What is Reddit's opinion of The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

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

• heavier and taller

• longer arms and legs relative to their height

• biggest hearts and lungs, thus able to absorb and process more oxygen

• twice as likely to be left-handed (high physical combat societies have more numbers of lefties – this arose due to natural selection as lefties have an advantage in combat)

• less fat

• denser bones, and a heavier skeleton that can support more muscle

• more oxygen-carrying red blood cells

• narrower hips which makes running more efficient and decreases the chances of ACL tears (epidemic in female athletes) while running and jumping

• 80% more muscle mass in upper body and 50% more in lower body

In trying to understand where you're coming from, I saw your (deleted) post on Phil's describing of differences b/w black and white players in his book.

While it may be scandalous or taboo today, noting differences (or non-identical average tendencies) b/w races used to be fair game. It interested both blacks and whites (see here where the author of Sports Gene notes that both Obama and Condoleeza Rice purchased his book).

https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X

2014 apparently. Different countries/academies have different philosophies though. I don't remember him ever actually mentioning size/strength but it was entirely to do with pace. Neither were very fast but they're also slow by the standards of professional players.

I vaguely remember hearing that The sports gene had some description about a combo of fast twitch muscles and weight distribution on legs and torso:body ratios are some of the key things. Like you can build models and show how physically different body ratios help, then verify different ratios (supposedly also why caucus people win so much at weightlifting?, because of the opposite torso:body ratio)

Read that along with David Epstein's The Sports Gene at like the same time. Honestly say it changed the way I look at sports.

I highly recommend The Sports Gene if you are interested in the interplay between nature v. nurture and sports. For a book that has a lot of science, it's an easy read and pretty fascinating. I can't remember specifics right now, but it definitely touches on some of the mental element, including competitive desire and drive.

Genetics definitely play a role, even if they're not the only factor.

Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but there's a book, The Sports Gene, that explores this very topic.

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.

There's a lot of contributing factors, genetics, environmental, historical and also culturally. It's not just *one* thing that makes them stronger athletes, but it's the combination of many things. There's a lot to unpack so i'll just put a few points.

• Jamaica has two big sports, football (soccer) and track. The national championships for Track and Field really are a national thing, bringing out fans from all over the country. It's like Jamaica's Super Bowl, the stadium of 35,000 seats sells out, it's broadcast on national TV live, the winners are considered national heroes, etc.
• Every school in Jamaica offers track and field and several schools are noted for their very high level programs. To the extent that parents will move across the island and pay their life savings to send their kids to the school and be coached.
• The high levels of money that Jamaica invests in these schools and their programs, including top level facilities, equipment and coaching.
• Consistent weather year round that allows for outdoor training.
• A lot of people tend to suggest that people of East and West African descent tend to have longer achilles tendon and stronger bone density in the heel. Although there isn't much real evidence to corroborate this as a defining factor.
• In Usain Bolt's Autobiography he talks about how he grew up in Trewlany, Jamaica and his childhood involved a lot of chores, including hauling buckets of water and food, walking/running to school, sports and other types of physical activity that was part of growing up in the country and is very common among Jamaican children. Such high levels of structured and unstructured exercise during childhood tend to help kids gain more foundational physical conditioning that can influence their capabilities as an athlete later on.
• The typical diet on Jamaica is very healthy, with a lot of fruits and vegetables that consist of complex carbohydrates.
• A lot of Jamaicans (and many East/West Africans) view elite sport as their ticket out of poverty, so they really commit to the training and competition over almost everything else. The pressure is placed on kids often at a very young age.
• The Trewlany region of Jamaica traces its history back to Guerilla Warfare by the Maroons which were former slaves of the Spanish who fled when the British invaded the Island. The British took control of the Island and attempted to engage with the Maroons many times, but the landscape and guerilla warfare helped the Maroons defeat the British. Unfortunately, many of the Maroons were eventually deported, but they did return to the Island.
• The landscape of Jamaica is very hilly, grassy and with beaches that, while part of the physical activity of daily life, lend itself well to training and reduction of injuries.

There are many factors at play, each individual is different of course but there are a lot of consistent themes in the background of each elite sprinter from Jamaica which contributes to their capabilities and rankings as an athlete.

There's some great books that cover this topic, The Sports Gene, Faster Than Lightning, Faster, Higher, StrongerHope this helps!

​ Edit: Also, cricket.

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.

As sports have evolved heights have gotten a lot more specialized. The average basketball player height has increased and the average gymnast height has dropped.

There's a book called The Sports Gene by David Epstein that goes into great depth about all of this, stuff like why Jamaica has great sprinters and why Kenya has great runners. It also disputes the "10000 hours rule" and talks about how people adapt to training differently. It's an amazing book and it really changed the way I look at sports. I highly recommend it, one of my all time favs.

https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/161723012X

Here's a short TED talk where he gives an overview of the book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

I really enjoyed The Sports Gene when I read it several years ago.

To make Kenya more interesting, most of the Kenyan runners are from The Kalenjin tribe. If you want to get into more of how this came about, read The Sports Gene.

I recall an early Nairobi Marathon in the mid 00's where the winner was a forest guard in the Aberdare mountains, so he lived at about 4000 meters above sea level. It was not a well paid job and he did not have any real training, he just ran for recreation. When asked what he was going to do with the not-insubstantial prize money, he replied, "well, I need a better pair of shoes."

add this book to your reading list

> 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_W6OvVA...

David Epstein - The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance

Basically a book analyzing the genetic components to athletic performance. It's written for laity and therefore very easy to read.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/161723012X

This is the author giving a Ted talk. The topic is actually unrelated to the book. It did get touched upon a bit though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

Tangential, but on-point. I'm reading this currently. There's a chapter in there about the topic of how various organizations consider eligibility to compete in the women's divisions of various sports. Pretty fascinating stuff. Illustrates your point about the danger of discussions around sex classification - Maria Martinez-Patino from Spain, Caster Semenya from South Africa, and so forth. On the other hand, it also reinforces my point that the differences we have codified as 'sex,' however precisely or imprecisely, do have meaningful objective impacts that we need to come to grips with on their own terms.

Having your identity challenged is not cool. Ms. Martinez-Patino was evidently informed by the Spanish Athletic Federation in 1986, "you are not a woman" after being excluded from the Olympic team. That's horrible to put it mildly. Your ambitions are crushed, your identity is challenged, and an allegation of cheating is hanging over your head, all unwarranted (she was later re-instated, if you're unfamiliar with the story...but by then her training had gone on hiatus for a year while she fought it out and she missed qualifying for the '88 Olympics).

On the other hand, you have to stop and consider why we have women's exclusive competitions to begin with. Just to zero in on CAIS...according to Epstein's book, the prevalence of it in the general population is something like 1 in 50,000. But in the top tiers of women's athletics, the prevalence is something like 1 in 400. There is something real, meaningful, and deeply biological there. The goal of having women's sports to is to attempt to recognize objective a priori reality, and still empower sport, with it's implicit importance of a level playing field. I mentioned this book before in a different thread. I don't know what to say about the topic other than "I'm glad I'm not the person who has to decide how to handle those decisions." Because it sure doesn't look like there's a way to be right, just, and compassionate all at the same time.

I recommend the book.

Some good information came out of this book

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/161723012X

It's literally called sports psychology. Wiki entry

This was lent to me by a freind and sparked my interest in the field.

I just picked this up but haven't read it yet

I am sure you can find tons and tons of great material to study on the subject.