the Africans live and train. If more of our runners are willing to live and train in this way, more of them will realize that the whole "genetics" thing is a cop-out. Oldster, you say that we need to learn from what the east africans are doing, but it appears as though one of the things they are doing is running A LOT at a very young age. Something you, personally, don't condone. Could you explain... |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 30, 2010 11:44:04 GMT -5
Actually, I don't see any evidence that they're training and competing at very young ages, and some evidence that many of them start doing these things later than we tend to. What they are at young ages is very active in going about their daily lives-- something that non-European kids in the 1950s and 60s used to be too. Getting very young kids involved in organized competition and structured year-round training has been one of the problems in places like North America, in my view. And if it were one of the solutions, we wouldn't have fallen as far behind as we have, because early starting and lots of racing has been the basic model here for quite some time now.
|
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Mar 30, 2010 12:00:35 GMT -5
Actually, I don't see any evidence that they're training and competing at very young ages, and some evidence that many of them start doing these things later than we tend to. What they are at young ages is very active in going about their daily lives-- something that non-European kids in the 1950s and 60s used to be too. Getting very young kids involved in organized competition and structured year-round training has been one of the problems in places like North America, in my view. And if it were one of the solutions, we wouldn't have fallen as far behind as we have, because early starting and lots of racing has been the basic model here for quite some time now. The whole interview is good but watch from 4:40 onward (sorry if you've seen this already...) vodpod.com/watch/3307656-haile-gebrselassie-interview-with-amby-burfoot |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 30, 2010 12:51:53 GMT -5
Thanks. More good stuff.
I'll tell you what strikes me as perverse about the whole idea that, to catch the Africans, we need to get our kids into formal training and competition even earlier than we now do. Among the CAUSES of the decline in the average kid's basic fitness is their over-protection and over-indulgence (ironic itself, if you think about it)-- basically, the things we buy them (game systems, etc) and the way we (i.e. their parents) have sought to protect them by engineering their lives and circumscribing their movements. Yet, the solution to our decline in something like distance running is now supposed to be even MORE, and EARLIER, adult-supervised activities that we essentially buy for them? If we were to just let our kids play outside more (and refuse to buy them game systems so that they would be induced to), stop driving them everywhere, and stop feeding them crap, we would go a long way towards creating more potential distance runners among our teenagers.
One other thing: If I hear one more person say that we don't do as well in distance running because our potentially better athletes have been "lost" to soccer and hockey, I'm going to start throwing things. How many serious, successful teenage and older hockey players today look like they could have been distance runners? The potential distance runners are generally weeded out of serious hockey by about age 14. In fact, the vast majority of our kids stop playing serious hockey and soccer well before they're too old to become good distance runners. If anything, serious hockey and soccer are helping to PRODUCE the few good runners we still have in Canada. What we're failing at is getting kids to be very serious about running after the age of about 17, then again as post-collegians; and this, as I've said a million times before, is partly because, by these ages, they are either tired of the sport, and/or feel they have been tapped-out in terms of potential-- again, because the serious ones have often be at it for 7-8 years by this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Mar 30, 2010 13:08:46 GMT -5
I just happened to bump into an interesting thread by Malmo on Letsrun that fits in very well with this discussion: www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3473257Basically, he posted some graphs related to fastest times in the 1500-marathon. If you look down a few posts, Malmo talks about Craig Virgin, and the upswing of Kenyan athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by responserunner on Mar 30, 2010 13:56:08 GMT -5
In my genetics class they told us about genes that south africans have that help them retain water and electrolytes better than wild type genes. Also people with dark pigmented skin are able to stay cooler, because dark skin releases more heat than light coloured skin.
East Africa is where humans originated meaning their population is more genetically diverse.
The combined population of Kenya and Ethiopia is around 120 million (Canada 9 Million).
Is it any surprise they can dominate a sport.
I do however believe that what you're saying is also true in North America Track and Field isn't exactly popular and with increased enrolment, attention and funding we should have a few athletes that could move into the top 10 at world XC. Simon's almost done it maybe next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Mar 30, 2010 20:43:29 GMT -5
In my genetics class they told us about genes that south africans have that help them retain water and electrolytes better than wild type genes. Also people with dark pigmented skin are able to stay cooler, because dark skin releases more heat than light coloured skin. East Africa is where humans originated meaning their population is more genetically diverse. The combined population of Kenya and Ethiopia is around 120 million (Canada 9 Million). Is it any surprise they can dominate a sport. Did you class present any studies to back up these genetic claims? Also, Canada's population is much larger than 9 million... |
|
cda
Full Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by cda on Mar 30, 2010 21:18:39 GMT -5
with increased enrolment, attention and funding we should have a few athletes that could move into the top 10 at world XC. More enrollment in track? Not until it lowers its admission standards. |
|
|
|
Post by lukesteer93 on Mar 30, 2010 21:39:46 GMT -5
In my genetics class they told us about genes that south africans have that help them retain water and electrolytes better than wild type genes. Also people with dark pigmented skin are able to stay cooler, because dark skin releases more heat than light coloured skin. East Africa is where humans originated meaning their population is more genetically diverse. The combined population of Kenya and Ethiopia is around 120 million (Canada 9 Million). Is it any surprise they can dominate a sport. I do however believe that what you're saying is also true in North America Track and Field isn't exactly popular and with increased enrolment, attention and funding we should have a few athletes that could move into the top 10 at world XC. Simon's almost done it maybe next time. 9 million? What Canada do you live in? What does "dark skin releases more heat that light skin" even mean? Do exothermic reactions just take place in their skin? Where was this genetics class taking place? I have so many questions now. |
|
davidson
Full Member
"only the struggle makes it worth it, only the pain makes it sweet and only victory is the answer"
Posts: 131
|
Post by davidson on Mar 30, 2010 21:59:51 GMT -5
In my genetics class they told us about genes that south africans have that help them retain water and electrolytes better than wild type genes. Also people with dark pigmented skin are able to stay cooler, because dark skin releases more heat than light coloured skin. East Africa is where humans originated meaning their population is more genetically diverse. The combined population of Kenya and Ethiopia is around 120 million (Canada 9 Million). Is it any surprise they can dominate a sport. I do however believe that what you're saying is also true in North America Track and Field isn't exactly popular and with increased enrolment, attention and funding we should have a few athletes that could move into the top 10 at world XC. Simon's almost done it maybe next time. 9 million? What Canada do you live in? What does "dark skin releases more heat that light skin" even mean? Do exothermic reactions just take place in their skin? Where was this genetics class taking place? I have so many questions now. Maybe he meant reflect light/heat? I think it's not quite accurate to talk about East Africans as one and the same. There are literally hundreds of tribes represented in each country and a lot of these tribes have undergone recent migrations in the last few hundred years. I have also heard that a lot of the top runners are from only a handful of those tribes. I'm sure someone on here could provide proof of that somewhere. I'm also not so sure that since East Africa is where humans originated that that means they will be the most diverse there. Somehow that logic doesn't make that much sense to me. Diversity within a species is a complex thing which can't really be described by one factor. By your argument they should be dominating more sports, but you don't really see that. Perhaps diversity was not the word you're looking for. Maybe you meant to say that the conditions are good for developing good runners. It would be unreasonable to suggest that genetics don't play a part in our running ability. Someone mentioned the fact that there are a lot of not so great runners from East Africa, but that doesn't really prove much other than not everyone has the genetic makeup to be a great runner. Remember, we're talking about the best the region has to offer, not necessarily the average of their abilities. |
|
davidson
Full Member
"only the struggle makes it worth it, only the pain makes it sweet and only victory is the answer"
Posts: 131
|
Post by davidson on Mar 30, 2010 22:12:43 GMT -5
In the junior men's race, Mo Ahmed finishes in 27th place (the first non-African...) Not really. The runner from Bahrain is a Kenyan. And as far as I can tell, everyone else in the top 26 is from Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 31, 2010 4:55:02 GMT -5
I'm also not so sure that since East Africa is where humans originated that that means they will be the most diverse there. Actually, this is true. Genetic diversity in any given population increases with time thanks to mutations from generation to generation. Populations that left Africa went through genetic "bottlenecks," starting as extremely small (and thus genetically homogeneous) groups, and they've had less time since then to accumulate diversity. Genetic studies confirm this -- in fact, such measurements are one of the tools used to try and trace back the migrations of various populations. The argument that this explains Kenyan running success has been around since at least the 1990s. The theory is that greater genetic diversity leads to more outliers on both sides of the curve -- so that if you took 100 random babies from Kenya and 100 random babies from some European population and raised them under identical circumstances, the Kenyan group would produce a few more superstar runners as well as a few more really terrible ones. I don't think there's any credible evidence to support this theory, and I don't think anyone really takes it seriously anymore as an explanation of Kenyan running success. But the basic statement about genetic diversity is (as far as I understand, at least) well supported. |
|
pato
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by pato on Mar 31, 2010 5:29:29 GMT -5
The runner from Bahrain is a Kenyan. And as far as I can tell, everyone else in the top 26 is from Africa. I think he just means mo is originally african. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 31, 2010 6:58:11 GMT -5
We have a winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Mar 31, 2010 10:12:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eight-hundred on Apr 1, 2010 14:32:43 GMT -5
I don't know if it is some sort of April Fools joke or what but, according to this article (below) UK and USA vow not to send any male athletes unless your from East Africa ( Mo Farah, Lagat Meb etc) to worlds because they realize they can never win a medal against the Kenyans and Ethiopians. www.letsrun.com/2010/aprilfoolxc0401.phpOne IAAF source who wished to remain anonymous said, "I would say it's greater than 50-50 that we cancel 2013. We already were losing around $500,000 per year on the event. It would be way cheaper for us to just cancel the event and send Kenya and Ethiopia a check for $200,000 each. They'd be happy. We'd be happy and only the old-time World XC fans would be upset." |
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Apr 1, 2010 14:46:33 GMT -5
April 1 is always the best day to read letsrun. I don't know if it is some sort of April Fools joke or what but, according to this article (below) UK and USA vow not to send any male athletes unless your from East Africa ( Mo Farah, Lagat Meb etc) to worlds because they realize they can never win a medal against the Kenyans and Ethiopians. www.letsrun.com/2010/aprilfoolxc0401.phpOne IAAF source who wished to remain anonymous said, "I would say it's greater than 50-50 that we cancel 2013. We already were losing around $500,000 per year on the event. It would be way cheaper for us to just cancel the event and send Kenya and Ethiopia a check for $200,000 each. They'd be happy. We'd be happy and only the old-time World XC fans would be upset." |
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Apr 1, 2010 15:00:57 GMT -5
I don't know if it is some sort of April Fools joke or what but, according to this article (below) UK and USA vow not to send any male athletes unless your from East Africa ( Mo Farah, Lagat Meb etc) to worlds because they realize they can never win a medal against the Kenyans and Ethiopians. www.letsrun.com/2010/aprilfoolxc0401.phpOne IAAF source who wished to remain anonymous said, "I would say it's greater than 50-50 that we cancel 2013. We already were losing around $500,000 per year on the event. It would be way cheaper for us to just cancel the event and send Kenya and Ethiopia a check for $200,000 each. They'd be happy. We'd be happy and only the old-time World XC fans would be upset." I'm never sure about those those links which have "aprilfool" written in them either. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 1, 2010 18:56:39 GMT -5
If would be great if someone could arrange an online "roundtable" discussing World Cross Country Championships, and include Jon Brown, John Halvorsen, Paul McCloy and Simon Bairu. How it fit into their training, and how it may have influenced their top-level results...
Brown was 4 times in the top 20 @ Worlds, finishing 8th in 1999. Halvorsen was 10th @ Worlds in 1989, and I think had another top 20 finish. McCloy was 8th in 1987 and 17th in 1986. Bairu of course, just finished 13th.
Their 10 K. pb's are (rounded off) are 27:18, 27:43, 27:56, and 27:50, and their collective experiences include running for Canada, Norway, Great Britain, and competing in the NCAA and the CIS. Who can arrange such an epic interview ?
|
|
|
|
Post by oncearunner on Apr 1, 2010 20:31:41 GMT -5
And just like that, you're already beaten. Nonsense, pmac... Why do you think all the top 20/30 at World Cross are dominated by East Africans? And, perhaps not coincidentally, some of the best non-African performances are being achieved by athletes with some east-African heritage. Do you really believe this is a coincidence, or lack of will or attitude by others? How about the west-African descendants who are dominating sprinting, whether they are currently from USA, Jamaica, Great Britain, Canada, or wherever? Another coincidence? Please... Time for a reality check... Thanks to Ron for backing me up, I've been travelling for a few days and didn't have a chance to respond. I'm not one for long winded debates but don't mind starting them. I will add one bit of info for those who still have their head in the sand. There has been a lot of talk lately about who will finally break the Drayton's Canadian marathon best of 2:10:09....Last year according to the IAAF rankings 68... yes 68! Kenyan's ran faster than that in 2009 alone...As Ron says..Reality check... nothing wrong with admitting it. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 2, 2010 11:13:57 GMT -5
Nonsense, pmac... Why do you think all the top 20/30 at World Cross are dominated by East Africans? And, perhaps not coincidentally, some of the best non-African performances are being achieved by athletes with some east-African heritage. Do you really believe this is a coincidence, or lack of will or attitude by others? How about the west-African descendants who are dominating sprinting, whether they are currently from USA, Jamaica, Great Britain, Canada, or wherever? Another coincidence? Please... Time for a reality check... Thanks to Ron for backing me up, I've been travelling for a few days and didn't have a chance to respond. I'm not one for long winded debates but don't mind starting them. I will add one bit of info for those who still have their head in the sand. There has been a lot of talk lately about who will finally break the Drayton's Canadian marathon best of 2:10:09....Last year according to the IAAF rankings 68... yes 68! Kenyan's ran faster than that in 2009 alone...As Ron says..Reality check... nothing wrong with admitting it. That's fine, but what's the "reality" we're checking our current performance standard against? That of East African genetic superiority, or that of non-African stagnation? There are two sides to African domination: the rapid and sustained development of the sport in East Africa (driven by the incentive structures and demographics I referenced) and the relative decline of the sport in the vast majority of the non-African world. Again, if "genetics" were anything close to the decisive factor in explaining African dominance, it should be relatively easy with today's technology to isolate the gene or set of genes that contribute to this dominance; yet, no one has been able to do that. Until they do, talk of "genetic superiority" will be just another nail in the coffin of the sport in this country and elsewhere, to say nothing of dismissive of the hard work and determination of African athletes. |
|
