Why Kenyans keep winning marathons and long distance races

High hopes wrote:

It's absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Scientists have gone looking for an "East African gene" that might explain their success in distance running. They've found literally nothing. There's quite a few papers on this so the evidence is not in dispute. Genetics may matter individually, but it's not exclusive to East Africans (e.g. Paula Radcliffe is a genetic freak, so is Grant Fisher). So, we can rule out genetics straight away.

The more likely explanations come down to three factors:

1. Living and training at altitude - yes, western runners will do altitude camps, but this can't compare with living at altitude permanently and doing all your workouts there. So many western runners go to altitude for two months but then drive to sea level to do "key workouts". African runners aren't doing this

2. Financial incentives - prize money matters to African runners. Almost none get decent sponsorship deals so they depend on prize money to survive and thrive. That's also why they prioritise road racing where there is consistently decent prize money e.g. random 10k races in the US have prize money of $8-10k, how many track races have that sort of prize money? Pretty much only DLs.

3. Culture - quite simply, when East Africans look around to see what sporting success looks like for people in their countries, they see distance runners. This happens all over the world. New Zealanders aren't genetically predisposed to be great rugby league players. Canadians aren't genetically predisposed to be great hockey players. Americans aren't genetically predisposed to be great basketball or baseball players. But those sports are culturally important in those countries. Why is Japan such a good marathon running nation but terrible at mid-d compared to somewhere like the UK? Marathon running is culturally important in Japan but in the UK, track success is most often associated with mid-d events. In most of the rest of the world it's football that dominates, and that siphons off most of the great athletic talent in those countries.

Just please stop with the genetics. If your country is not succeeding at a sport, it isn't because you lost the genetic lottery.

High hopes wrote:

It's absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Scientists have gone looking for an "East African gene" that might explain their success in distance running. They've found literally nothing. There's quite a few papers on this so the evidence is not in dispute. Genetics may matter individually, but it's not exclusive to East Africans (e.g. Paula Radcliffe is a genetic freak, so is Grant Fisher). So, we can rule out genetics straight away.

The more likely explanations come down to three factors:

1. Living and training at altitude - yes, western runners will do altitude camps, but this can't compare with living at altitude permanently and doing all your workouts there. So many western runners go to altitude for two months but then drive to sea level to do "key workouts". African runners aren't doing this

2. Financial incentives - prize money matters to African runners. Almost none get decent sponsorship deals so they depend on prize money to survive and thrive. That's also why they prioritise road racing where there is consistently decent prize money e.g. random 10k races in the US have prize money of $8-10k, how many track races have that sort of prize money? Pretty much only DLs.

3. Culture - quite simply, when East Africans look around to see what sporting success looks like for people in their countries, they see distance runners. This happens all over the world. New Zealanders aren't genetically predisposed to be great rugby league players. Canadians aren't genetically predisposed to be great hockey players. Americans aren't genetically predisposed to be great basketball or baseball players. But those sports are culturally important in those countries. Why is Japan such a good marathon running nation but terrible at mid-d compared to somewhere like the UK? Marathon running is culturally important in Japan but in the UK, track success is most often associated with mid-d events. In most of the rest of the world it's football that dominates, and that siphons off most of the great athletic talent in those countries.

Just please stop with the genetics. If your country is not succeeding at a sport, it isn't because you lost the genetic lottery.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Whaaat?? wrote:

With your post there are 60 in the thread (one was deleted). Out of those 60, 10 are yours saying exactly the same thing. Can you just stop?
Thanks.

Doping aside, as it definitely explains some success but not all, I think opinions are polarized and vary between "it's genetics" and "it's not genetics".

In my opinion both are right.

The genetics are there, just like there are genetics for fast running in Norway, in Australia or in Colombia. It's the sheer numbers, the training group culture, environment (altitude, dirt roads, climate), and necessity that make East African talent/genetics so prevalent.

You saw that in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, when people lived in much worse conditions than today. Spain, the UK, Portugal, Italy, Finland, all had incredible runners and what was their background? Was any of them from a rich family? No.

Running was the sport for the poor before football/soccer started paying real money.

In any of these countries you would find big groups training together in the early hours and in the evenings. This was the birthplace for many greats in Europe. The group training, the healthy competition within and between training groups, the motivation to win a few extra bucks on the weekend.

Of course that when you have such groups and competition the best genetics will stand out. That happens in Kenya and Ethiopia today.

So you do concede - in the most limited way - that doping is part of the picture. That's big of you - when at least one of their athletes is busted each week. It makes the arguments about "genetics" somewhat irrelevant.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Whaaat?? wrote:

With your post there are 60 in the thread (one was deleted). Out of those 60, 10 are yours saying exactly the same thing. Can you just stop?
Thanks.

Doping aside, as it definitely explains some success but not all, I think opinions are polarized and vary between "it's genetics" and "it's not genetics".

In my opinion both are right.

The genetics are there, just like there are genetics for fast running in Norway, in Australia or in Colombia. It's the sheer numbers, the training group culture, environment (altitude, dirt roads, climate), and necessity that make East African talent/genetics so prevalent.

You saw that in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, when people lived in much worse conditions than today. Spain, the UK, Portugal, Italy, Finland, all had incredible runners and what was their background? Was any of them from a rich family? No.

Running was the sport for the poor before football/soccer started paying real money.

In any of these countries you would find big groups training together in the early hours and in the evenings. This was the birthplace for many greats in Europe. The group training, the healthy competition within and between training groups, the motivation to win a few extra bucks on the weekend.

Of course that when you have such groups and competition the best genetics will stand out. That happens in Kenya and Ethiopia today.

So you do concede - in the most limited way - that doping is part of the picture. That's big of you - when at least one of their athletes is busted each week. It makes the arguments about "genetics" somewhat irrelevant.

Bruhhhh wrote:

High hopes wrote:

It's absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Scientists have gone looking for an "East African gene" that might explain their success in distance running. They've found literally nothing. There's quite a few papers on this so the evidence is not in dispute. Genetics may matter individually, but it's not exclusive to East Africans (e.g. Paula Radcliffe is a genetic freak, so is Grant Fisher). So, we can rule out genetics straight away.

The more likely explanations come down to three factors:

1. Living and training at altitude - yes, western runners will do altitude camps, but this can't compare with living at altitude permanently and doing all your workouts there. So many western runners go to altitude for two months but then drive to sea level to do "key workouts". African runners aren't doing this

2. Financial incentives - prize money matters to African runners. Almost none get decent sponsorship deals so they depend on prize money to survive and thrive. That's also why they prioritise road racing where there is consistently decent prize money e.g. random 10k races in the US have prize money of $8-10k, how many track races have that sort of prize money? Pretty much only DLs.

3. Culture - quite simply, when East Africans look around to see what sporting success looks like for people in their countries, they see distance runners. This happens all over the world. New Zealanders aren't genetically predisposed to be great rugby league players. Canadians aren't genetically predisposed to be great hockey players. Americans aren't genetically predisposed to be great basketball or baseball players. But those sports are culturally important in those countries. Why is Japan such a good marathon running nation but terrible at mid-d compared to somewhere like the UK? Marathon running is culturally important in Japan but in the UK, track success is most often associated with mid-d events. In most of the rest of the world it's football that dominates, and that siphons off most of the great athletic talent in those countries.

Just please stop with the genetics. If your country is not succeeding at a sport, it isn't because you lost the genetic lottery.

It has absolutely everything to do with genetics, it’s literally been shown over and over again

Greater bone density ( that’s why black people cant swim no buoyancy)

Better anatomy for running - longer tendon like the Achilles which creates Bert economy as well as putting the calf higher which means less energy is required in the swing phase of the leg because the mass is higher up

most likely better gonatropin function/hormone profile especially at lower body weigh, most Caucasian get rail skinny and destroy there testosterone Africans are naturally lean because of environmental selection

Specific altitude adaptations particularly in the Oromo and kalenjin tribes that are significantly different from other highlanders

Link:journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article...

Higher prevalence of ACTN 3 gene which allows for less injury and better utilisation of fast twitch muscles hence why most top Africans can close the last lap quick (90-80% prevalence)

if anything your only really seeing the African that are durable enough to survive the training not the most talented ones that probably succumb to injury and don’t have the infrastructure to continue e.g physio

people use the word “superior” when it should be more suited/adapted and this doesn’t mean that Caucasian can’t run it just means that less of them will have favourable phenotypes

you can also look at the African diaspora for example in 2016 who made up the 5km team for rio in USA ?

High hopes wrote:

Bruhhhh wrote:

It has absolutely everything to do with genetics, it’s literally been shown over and over again

Greater bone density ( that’s why black people cant swim no buoyancy)

Better anatomy for running - longer tendon like the Achilles which creates Bert economy as well as putting the calf higher which means less energy is required in the swing phase of the leg because the mass is higher up

most likely better gonatropin function/hormone profile especially at lower body weigh, most Caucasian get rail skinny and destroy there testosterone Africans are naturally lean because of environmental selection

Specific altitude adaptations particularly in the Oromo and kalenjin tribes that are significantly different from other highlanders

Link:journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article...

Higher prevalence of ACTN 3 gene which allows for less injury and better utilisation of fast twitch muscles hence why most top Africans can close the last lap quick (90-80% prevalence)

if anything your only really seeing the African that are durable enough to survive the training not the most talented ones that probably succumb to injury and don’t have the infrastructure to continue e.g physio

people use the word “superior” when it should be more suited/adapted and this doesn’t mean that Caucasian can’t run it just means that less of them will have favourable phenotypes

you can also look at the African diaspora for example in 2016 who made up the 5km team for rio in USA ?

You have found a single study that doesn't even address how this may relate to distance running. Here's a summary article that obtains links to a lot more studies that show the exact opposite. The key line:

"the overall findings of these research studies have not identified genetic traits that could conclusively explain the success of East African distance runners."

Link:theconversation.com/can-genetics-expla...

Look, science is never settled, and I won't rule out genetics as an explanation, but the evidence is very much against it.

And "black people can't swim"?! Good god, man

Putting doping aside wrote:

We know all athletes from all countries could be doping and there have their own programs to do so.

it’s what no one wants to admit as it just too simple.

1) diet in the western world is terrible, nothing is fresh and it’s manufactured with additives and sugar.

2) there is a lack of desire from birth as most of us are on easy street to give us mental toughness and a lack of basic (physical, strength and conditioning) training from a young age.

3) the financial aspect, regardless how good you are, you go into tech or banking in the west or other sports. Running despite what we tell ourselves is hobby only.

4) size, this is predominantly the only genetic factor, that difference size people work better at different distances. It’s not a surprise the best distance runners have a bell curve of large woman/small man frame for distance.

It’s not a surprise that the west world did well pre 80’s as points 1 & 2 were similar to what the East African are still doing now.

Bruhhhh wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you do concede - in the most limited way - that doping is part of the picture. That's big of you - when at least one of their athletes is busted each week. It makes the arguments about "genetics" somewhat irrelevant.

Also if it’s not hereditary/genetics can you please debunk my previous comment

different environments are going to illicit different adaptations and genes that are conducive to that environment you’ll never see an East African winning a strongman competition so why is it so hard to except that they can dominate distance running

the dark truth is that Caucasian relinquished explosive sports to blacks because they could use it to showcase how animalistic they were to justify to their conscience that slavery wasn’t bad and that endurance was a white mans sport because it was about grit determination yada yada and now that the East African dominate them it rubs them the wrong way