running limitation

"gty" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"I don't know why you believe that any assertion of inheritable
differences
between human groups is inherently vile"

I was being facetious. thinking of other humans as different has been a
justification for genocide.

That is a true fact, especially by the Nazi's with their "scientific" proofs
that Jews are inferior. (although this is hard to square with the belief
that they controlled everything...)

-- Dan

"gty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

there is no way to test whether kenyans have an innate gift for
running. common sense says that it is their desire that gives them the
advantage. teams from poor neighbourhoods always outperform the rich
kids. when your punishment for being a bad runner is starvation, you
will tend to run faster. i don't know why you people are so easly
persuaded to believe these racist theories.

who do you mean by "you people", you racist [censored]?

Quoted message said:

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IIabe.13362> I'm totally open to the possibility that:

Quoted message said:

a) it's all circumstance & culture
b) it's a slight genetic difference between all Africans and the
tribes in the rift valley.
c) it's a mixture of both.
d) it's unknowable.

Based on what I've read, my money is on (c)

My pre Socrates philosophy class stated there only three states in life;
It is
It is not
It is both 🙂

-Doug

Dan Stumpus wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The only way this will ever be settled to everyone's satisfaction is to
isolate the gene(s). Since we have a few million genes of greater
importance to discover, especially for diseases, we will discuss this for
years to come.

I think there are only about 25k active human genes -- pretty amazing, huh?
I think the wheat plant has more genes than a human being does. So much

for

Quoted message said:

more is better...

It's now being shown (as reported in recent articles in Scientific American)
that information encoding is far more complicated than just the
protein-generating sections of DNA thought to be the "active" areas. The
so-called junk DNA areas are utilized in way's we never imagined possible. I
believe it said that certain RNA uses sections from the Junk DNA, so it's
not really Junk. Didn't understand it all from a quick browse, but it's said
to be revolutionary. The process of decoding the mechanisms of life is now a
great deal more complex.

Quoted message said:

I'm totally open to the possibility that:

a) it's all circumstance & culture
b) it's a slight genetic difference between all Africans and the tribes in
the rift valley.
c) it's a mixture of both.
d) it's unknowable.

Based on what I've read, my money is on (c)

I'd go with possible genetic variation combined with environment. There's no
reason to believe human's don't have determinable genetic differences that,
for example, aid in digesting different foods, or select for traits such as
thinner calves -- which are seen not just in Kenyans, but also in west
african sprinters. Clearly the basis of discrimination itself - color - is a
genetically selected trait. Dark pigment carries an advantage in areas with
lots of sunlight because it protects the skin from damage.

One might argue that such a trait wouldn't be selective because damage to
the skin wouldn't be life-threatening until after reproductive age, if then
even. But in would be selective in terms of mate selection. Who would mate
with a diseased looking person? Skin damage to ligher individuals might
occur even though they're younger, making them less appealing. Thus,
whatever the forces at work, selection can and does happen every day.

One only needs to look at dog breeding and the vast variety of types of dogs
it has produced in the last 10k years or so. I think the very slight
differences that make an iditarod dog a better distance runner - and they
have been bred to be far better than even the alaskan huskie - would be very
difficult to detect genetically. That type of subtle variation may indeed be
in the gene modifiers carried in the junk DNA that's been recently
discovered to be an important secondary process. But *something* clearly is
being passed on as a trait to those race-bred endurance dogs, that cannot be
in doubt. The same goes for human populations, either naturally selected, or
mate selected.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm suing my parents for giving me slow bulky genes. I can then use the
money to get a gene transplant to go with the botox, liposuction and a
trip to the fountain of youth to complete my makeover.

I'm going after my Mom. She was a 13 min/mile 5k runner, my dad was ranked
5th in California when he was 62... Both of them have a more slender build
than I do, damn them.

I curse my father's side - I'm built just like my dad, his brother, and one
cousin - about 5'9 short stocky legs (with thick calves), and long torso. It
was fun being a fast sprinter as a kid, but now that I want to get out there
and run for hours it sucks 🙂

-Tony

Quoted message said:

-- Dan

kaza said:

I'm 40 and have been running for the past 1 1/2 years. Though
consistent, I'm not getting the serious mileage I'm gunning for. Even
up to my best standard, I can't hardly push beyond the six km range.
At five k, I'm totally out of breath even my running or jogging is a
better word is merely between 8 - 10 km /hr. 1-1/2 years of running,
3-4 times a week is considered long....but with the weeny km run, am

I

Quoted message said:

not trying hard enough? My target is to compete in 10 km run...can I?

Kaza:
Don't beat yourself up! By running 3-4 days per week for 1 1/2 years
you are probably in better shape than 90% of 40 year olds. If you are
out of breath, run at a slower pace. When you can run a certain
distance or for a certain duration without getting out of breath,
slowly increase your pace or distance. Be patient, you have put 1 1/2
year into it, hopefully you are having fun, and it WILL pay off in
greater distance and shorter times. Even in running, the tortoise
beats the hare.
Murph

"Be patient, you have put 1 1/2
year into it, hopefully you are having fun,
and it WILL pay off in
greater distance and shorter times.

Even in running, the tortoise
beats the hare."
~ Murph

"... not if
The race is a short one ~ !"
~ Folly

Tony said:

One only needs to look at dog breeding and the vast variety of types of dogs
it has produced in the last 10k years or so. I think the very slight
differences that make an iditarod dog a better distance runner - and they
have been bred to be far better than even the alaskan huskie - would be very
difficult to detect genetically.

Just a minor point, and I could be wrong, but I believe the Iditarod
dogs *are* usually "Alaskan huskies" - a mixture of assorted breeds.
Some have used Siberian huskies and I can't remember what others. One
guy used to run poodles (now outlawed). Alaskan huskies are not allowed
in some European races because they aren't a recognized breed.

"The Alaskan husky may have a different look in the next century, but
you can bet one thing will remain the same. The Alaskan husky pulls
harder and runs faster than any dog in the world."

This is an interesting discussion of the "breed" and what it means
around the world.
http://www.cabelasiditarod.com/runyan_husky.html

Keep in mind there's a lot of dogs bred from these lineages that don't
make an Iditarod team.

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004

Dot wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

One only needs to look at dog breeding and the vast variety of types of

dogs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it has produced in the last 10k years or so. I think the very slight
differences that make an iditarod dog a better distance runner - and they
have been bred to be far better than even the alaskan huskie - would be

very

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

difficult to detect genetically.

Just a minor point, and I could be wrong, but I believe the Iditarod
dogs *are* usually "Alaskan huskies" - a mixture of assorted breeds.
Some have used Siberian huskies and I can't remember what others. One
guy used to run poodles (now outlawed). Alaskan huskies are not allowed
in some European races because they aren't a recognized breed.

"The Alaskan husky may have a different look in the next century, but
you can bet one thing will remain the same. The Alaskan husky pulls
harder and runs faster than any dog in the world."

This is an interesting discussion of the "breed" and what it means
around the world.
http://www.cabelasiditarod.com/runyan_husky.html

Keep in mind there's a lot of dogs bred from these lineages that don't
make an Iditarod team.

Good points Dot. I think I meant to say the new breeds (aka Alaskan huskies)
are faster than the traditional Siberian huskies. The main point I was
making is that the proof is in the results - breeding for speed (and
durability etc.) does work even if not every dog from those lineages are
used in races. Traits are passed on, but they're probably very subtle accent
traits and would probably be very difficult to distingush genetically. But
who can deny that many types of traits have been selected (by humans) to
produce the variety of breeds existant today, including these new faster
huskies? This begins to happen in a handful of generations, not over eons.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004

Tony said:

Good points Dot. I think I meant to say the new breeds (aka Alaskan huskies)
are faster than the traditional Siberian huskies.

That is very correct 🙂 The Siberians larger and don't tolerate heat
very well. The team of Siberians in this year's race scratched because
of that.

The main point I was

Quoted message said:

making is that the proof is in the results - breeding for speed (and
durability etc.) does work even if not every dog from those lineages are
used in races. Traits are passed on, but they're probably very subtle accent
traits and would probably be very difficult to distingush genetically. But
who can deny that many types of traits have been selected (by humans) to
produce the variety of breeds existant today, including these new faster
huskies? This begins to happen in a handful of generations, not over eons.

Correct. Based on some comments in the articles, it looks like it's at
least 3 generations, but obviously more is better.

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004