10 ms·

People overestimate the role of genetic advantages in individuals. Usually these advantages can't be quantified, they can hardly be predicted. It takes a lot o

People overestimate the role of genetic advantages in individuals. Usually these advantages can't be quantified, they can hardly be predicted. It takes a lot of math to do that for a population of athletes... and then the top performer gets injured.

timje1 13y ago
The article mentions some clear examples of people who have genetic advantages. Eero Mäntyrantas' advantage isn't difficult to quantify ( sixty-five per cent more red blood cells than the normal adult male ), so I'm not sure it can be dismissed so easily..
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  There are exceptions to every rule. His particular mutation is extremely rare, and probably not even beneficial outside endurance sport. Of course there are "big wins" in genetics. But they are the exception, not the rule. If you see someone smarter or faster than someone else, chances are genetics has next to nothing to do with it. Still we hear genetics mentioned in this context all the time.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    If we have the top marathon runner from Kenya, and the top marathon runner from, say, Russia - then chances are that genetics have everything to do with it. At top of sports, every single one of them has all the "nurture" stuff close to maximum - not identical, not maximum, but with no huge differences in the training and preparation. If you see "someone faster than someone else", then if those 'someones' are a gold medalist vs an amateur - sure, genetics have little to do with it; but if those 'someones' are a gold medalist and 4th place... then genetics (or possibly doping) are everything; the 4th place runner did everything else pretty much the same as the top one.
chongli 13y ago
People overestimate the role of genetic advantages in individuals. No, they don't. In fact, we're so aware of it that we have an entirely separate category for athletes that lack a Y chromosome.
- RBerenguel 13y ago
  I'd go to the length of defining this as the role of chromosomic advantages (or disadvantages.) I guess genetic is too "small" to refer to chromosomic.
- lkozma 13y ago
  I'm trying to understand the argument you are making, but it seems logically correct only if the previous comment were "underestimate" instead of "overestimate".

timje1 13y ago

The article mentions some clear examples of people who have genetic advantages. Eero Mäntyrantas' advantage isn't difficult to quantify ( sixty-five per cent more red blood cells than the normal adult male ), so I'm not sure it can be dismissed so easily..

bayesianhorse 13y ago
There are exceptions to every rule. His particular mutation is extremely rare, and probably not even beneficial outside endurance sport. Of course there are "big wins" in genetics. But they are the exception, not the rule. If you see someone smarter or faster than someone else, chances are genetics has next to nothing to do with it. Still we hear genetics mentioned in this context all the time.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  If we have the top marathon runner from Kenya, and the top marathon runner from, say, Russia - then chances are that genetics have everything to do with it. At top of sports, every single one of them has all the "nurture" stuff close to maximum - not identical, not maximum, but with no huge differences in the training and preparation. If you see "someone faster than someone else", then if those 'someones' are a gold medalist vs an amateur - sure, genetics have little to do with it; but if those 'someones' are a gold medalist and 4th place... then genetics (or possibly doping) are everything; the 4th place runner did everything else pretty much the same as the top one.

chongli 13y ago

People overestimate the role of genetic advantages in individuals. No, they don't. In fact, we're so aware of it that we have an entirely separate category for athletes that lack a Y chromosome.

RBerenguel 13y ago
I'd go to the length of defining this as the role of chromosomic advantages (or disadvantages.) I guess genetic is too "small" to refer to chromosomic.
lkozma 13y ago
I'm trying to understand the argument you are making, but it seems logically correct only if the previous comment were "underestimate" instead of "overestimate".