Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

> have genetic talent - they didn’t just train harder than their middle school mates who were out of breath

Who knows if it was only due to genes? And more importantly, there isn't a gene that's about running faster. (sure, some genes are helpful and might get you in front - not discounting the work the athlete goes through)

Getting to the podium is a mix of several characteristics: Some people might be more prone to muscle recovery/injury resistance. Another one has a better muscle fiber mix. Another one has different muscle attachment positions. And another one feels less pain.

Though yes your genetics probably will push you towards a sport. Take the 100m finalists and put them to train marathon (and vice versa) and they'll probably go to the back of the pack even with good training.

View on HN

Gene for running faster: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.0108...

Amusingly, it is literally what you are writing about. Certain variants of that gene confer exactly a) better recovery b) sports injury resistance c) fast twitch fiber synthesis.

Simply because we have not pinpointed something with laser precision, propagated the knowledge to every human with internet access and papered it up with indisputable evidence strong enough to pacify the eternally-online exception finders and fact checkers - does not mean such things do not exist.

You are your genes. just a tiny 2% difference - and you would end up a dolphin.

> just a tiny 2% difference - and you would end up a dolphin

This is weirdly specific and I'm pretty sure my brain is going to remember this and bring it up on random occasions for the next ten years.

Sure, that's one gene that helps. Saying that you only need that to get to a podium would be a stretch.

And there might be other genes. Someone missing this beneficial change might have other helpful mutations. As even the article points

> In addition, whilst Kenyan and Ethiopian endurance runners are highly successful (Wilber and Pitsiladis, 2012), the frequency of the XX genotype within this group is very low at 8% (Ethiopian) and 1% (Kenyan) (Yang et al., 2007) (XX is the endurance variation)

Or are you saying that Track programs should genetically test for this gene and drop whoever doesn't have it?

> Or are you saying that Track programs should genetically test for this gene and drop whoever doesn't have it?

They don't have to. There is almost certainly a lot of self-selection going on. Anecdotally, I got one of those genetic kit tests done 10 years ago, and it included results on a "fast-twitch vs slow twitch muscle gene". I, who was a sprinter in high school who struggles immensely with long distance running, unsurprisingly have the gene for fast-twitch muscles. My wife, who has never participated in any kind of sport involving sprinting at any level but competes in long-distance races, unsurprisingly has the slow-twitch gene. Neither of us had any of these genetic tests available when we got involved in these activities. We just learned over time what we were naturally good at and what we struggled with. Does it mean that I can never run long-distance at the level my wife does, or that she could never have competed in sprinting? Maybe, but not necessarily. However if possible, it would take far, far more effort than sticking with the things we are good at.

Between people gravitating to what comes naturally, and other filters (like making or being cut from a track or XC team), a lot of the genetic filtering already occurs without actual testing.

Sure, there isn't a gene that makes you run faster, but no matter how hard you train, you'll have a hard time beating Michal Phelps unless you're also naturally built like Michael Phelps: https://www.biography.com/news/michael-phelp-perfect-body-sw...

The point isn't that there is a "best" set of genes. The point is that there can be genetic advantages or disadvantages. Physical reality has an impact on experiential reality.

Where it gets dangerous is when people start using this as an argument for eugenics or an "ought" rather than "is" (i.e. constructing hierarchies out of physical attributes).

Yeah, considering the actual day to day life of all people, Michael Phelps's genetic advantages are pointless. They confer advantage only in a specifically designed field that society has created and that is really a tremendous waste of time all things considered; it's just a performance.

But the aim of all this genetic stuff is not saying "well, Kenyans can make better marathon runners if we stick them into a sports contest." It's usually a lot more pernicious than that, and involves intelligence. And ordering society in some manner around genetic expressions in a way a lot more dangerous than recognizing some people are better at public performance than others.

The US military routinely tests recruits for IQ and assigns roles appropriate to that level. They even outright reject some people for being too stupid.

Nobody seems to be up in arms about it, why?

We also already do all sorts of soft eugenics in our own lives, from assortative mating to academic scores and schools one attends, social circles that one enters because of their achievements and so on. At some point it will become a lot more quantitive, to reduce the currently large factor of luck.

Societies that refuse to take advantage of optimizations this could bring will eventually lose out, for better or worse, this is entirely inevitable.

The progress of technology is not always progressive. There is a reason most of sci-fi reads downright dystopian.

> Who knows if it was only due to genes? And more importantly, there isn't a gene that's about running faster

Do you interpret “genetic talent” as “there is a single gene that explains everything about this skill”? I don’t.

Would you say it’s unreasonable to say cheetahs are faster than turtles due to genetics unless you can pinpoint the one gene that causes the running speed difference?

> Some people might be more prone to muscle recovery/injury resistance. Another one has a better muscle fiber mix. Another one has different muscle attachment positions. And another one feels less pain.

All genetic, so you’re agreeing with me then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com