Reddit reviews The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance
We found 21 Reddit comments about The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
The Sports Gene Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance
I actually agree with you on some level, but the issue is not so black and white. Have you heard of Hyperandrogenism? It's a condition where some women naturally produce too many androgens such as testosterone, and as a result they perform better in athletics than women who don't. In fact, a group of elite female athletes were tested for this condition and it was presented 140x higher than the general population.
The IAAF introduced a policy to exclude women with hyperandrogenism, or force them to take birth control pills to artificially lower their hormones. It caused much controversy and is now suspended.
This begs the question, where is the line exactly? If women with hyperandrogenism are allowed, then why not trans women? Or if we ban women with hyperandrogenism, why don't we ban men with hyperandrogenism? I bet if you look at cis women who break world records, a few of them will have hyperandrogenism.
When it comes to elite levels of athletics, biology DOES play a factor. For example, the reason why many female gymnasts are so short is not because they grew up tumbling, it's because at higher elite levels of gymnastics they can rotate faster if they're shorter. But does that mean short women have an "advantage" over tall women? Should we split up gymnastics by height?
That's why this issue puzzles me as well. I think it's all very grey and I'm not sure what the solution is.
EDIT: I highly recommend reading The Sports Gene by David Epstein, he does a deep dive on how genetics plays into sports. It doesn't really answer OP's question but interesting nonetheless.
Some people just aren't as talented as others lol. It's like when you put in hard work to achieve something but someone who's a natural also achieves it without much work. There was an interesting book on this topic when it comes to athletics called "The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance"
I highly recommend reading if you ever have the time:
https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X
People living at higher altitudes gain increased resilience over generations, and not without drawbacks. Examples of early adaptations are increased red blood cell count (increasing heart attack, stroke, and blood clot chance) and changes in organ size. Only after hundreds of years do these tend to normalize into adaptations without increased health risks.
So yes, as the carbon content increases you might see some changes in human biology over several hundred years. However, no individual person will change significantly, only their descendants. And the corollary to that is that, for selective change to occur, people with advantageous traits will need to survive more often than those without.
In other words, if people will adapt, as you claim, it will be because it killed those who didn't, at least a little more often. Why the hell would that reassure me in any way?
The studies linked showed inconsistent effects on relatively small increases in CO2 content; it also states (if you'd read it) that large changes (over 5% concentration) like those found in submarines or low-ventilation spaces have known negative cognitive effects.
So your example of submariners is basically bunk.
Care to try for a third time? Maybe not spouting unsourced, ludicrous claims about humans just magically becoming fine with fundamental changes to our living conditions?
Source for the high-altitude claims: The Sports Gene, a rather good book.
There has been some quality scientific literature on this. The Sport's Gene is where I first saw this issue raised. Epstein does a great job of synthesizing the scientific findings with anecdotal sports references. Apparently it's a huge advantage. It's not just hormonal differences. There's differences in bone density, differences in height, bone structure, hip function, fat to muscle ratio just to name a few, which translate to huge advantages in endurance and strength across a variety of sports. I cannot recall any sport where it was advantageous to be a women over a man, but it's been a few years since I read the book and the trans/man/woman comparison wasn't a major portion of the book.
E: Found a list online of the characteristics Epstein discussed if anyone is curious.
Among the key physical differences between the sexes. Men are / possess
Idk if you're interested in a book, but David Epstein's The Sports Gene goes into some detail about it.
Before we jump into using race as it relates to performance, I'm going to recommend that you read a little bit more about the concept of race as a construct and also using race to talk about performance. One book that tackles that second subject a bit is [The Sport's Gene] (https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X). Conveniently, there's also a chapter about sex and sports performance as well.
>Do you have hard evidence to support this?
>I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree with you about his observations.- And this is coming from a black man :)
:)
No, unfortunately this is a very taboo subject because of the implications.
When we recognize that there are observable physical differences between groups of humans, it opens the obvious door to thinking about and researching mental and behavioral differences too. That's scary and verboten to many people. But it should be quite obvious, after all, are we really to think that evolution magically stopped at the brain stem?
We have shit tons of anecdotal evidence, just watch the Olympics or do a little analysis of NFL data. Where's the Asians at the final ten of the 100m dash? You won't even find east Africans in the 100m dash.
Here's an excellent book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/161723012X
The author of this book said that the research was really hard to do because dozens of respected scientists at leading universities were afraid to share their data with him because they were afraid of being called racist for their data.
I think things would improve a lot if the administration involved were very open about risks, and if joining a sport was packaged with accepting delineated risks, both to the parents and the players. Right now, there's no particular difference between signing a 5K waiver and joining lacrosse, even though the risks are vastly different. When you tell a player to do something dangerous, just tell them that it's dangerous and they need to either accept it or not, don't talk about "toughness". If someone doesn't want to slam their head into something, it's their choice, making it about "toughness" derails the whole thing since now you're making it a bad thing to choose not to do a dangerous activity, which is stupid.
I'm not going to disagree that football is one of the more dangerous sports out there. Second only to fighting sports like boxing, probably.
Yeah, headers seem to be pretty bad. The safe sports seem to be tennis and golf and the like. I'm not really sure if there's much of a point with it at that point, not every kid is going to like a sport, not every kid is going to be good at a sport, and not all sports are made equal. While I understand the risks of most sports, all the sports I find interesting are the more dangerous ones (football, lacrosse, MMA, hah)... I think sports should be played because you like them, if you want just the benefits, do fitness or even something like martial arts. Martial arts have a lot less of the "toughness" culture, too, and are often useful in day-to-day life. Martial arts can become dangerous if you want to go farther in them but they don't have to be on the onset.
I think I'd rather I spent more time in sports during my school years, but, at the same time, my coaches were awful, I had a couple hidden health problems, and several times the sport cut into my academics to an unacceptable degree. I'm doing personalized fitness these days and it works a lot better for me and I am getting much, much better results. If my kids are playing sports, I'm monitoring it. There's way too much garbage out there.
The benefit of sports rises the better suited you are to them. This is all very iffy when you remember genetics. They modify how people perform quite significantly yet this is completely ignored in favor of "hard work" and "toughness" narratives. If your kid is "correctly" aligned genetically and has no health problems you won't notice but if you have some issue you'll get a lot of trouble with the current approach to sports because the really only want the best and don't care for the rest. Nobody will actually try to properly develop your kid correctly and they don't know how to anyway. Seriously, read The Sports Gene. There's a particularly interesting story there about a guy who had to try like 5 sports before he found one that made sense, and a bunch of stuff about how different people improve over time (i.e., some people start good but don't advance as fast some are vice versa but the coaches won't care and will just call one lazy and talented and the other hard working). It's very much not one-size-fits-all. The whole "boundaries" and "pushing your boundaries" thing is really weird and individualized and the fact that the average athlete can't study for a test makes me suspicious about whatever the hell they're pushing there.
Make your kid study, a lot more useful and important and will push some boundaries. Studying skills can be applied back to the same sports (how to eat, how to train, psychological effects). It has the same problems in evaluation phase but you generally can't avoid it. Sports are optional, mostly entertainment, knowledge and problem solving is not. Nobody ever seems to talk about work and pushing boundaries involved in academics. I understand doing well on your biology exam or even getting an academic scholarship is not as flashy and exciting as winning a championship but it has a hell lot more relevance to human society and is much more likely to bear fruit.
Plug for a book I haven't read but have been meaning to- https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X
Good point. Also worth reading, The Sports Gene by David Epstein. It goes into all of these morphological and biomechanical intricacies in great detail.
Some of the links I posted earlier point this out. The "spindly legs" is a big one--many sources cite the high inverse correlation between calf girth and speed.
>can I please be directed to difinitive studies and explanations on why?
I found this book useful. It's about a host of things relating to physical/athletic performance and biology. There is a chapter dedicated specifically the distinctions between mens and womens performance in sports, along with lots of references to scholarly research on the topic.
It's been a few years since I read it, but some tidbits that stick out in my memory include...
The book is quite interesting for topics other than sex-based differences as well. The chapters on Jamaicans and sprinting dominance and Kenyans and Ethiopians and distance running were fascinating. And there's a chapter about the heritability of endurance among Alaksan sled dogs that was really cool.
Sticking to books the only other one i could recommend that I’ve read is the sports gene . It talks about the 10,000 hour rule and basically how some people are just born to be better at sports.
The other two books i have that i need to read are periodization and supertraining .
Other books I’ve been thinking of reading are the louie simmons/westside barbell collection. Especially olympic weightlifting strength manual .
Or
weightlifting programming .
I’m a powerlifter but i enjoy the olympic lifts i’m just not strong with them (best lifts are snatching bodyweight and c&j 1.25 bodyweight).
If you have more patience than prejudice, check out the book The Sports Gene which very comprehensively looks at trans athletes, their constantly changing DNA expression (it should be said that the expression of everyone's DNA is constantly changing) and pretty conclusively shows that a trans athlete after conversion has the exactly same hormonal, energy system and skeletal muscle systems as CIS athletes.
>This doesn't make you not racist.
That's just semantics.
> And what are those racial differences?
Let's start with the obvious. Clearly, given the sheer size of the population, Chinese and Indians ought to dominate the Olympics 100m-dash. But they do not. Almost all of the medalists have come from descendants of West Africa. Interestingly, as of late, Jamaicans have outperformed African-Americans despite coming from poverty-stricken environment with inferior training infrastructure. Same story with long distance running and marathons, where East Africans have dominated. These people are at a severe environmental disadvantage, so the case for cultural difference doesn't make sense in this case. So what is the reason? Well, a gene called ACTN3 - sometimes called a "sprint gene" - which is expressed primarily in fast-twich muscle fibers, were found in high frequency among the West-Africans. So, more ACTN3 genes you have, the more likely you will run faster in short distance. On the other hand, slow-twitch fibers aid you in endurance sports - such as distance running - and East Africans tend to have more of them than fast-twich fibers.
If you are interested, have a look at "The Sports Gene" by David Epstein, where he goes into depth on this topic.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/161723012X
The science is already pretty clear on this issue : There are meaningful, statistically significant differences between varying ethnic/racial groups. And this is common sense, if you think about it. The reason Japanese are shorter on average than Dinka people of Sudan is not because they are more poor and nutritionally deficient.
So, the burden is on you to explain to me why there can't be any differences in terms of mental capacity or personality traits between races - of which there are some scientific evidence, although not as conclusive - when there are clear differences regarding physical makeup and ability. If you take animals of the same species and let them evolve in separate environments for centuries, exposed to varying degrees and kinds of selection pressure, they will show significant differences in physical strength and temperaments. Why shouldn't the same law of nature apply to human beings? Not all scientific facts are in favor of liberal/leftist ideology. Just as right-wingers are in denial about climate change, liberals have their fair share when it comes to scientific blind spot.
>I don't think it's so much that the west are the only ones who have done it. It's that the west has done it to far greater effect and has done far greater damage with it than anyone else. And sure, I'll bet if Southeast Asia was in a position to colonize Europe, they would have. I don't see why that should matter, though.
>You're not supposed to "feel sorry" for Southeast Asia as though the region itself has feelings. Individual people were harmed by colonialism, and are still by its lingering effects.
That's just sheer display of ignorance.
You can easily make a case that Mongol Invasion of Europe and other continents in 13th century were more devastating in terms of the number of people died as a proportion of the world population at that time. Do you also feel sorry for all the casualty deaths incurred by Muslim invasion of the West that happened throughout Middle Ages and up until 19th century by the Ottoman Empire? If you do not, you have very partial understanding and biased view of world history.
Yes, the West has done some damage to the world in recent times. At the same time, a lot of great modern scientific breakthroughs and technological innovation of the Western civilization have brought about unprecedented amounts of wealth to this world. People are living longer than ever due to advances in medicine, and we are living in one of the most safest, peaceful, prosperous, and most egalitarian (with regards to human rights) time period than ever before.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/0143122010
Some good information came out of this book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/161723012X
> Yes they allow you the accelerate fast and change direction fast and be agile, all vital attributes in modern football. For example there is no attacking top player who does not have quickness and acceleration
I found some other people talking about it if you want to read:
https://philmaffetone.com/37975-2/
> We’ve long known that the fast-twitch, anaerobic muscle fibers are more prone to getting injured compared to the slow-twitch aerobic ones. This has been demonstrated in MRI imaging, which also shows these anaerobic fibers can make a person susceptible to injury.
> The slow-twitch aerobic muscle fiber, with the potential for long-term energy and fatigue-resistant movement, supports our joints and surrounding soft tissues, and can also help anaerobic fibers work better. However, if the aerobic system is not well developed, this function can be diminished.
Also, there is a heavy endurance importance in football. If there wasnt, we wouldn't be talking about players that can run 120 minutes + (like, for example, Cafu or Kante). Having crazy endurance is also useful, as you are much less prone to mistakes and your motor skills are less affected.
I think I read about this sampling of muscle types (which they found most slow twitching) in pro football players in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X
Edit: Found some of the pages:
https://books.google.se/books?id=BQYa8Mo8AT8C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=David+Epstein+slow+twitching+muscles+football+injury&source=bl&ots=wAShG0I0Cv&sig=HWfs5AM5iHcItfNab4kClDj031U&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMq6_W6OvVAhXJPFAKHXAsCAkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=David%20Epstein%20slow%20twitching%20muscles%20football%20injury&f=false
Great answer! You have to remember that although you may have the a higher level of knowledge than everyone else, this video is made for a large audience and needs to explain to everyone.
I am a detail guy as well, but I don't think any of our viewers would have stuck around for the video. If you want more details here are a few books I recommend with links to sources: Peak, The Sports Gene.
Great comment. David Epstein discusses chess in the this light in The Sports Gene, a great book that talks about the relationship between "effort" (i.e. memorization) and natural talent in mastering certain tasks/games.
It's mostly about athletic sports, but there's an extended section on chess. Elite competitors in other sports see the field of play in much the same way that grandmasters see chess boards. They can remember where everyone on the field/board is in fractions of a second, so fast that it would beggar belief if you didn't know an explanation was forthcoming. They're able to do this because of the relationships they see between pieces/players, e.g. when Peyton Manning looks at an NFL defense, he disregards the possibility that a defensive lineman would be covering a wide receiver downfield. It's a permissible arrangement of the players on the field, but it is utterly implausible, like a huge portion of the possible legal arrangements of pieces on a chess board.
Which makes me wonder what percentage of all possible chess games are reasonably plausible. My intuitive guess is that it's closer to 10^0 than 10^1.
If anyone is interested in this topic I would highly recommend reading The Sports Gene by David Epstein (https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X). Epstein talks pretty extensively about the genetic/anatomical/physiological factors that give men an athletic advantage over women. It also discusses in depth why people descended from Africa tend to perform better in many sports. He does a really great job talking about these potentially controversial ideas in a tasteful, non-offensive way. I'm a female that has never played any sports but this book was super interesting to me.
Nah, I think it's specifically appropriate to say here. OP was referencing this book, which basically discusses the impact that genetic traits has on athletic performance. Susceptibility to injury is an important factor which likely has at least some basis in genetics, and he's not "destined" for NBA success if his body betrays him.
Lots of folks reference Epstein's TED talk, but I'd check out his book The Sports Gene. He explores contemporary and classic research on swimmers, baseball players, hurdlers, endurance runners, sprinters, tennis players...Wonderfully digestible. One of my favorite books of 2014.