The first thing to note is that there are two types of athletes: Those with fast twitch muscles and those without. Fast twitch muscles produce maximum power output during high intensity activities such as sprinting, jumping, lifting weights and throwing the ball. They also generate the greatest amount of force when performing movements requiring speed, like running at top speed or cutting through a crowd of people. These are the type of muscles used most often in sports where performance is crucial.
Slow twitch muscles have a lower capacity for producing power than fast twitch muscles, but their endurance allows them to perform longer periods of exertion. Slow twitch fibers are found in all body parts and play a major role in aerobic functions such as breathing, blood circulation and digestion.
Athletes with slow twitch muscles tend to be stronger than others because they have greater endurance. However, it takes more energy to maintain these slower metabolisms compared to faster ones.
So which type of athlete matters more?
Well, if you want to run fast or jump high, then it makes sense to choose athletes with fast twitch muscles. If you’re trying to stay healthy and avoid injury, however, it’s better to select athletes with slow twitch muscles since they will allow your body to recover from exercise quicker.
In fact, researchers have shown that athletes with slow twitch muscles have less chance of developing injuries than those with fast twitch muscles. Likewise, it’s very rare to find a sprinter with excess body fat.
This is mainly due to the fact that these groups are predisposed to different evolutionary traits and lifestyles.
For example, the muscles of long-distance runners require less force to be expended than those of a weight lifter. In fact, long-distance runners usually have less muscle mass than powerlifters because more effort is spent on endurance rather than strength.
It doesn’t end with muscle mass either; human brain chemistry is different as well. Although sprinting relies more on fast twitch muscles, endurance running requires greater mental focus and less physical energy.
This means that sprinters are more likely to have higher levels of adrenaline and testosterone than long-distance runners who have higher levels of blood lactate and neurotrophins.
These findings have real world implications for anyone interested in sports or athletics. It means that sprinters are more likely to be hyperactive, impulsive and extroverted while distance runners are more likely to be introverted, intellectual and reserved.
This information could explain the popular saying “Football players are dumb jocks,” as it is well-known that most football players excel at sprinting rather than distance running.
Although these are negative stereotypes, the difference between races is very real. Different races evolved different traits in order to survive in their own environments, and this is still true to this day.
For example, it is commonplace for Kenyans to dominate the distance running scene simply because of where they live. Kenyan running dominance began in the 1970s when foreign runners began speeding past slower local runners, prompting some Kenyans to try their hand at running. By the late ’70s, Kenyan men had taken the lead in the world of distance running.
It’s not just Kenyans either. Ethiopians dominate running as well, and their success stems from similar reasons.
But what about sprinting races? Caucasians outnumber both Kenyans and Ethiopians in the sprinting world, so what gives?
Well Caucasians also happen to be dominant in other sports that require quick bursts of energy such as boxing and wrestling. The sprinting world is a mixture of both slow and fast twitch muscles.
Environment and evolution play a large role in all of this. Most Kenyans live at higher altitudes (where oxygen is lower), so they develop lung capacity naturally.
Ethiopians grow up at higher altitudes as well, but they are also closer to the equator where there is more sun and warmth, so their bodies develop faster.
Finally, Caucasians grow up in a climate with more food and resources, so they can afford to grow and develop slower twitch muscles. All three groups have evolved to their surroundings and all three groups are successful in their own right.
But what about non-Caucasians? Why are they less successful in sprinting and other “fast twitch” sports?
This is due to the fact that most of them don’t grow up with the right surroundings. TheMaoris of New Zealand, for example, have exceptional speed and dexterity but they are outnumbered by the Caucasian population and live in a colder climate so they don’t develop the same way as their Polynesian counterparts.
It is also interesting to note that there are no black world class sprinters today and there hasn’t been one in decades. Some have argued that this is due to latent racism against them by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), but this is ridiculous.
The IAAF has strict anti-doping rules that were put in place in the ’80s and ’90s due to some scandals involving multiple East German and Bulgarian runners.
There have been many allegations that today’s top sprinters, Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin, have been cheating and taking performance-enhancing drugs. Most of these allegations seem to stem from the fact that they’re both dominant in their sport despite never having to compete against a white world class sprinter.
One could also argue that the dominance of East African runners is due to cheating as well, but this is based on ignorance. Their dominance is based on many of the factors I’ve already mentioned.
If you were an athlete and you had to choose between training in Kenya where the air is thin and there’s less oxygen, the sun is blazing down on you, and you’re running on dirt roads or in the grass most of the time, or you could train in an area that’s mostly paved and there’s more oxygen, which environment would be better for you?
There are many other factors such as diet and health care, etc. that are better in Kenya as well. There are a multitude of reasons why African runners dominate the sport. The IAAF is not banning them because of racism, they’re doing it because they’re breaking the rules and getting away with it. This is true of pretty much every elite runner, not just East Africans.
But the fact remains: there are no white world class sprinters today and there haven’t been any for decades. My theory is that whites haven’t evolved to have the same natural abilities in the sport, just like most other non-Caucasian groups.
Daniel Vender is a stay-at-home father with a love for philosophy and politics. He wrote his Master’s thesis on the concepts of freedom and liberty.
He is a libertarian with radical anti-state, anti-war ideas. He is a gun-rights advocate and pro-life feminist.
Guns in the Senate?
By Michael Gulett
During senate session last week, Senator Tom Davis proposed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which would allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry firearms into the General Assembly’s office buildings.
The proposal was criticized by some as a dangerous action that would put the safety of senate members at risk.
The issue of being able to carry firearms into the State Capitol has been a source of much debate in recent years. In fact, this is not even the first time the issue has been brought up in the senate, as a similar bill was brought before the senate two years ago, but ultimately defeated.
The issue also has strong bipartisan support; in fact, the resolution has co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
If passed, the law would allow not just senators, but also their staff members and visitors with gun permits to carry firearms into the senate office buildings. Aside from having to be a permit holder, there would be no restrictions on who could bring firearms inside.
There is a concern with this however, such as the potential for gun related accidents. Accidental or incidental firing of a weapon could lead to severe injuries or even death, and given that the senate office buildings are located in such a high-traffic area of the capital, there is a very real danger of this occurring.
The other major concern with allowing people to carry firearms into the State Capitol is related to the heightened risk of terrorism. Allowing firearms to be carried into the State Capitol would make it easier for a terrorist group to carry out an attack, which could lead not just to mass casualties among senators and staff members, but also tourists and other visitors who have no connection to the government.
At the same time, banning firearms from the State Capitol gives citizens the impression that their government is able to infringe on certain rights for security purposes, which in itself is a cause for concern among those who favor limited government.
Whether the resolution will pass or not is still in question, but one thing is for certain: this issue is not going away anytime soon.
Does the US need stricter gun control?
By Ian Slattery
The recent events at Umpqua Community College in Oregon have reignited the debate over gun control in the United States. The shooting, which left nine people dead and nine wounded, has raised questions about whether or not the United States needs stricter gun control laws.
At the moment, it is easier to get a gun in the US than it is to get contraception or even birth control pills.
There have been more mass shootings in the US than one can count on one hand, and yet not enough has been done to pass gun control laws in the country. In fact, just days before the Oregon shooting, two separate laws that would make it easier to buy guns were proposed in Missouri and South Carolina.
Most Americans support stricter gun control laws. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken in 2015 found that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor a three-day waiting period for firearms sales, and a nationwide ban on military-style assault weapons.
But Republicans, including leading 2016 presidential candidates, have blocked gun control legislation from passing through the House of Representatives.
The issue has once again come to the fore in the wake of the latest shooting. Democratic candidate for president Martin O’Malley called it “insane” that a person can “buy an assault weapon anywhere in this country.” Fellow candidate Hillary Clinton has also urged the country to take on the National Rifle Association, which opposes stricter gun control laws and is considered one of Washington’s most influential lobbying groups.
We need to protect innocent lives. We need to get guns out of the hands of criminals.
The United States has more gun homicides than any other developed nation in the world. The Washington Post reports that since 1972, there have been at least 1,000 mass shootings across the U.S.
A little over a week ago, the senate voted against proposals that would have prevented people on the terror watch lists from buying guns and expanded background checks for firearm sales at gun shows and on the Internet.
Both measures needed 60 votes to pass, but only got 53 and 54 votes respectively. Three gun control amendments were put forward in the Senate and all three failed to pass.
Why is it so difficult to enact gun control laws in the United States?
In 2013, after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 27 dead, a bill that would have imposed stricter limits on purchasing firearms fell flat. The main argument against the bill was that the restrictions would have placed an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens, while failing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
But as public support for stricter gun control measures increase, it’s possible that we could see some changes made soon.
What do you think can be done to prevent mass shootings in the United States?
Have your say by voting in our poll and leaving your thoughts in the comment section below.
Sources & references used in this article:
‘Lifting the veils and illuminating the shadows’: Furthering the explorations of race and ethnicity in sport management by KL Armstrong – Journal of Sport Management, 2011 – journals.humankinetics.com
‘Race’, sport and leisure: lessons from critical race theory by K Hylton – Leisure studies, 2005 – Taylor & Francis
‘Race’talk! Tensions and contradictions in sport and PE by K Hylton – Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2015 – Taylor & Francis
‘Race’and sport: critical race theory by K Hylton – 2008 – books.google.com
The transmission of racist ideology in sport: Using photo-elicitation to gauge success in professional baseball by GL González, EN Jackson, RM Regoli – Journal of African American …, 2006 – Springer
Sexuality matters in physical education and sport studies by D Hemphill, C Symons – Quest, 2009 – shapeamerica.tandfonline.com
What can we learn from sport if we take sport seriously as a racial force? Lessons from CLR James’s Beyond a Boundary by D Hartmann – Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2003 – Taylor & Francis
“There’s No Race On The Playing Field” Perceptions of Racial Discrimination Among White and Black Athletes by TN Brown, JS Jackson, KT Brown… – Journal of Sport and …, 2003 – journals.sagepub.com