99 replies to this topic

[Hebbeh]

Mark Sisson is the classic example of being born with good genetics. He wasn't a skinny sickly little kid or a fat little kid that overcame huge obstacles (read sub-optimal genetics) to succeed at what ever he wanted in spite of the hand he was dealt. It's obvious that his life isn't reinforcing your case. You might pick a better example. If you examine his life, he excelled from day one. He also excels at writing, promoting, and selling fitness books. Find somebody that dramatically overcame huge odds to totally turn their life around. There are always a few exceptions...and thus the reason to put 100% into everything you do...but you're going to have a hard time finding somebody that transformed from being the one never picked for a team to becoming an Olympic champion. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't set goals and attempt to take those goals as far as we can.

Edited by Hebbeh, 14 September 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[TheFountain]

Mark Sisson is the classic example of being born with good genetics.

"I had extreme inflammatory conditions prior to starting the Primal Blueprint lifestyle"-Mark Sisson

So, wrong. And wrong, and, oh, by the way, WRONG!

Everything else you said is elitist and I have no interest in wasting my energy on it.

Nobody said behavior does not influence health. But the power we have over our genes is limited, as you will learn as you grow older, start losing parents and relatives to diseases they didn't "deserve" based on lifestyle, and start seeing the effect of uncontrollable genes on yourself.

Yea because most people adopt a Primal Blueprint way of life, and regardless of such they are slaves to their ghastly evil genetics!

Look, there is no point arguing over a case that has not even been panned out because the majority of the people have not attempted this lifestyle and the few who do see great successes!

And who is Mark Sisson that we should pay him any attention? Did he by any chance win a Nobel or something?

Never heard of da primal blueprint? Da grandaddy of Paleo? Shit.

[Hebbeh]

Mark Sisson is the classic example of being born with good genetics.

"I had extreme inflammatory conditions prior to starting the Primal Blueprint lifestyle"-Mark Sisson

So, wrong. And wrong, and, oh, by the way, WRONG!

Everything else you said is elitist and I have no interest in wasting my energy on it.

You might want to research Mark Sisson's life rather than a quote used to pitch a book he conned you into buying.

And contrary to your opinion, there is nothing elitist about me. Like most everybody, I've used hard work to maximize my potential. No free lunches here.

[TheFountain]

Mark Sisson is the classic example of being born with good genetics.

"I had extreme inflammatory conditions prior to starting the Primal Blueprint lifestyle"-Mark Sisson

So, wrong. And wrong, and, oh, by the way, WRONG!

Everything else you said is elitist and I have no interest in wasting my energy on it.

You might want to research Mark Sisson's life rather than a quote used to pitch a book he conned you into buying.

And contrary to your opinion, there is nothing elitist about me. Like most everybody, I've used hard work to maximize my potential. No free lunches here.

I presume you understand that most Athletes involved in competitive games work hard. That the degree to which people try varies, thus do the outcomes. I presume you know this, or hope you realize this.

Trying does not have a direct evidential relationship with Genes from what I can tell. Or, to put it better, if it does turn out to have a relationship with genes it is an inverse one, culminating from individual effort which THEN effects Genetic expression. NOT genes effecting whether you try, or want to try, or want to do much of anything for that matter.

Otherwise, why would anybody try? What would be the point of trying? You paint far too religious an image of Genes. It's really hard to swallow that kooky pill.

Edited by TheFountain, 15 September 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[nupi]

Yea because most people adopt a Primal Blueprint way of life, and regardless of such they are slaves to their ghastly evil genetics!

Look, there is no point arguing over a case that has not even been panned out because the majority of the people have not attempted this lifestyle and the few who do see great successes!

Look, genes actually also determine whether primal blueprint might be a good or a rather terrible idea for you. Probably the single most obvious point is ApoE; for ApoE4 genotypes, the high fat diet promoted by primal blueprint is a rather bad idea. As for some ofthe other stuff in primal blueprint, some of it is very true (eat more veggies, sleep enough, work out but don't overdo it), some of it appears more cultish than anything else (like his unrestrained hate on even low insulin carbs) or might even be flat out wrong (this whole go out in to the sun business seems like a rather terrible idea to me, for one).

All in all, Sisson has some good points but in terms of scientific validity. he is probably only one step above Tim Ferriss (who at the very least is highly entertaining, Sisson seems more missionary than anything else).

Disclaimer: As an ApoE3, I dabbled with primal blueprint inspired diets for about 2 months and honestly did not note any significant difference. I also quite obviously do not have the genetics to become huge (on the upside, I also do not get fat easily) though I have never tried any of the true PEDs.

Edited by nupi, 15 September 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Hebbeh]

You paint far too religious an image of Genes. It's really hard to swallow that kooky pill.

Actually Fountain, you have it backwards. Genetics is completely science based and science proven. Religion has nothing to do with it but you seem to continually bait that into the conversation. Could you simply be trolling?

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.

You speak about it like it's predetermined fate and that sounds very religious minded to me. I cannot support that way of thinking. Especially with such scant evidence behind it.

Religious folk say the same about the existence of 'God'.

Proof is still not forthcoming.

Which I find as paranoid as "the devil is all around us, be scared!".

Edited by Hebbeh, 15 September 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[Hebbeh]

You may have missed this post detailing the diversity of genetics so I will repost it for your benefit and make it more readable. Of course you may need a basic background in biology to comprehend the significance.

http://www.scienceda...30905101950.htm

Wide Range of Differences, Mostly Unseen, Among Humans


No two human beings are the same. Although we all possess the same genes, our genetic code varies in many places. And since genes provide the blueprint for all proteins, these variants usually result in numerous differences in protein function. But what impact does this diversity have? Bioinformatics researchers at Rutgers University and the Technische Universität München (TUM) have investigated how protein function is affected by changes at the DNA level. Their findings bring new clarity to the wide range of variants, many of which disturb protein function but have no discernible health effect, and highlight especially the role of rare variants in differentiating individuals from their neighbors.


The slightest changes in human DNA can result in an incorrect amino acid being incorporated into a protein. In some cases, all it takes is for a single base to be substituted in a person's DNA, a variant known as a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). "Many of these point mutations have no impact on human health. However, of the roughly 10,000 'missense' SNPs in the human genome -- that is, SNPs affecting the protein sequence -- at least a fifth can change the function of the protein," explains Prof. Yana Bromberg of the Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology at Rutgers University. "And in some cases, the affected protein is so important and the change so large that we have to wonder why the person with this mutation is still healthy."

Furthermore, two unrelated individuals have thousands of different mutations that affect proteins. Previously, scientists did not fully understand how this large number of mutations affects the coding sequences of DNA. To investigate these "silent" mutations, Bromberg joined forces with Rutgers colleague Prof. Peter Kahn and Prof. Burkhard Rost at TUM.

Silent mutations more significant than previously thought
"We found that many of the mutations are anything but silent," declares Rost, head of the TUM Chair for Bioinformatics and a fellow of the TUM Institute for Advanced Study. The research indicates an extremely wide range of mutations. Many SNPs, for example, are neutral and do not affect protein function. Some, however, cause pathogenic disruption to protein functionality. "There is a gray area between these extremes," Rost explains. "Some proteins have a reduced biological function but are tolerated by the organism and therefore do not directly trigger any disease."

The research team analyzed over one million SNPs from a number of DNA databases. They used artificial learning methods to simulate the impact of DNA mutations on the function of proteins. This approach enabled them to investigate the impact of a large number of SNPs quickly and efficiently.

Insight into human evolution
The study's findings suggest that, with respect to diversity in protein function, the individual differences between two people are greater than previously assumed. "It seems that humans can live with many small changes in protein function," says Rost. One conclusion the researchers draw is that the wide functional spectrum of proteins must play a key role in evolution. In addition, Bromberg says, "Protein functional diversity may also hold the key to developing personalized medicine."

This research was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Rutgers University School of Environmental and Biological Sciences.

Journal Reference:

• Y. Bromberg, P. C. Kahn, B. Rost. Neutral and weakly nonneutral sequence variants may define individuality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013; 110 (35): 14255 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1216613110

Edited by Hebbeh, 15 September 2013 - 03:27 PM.

[nupi]

You paint far too religious an image of Genes. It's really hard to swallow that kooky pill.

Actually Fountain, you have it backwards. Genetics is completely science based and science proven. Religion has nothing to do with it but you seem to continually bait that into the conversation. Could you simply be trolling?

Either that or whatever he is using to build muscle has serious neurological side effects...

[TheFountain]

Look, genes actually also determine whether primal blueprint might be a good or a rather terrible idea for you. Probably the single most obvious point is ApoE; for ApoE4 genotypes, the high fat diet promoted by primal blueprint is a rather bad idea.

As far as I understand it the Genotypes you discuss (the ones who cannot cope with the primal blueprint) are rare?


Otherwise, explain the potential negative outcomes if you are this Genotype and dabble in low carb, high fat?

Or, hypothetically speaking, what if you see positive results but are of a genotype that is suppose to do bad on said diet?

By "positive results" I mean losing fat, gaining muscle. Etc.

You paint far too religious an image of Genes. It's really hard to swallow that kooky pill.

Actually Fountain, you have it backwards. Genetics is completely science based and science proven. Religion has nothing to do with it but you seem to continually bait that into the conversation. Could you simply be trolling?

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.

You speak about it like it's predetermined fate and that sounds very religious minded to me. I cannot support that way of thinking. Especially with such scant evidence behind it.

Religious folk say the same about the existence of 'God'.

Proof is still not forthcoming.

Which I find as paranoid as "the devil is all around us, be scared!".

All above statements are reinforced by the lack of correlating evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is one thing, but at that point it's still one Bro's words against another Bro's words.

[Hebbeh]

Look, genes actually also determine whether primal blueprint might be a good or a rather terrible idea for you. Probably the single most obvious point is ApoE; for ApoE4 genotypes, the high fat diet promoted by primal blueprint is a rather bad idea.

As far as I understand it the Genotypes you discuss (the ones who cannot cope with the primal blueprint) are rare?


Otherwise, explain the potential negative outcomes if you are this Genotype and dabble in low carb, high fat?

Or, hypothetically speaking, what if you see positive results but are of a genotype that is suppose to do bad on said diet?

By "positive results" I mean losing fat, gaining muscle. Etc.

You paint far too religious an image of Genes. It's really hard to swallow that kooky pill.

Actually Fountain, you have it backwards. Genetics is completely science based and science proven. Religion has nothing to do with it but you seem to continually bait that into the conversation. Could you simply be trolling?

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.

You speak about it like it's predetermined fate and that sounds very religious minded to me. I cannot support that way of thinking. Especially with such scant evidence behind it.

Religious folk say the same about the existence of 'God'.

Proof is still not forthcoming.

Which I find as paranoid as "the devil is all around us, be scared!".

All above statements are reinforced by the lack of correlating evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is one thing, but at that point it's still one Bro's words against another Bro's words.

You can't be serious. Your quoted comments and current response is ridiculous and demonstrates you have no understanding or comprehension of the science. This is classic "bro science" at it's best.

And as far as evidence, did you even read my post #67 above (along with all the other excellent science based and proven posts by others) or did you simply not comprehend it? You have either chosen to be blind to the evidence or unable to understand.

And as far as how an individual may react to a particular diet or training program or any medical intervention (or any number of other scenarios) as stated before, doesn't depend on a single gene but the interaction of 1000's of genes in which no 2 individuals are alike (read each of us will have different reaction due to the infinite interplay of all the various combinations possible). This has been pointed out in numerous scientific peer reviewed studies posted throughout the thread.

But hey, if Bubba down at the dungeon gym says it's so....than that's good enough...for you.

[nupi]

Look, genes actually also determine whether primal blueprint might be a good or a rather terrible idea for you. Probably the single most obvious point is ApoE; for ApoE4 genotypes, the high fat diet promoted by primal blueprint is a rather bad idea.

As far as I understand it the Genotypes you discuss (the ones who cannot cope with the primal blueprint) are rare?


Otherwise, explain the potential negative outcomes if you are this Genotype and dabble in low carb, high fat?

Or, hypothetically speaking, what if you see positive results but are of a genotype that is suppose to do bad on said diet?

By "positive results" I mean losing fat, gaining muscle. Etc.

ApoE4 is roughly 14% of the American population according to Wikipedia - not that rare in my book. The negative outcomes are pretty simple: increased risk of artherioscleroris and Alzheimer... Definitely not what Sisson preaches. Also, his pathological fear of phytathes seems a bit premature - them being chelators, they might actually help to avoid overly high iron consumption that would come with a diet high in beef..

[TheFountain]

Look, genes actually also determine whether primal blueprint might be a good or a rather terrible idea for you. Probably the single most obvious point is ApoE; for ApoE4 genotypes, the high fat diet promoted by primal blueprint is a rather bad idea.

As far as I understand it the Genotypes you discuss (the ones who cannot cope with the primal blueprint) are rare?


Otherwise, explain the potential negative outcomes if you are this Genotype and dabble in low carb, high fat?

Or, hypothetically speaking, what if you see positive results but are of a genotype that is suppose to do bad on said diet?

By "positive results" I mean losing fat, gaining muscle. Etc.

You paint far too religious an image of Genes. It's really hard to swallow that kooky pill.

Actually Fountain, you have it backwards. Genetics is completely science based and science proven. Religion has nothing to do with it but you seem to continually bait that into the conversation. Could you simply be trolling?

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.

You speak about it like it's predetermined fate and that sounds very religious minded to me. I cannot support that way of thinking. Especially with such scant evidence behind it.

Religious folk say the same about the existence of 'God'.

Proof is still not forthcoming.

Which I find as paranoid as "the devil is all around us, be scared!".

All above statements are reinforced by the lack of correlating evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is one thing, but at that point it's still one Bro's words against another Bro's words.

You can't be serious. Your quoted comments and current response is ridiculous and demonstrates you have no understanding or comprehension of the science. This is classic "bro science" at it's best.

And as far as evidence, did you even read my post #67 above (along with all the other excellent science based and proven posts by others) or did you simply not comprehend it? You have either chosen to be blind to the evidence or unable to understand.

And as far as how an individual may react to a particular diet or training program or any medical intervention (or any number of other scenarios) as stated before, doesn't depend on a single gene but the interaction of 1000's of genes in which no 2 individuals are alike (read each of us will have different reaction due to the infinite interplay of all the various combinations possible). This has been pointed out in numerous scientific peer reviewed studies posted throughout the thread.

But hey, if Bubba down at the dungeon gym says it's so....than that's good enough...for you.

Hebbeh, you can spout about scientific comprehension all you want, but you are still not the conductor of a specific study environment where specific outcomes are arising related to genetics and performance.

Epigenetic expression is also a matter of what YOU choose to do! Not just what you are religiously fated by your Jesus genes to go through, irregardless of effort.

If that were the case then Epigenetic expression would not exist.

The answer is, we are still evolving.

Look, genes actually also determine whether primal blueprint might be a good or a rather terrible idea for you. Probably the single most obvious point is ApoE; for ApoE4 genotypes, the high fat diet promoted by primal blueprint is a rather bad idea.

As far as I understand it the Genotypes you discuss (the ones who cannot cope with the primal blueprint) are rare?


Otherwise, explain the potential negative outcomes if you are this Genotype and dabble in low carb, high fat?

Or, hypothetically speaking, what if you see positive results but are of a genotype that is suppose to do bad on said diet?

By "positive results" I mean losing fat, gaining muscle. Etc.

ApoE4 is roughly 14% of the American population according to Wikipedia - not that rare in my book. The negative outcomes are pretty simple: increased risk of artherioscleroris and Alzheimer... Definitely not what Sisson preaches. Also, his pathological fear of phytathes seems a bit premature - them being chelators, they might actually help to avoid overly high iron consumption that would come with a diet high in beef..

14% of the population, how is this ethnically divided?

By the way, I do not eat beef or red meat at all. Just white meat. Fish and chicken that is low in fat and high in protein.

I go back and forth between higher fat and lower fat. Not sure why but that's what I do. I guess it depends on calorie necessities and Gym performance.

[Hebbeh]

Hebbeh, you can spout about scientific comprehension all you want, but you are still not the conductor of a specific study environment where specific outcomes are arising related to genetics and performance.

Epigenetic expression is also a matter of what YOU choose to do! Not just what you are religiously fated by your Jesus genes to go through, irregardless of effort.

If that were the case then Epigenetic expression would not exist.

The answer is, we are still evolving.

Certainly, like genetics itself, epigenetics plays a significant role. After all, that is the basic premise of most PED's. However, epigenetics isn't the be all end all either. Once again, epigenetic changes may or may not be possible to achieve in every single scenario in every single individual to overcome every single unfavorable SNP mutation. Again, just like genetics itself, it depends on the individual. If not, we would all become alike....and we aren't. We are all as different as can be in every way possible. Even PED's are not going to make the playing field level for all of us....or else more of us would be playing professional sports and making millions. Not happening.

And certainly eating healthy and exercising is obviously going to have a better outcome than living as a couch potato. I don't hear anybody disputing that. That is the whole reason why every single one of us should make the effort. Not because we hope to become a world class contender...but because we will certainly improve our outcome in life by trying instead of not trying. I don't hear anybody disputing that. That is the whole basis of this forum. Trying to improve our odds of a long healthy life. Achieved by living a healthy lifestyle. But even though everybody here is exposed to the same knowledge and opportunity, not everybody is going to achieve the same result. Some of us are always going to be healthier no matter what. And a few of us will make it to a healthy 100 and beyond. But most of us will probably not.

But I agree that science is evolving and we are learning more every day. We probably are just at the tip of the iceberg. And we can hope that is a trend that will continue to provide more and more answers in the future and beyond.

And best of luck in your epigenetic changes. That is what we work for.

Edited by Hebbeh, 15 September 2013 - 07:30 PM.

[nupi]

14% of the population, how is this ethnically divided?

By the way, I do not eat beef or red meat at all. Just white meat. Fish and chicken that is low in fat and high in protein.

I go back and forth between higher fat and lower fat. Not sure why but that's what I do. I guess it depends on calorie necessities and Gym performance.

Who cares about the ethnic composition of those 14%? It at the very least disproves his quasi religious one diet fits all claims.... Eating just fish and chicken is not all that close to his diet, anyway.

[niner]

Who cares about the ethnic composition of those 14%?

Everyone should care. This is the first study I ran across, and it may not be the best, but it finds that this genotype isn't uniformly distributed.

Ethn Dis. 2006 Winter;16(1):9-15.
Apolipoprotein E and cognition in community-based samples of African Americans and Caucasians.
Borenstein AR, Mortimer JA, Wu Y, Jureidini-Webb FM, Fallin MD, Small BJ, Mullan M, Crawford FC.

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, MDC-56, University of South Florida, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612-3805, USA. aborenst@hsc.usf.edu

To compare relative frequencies of apolipo-protein E (APOE) alleles in African-American and Caucasian populations and test associations with cognition, we studied two community-based samples: one of 253 African Americans and another of 466 Caucasians age 60-84 years. Logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, education, and history of hypertension and diabetes was used to associate APOE with five cognitive measures. The APOE-epsilon4 allele frequency was 29.5% in African Americans and 12.1% in Caucasians. In the African Americans, no association was found between the presence of the APOE-epsilon4 allele and any of the cognitive measures. Among Caucasians, APOE-epsilon4 carriers performed more poorly on three of the five tests. We also report a considerably higher frequency of the APOE-epsilon4 allele in our African-American sample compared to other US-based studies.

PMID: 16599342

[TheFountain]

Who cares about the ethnic composition of those 14%?

I do, because it would make that number even smaller and less significant.

It at the very least disproves his quasi religious one diet fits all claims....

Then why is there such dead set hate against veganism as a health diet on this forum? Apparently the consensus is that no phenotype fits the vegan schematic.

[JohnD60]

Then why is there such dead set hate against veganism as a health diet on this forum?

I had not noticed. I don't hate veganism or vegans. I do dislike the vegans that are idealogical vegans, then conclude based upon an expansion of that ideolgy that veganism is inherently biologically superior to other diets, and pontificate about it.

[niner]

Who cares about the ethnic composition of those 14%?

I do, because it would make that number even smaller and less significant.

That really depends on the ethnic makeup of:

you
your family/friends
your city/state/country
the world.

Kind of a decreasing selfishness gradient. Just bear in mind that when someone in your society gets sick, it costs you, one way or another.

[TheFountain]

Who cares about the ethnic composition of those 14%?

I do, because it would make that number even smaller and less significant.

That really depends on the ethnic makeup of:

you
your family/friends
your city/state/country
the world.

Kind of a decreasing selfishness gradient. Just bear in mind that when someone in your society gets sick, it costs you, one way or another.

I am all about community.

What I was trying to say is that if 14% is the population number total then the population of blacks, asiatics, caucasians must be broken down from that. So let's say, hypothetically 2% black, 1% asian, 3% latino and 8% caucasian were the hypothetical number, you would then have to break it down to how many of that 8% caucasian number are italian, irish, russian, Dutch mixed, etc.

And further how or if a mixed caucasian ethnicity would create a gradation of the phenotype.

This means it can very well turn out to be a 1 in every 100 Americans scenario or 1 in ever 1,000 Americans. We just don't have that statistic, but something tells me it is fairly low.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 September 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[niner]

This means it can very well turn out to be a 1 in every 100 Americans scenario or 1 in ever 1,000 Americans. We just don't have that statistic, but something tells me it is fairly low.

Then you don't understand basic arithmetic. Borenstein et al. found that it was 12.1% of Caucasians, and 29.5% of African Americans. There's no way to cajole those numbers into 1 out of 100 or 1000(!?!) Americans. IIRC, the number for Americans overall was 14%.

The math works like this: Take 13% as the fraction of Americans that identify as African descent, and 87% for all the rest, since we don't have numbers for other groups.

13 * .295 + 87 * .121 = 14.36

That gets you a value of 14.36, i.e. 14% overall. This is one of many genetic differences between Blacks and Whites that go a long way toward explaining disparities in health outcomes. Apparently some people find this concept to be "politically incorrect".

[Hebbeh]

That's why there is no one size fits all in anything. Not only are there vast genetic differences and corresponding outcomes in general but obviously even greater differences among different ethnic lineages. Multiple the two together and I wouldn't want to blindly bet and leave it to blind chance as to what my outcome might be. Even with DNA testing, ApoE is only one data point of thousands. And most of those data points haven't been documented and categorized yet. Are you feeling lucky today......

[nowayout]

What is the point of this thread anymore?

[BlueCloud]

@ The Fountain : I may be mistaken, but I think you are reading a subtext in some of the comments about genetics, a subtext that is not really there ( I think...)
You are interpreting the existence of genes as a way to impose determinism, fatality and elitism ( and therefore a form of subtle or not so-subtle racism, fascism and control over some groups of humans ). The thing is, you are not totally wrong about that. Genetics can, is , and will be abused by some people to push some dubious hidden agendas and not-so-noble ideas.

But you can't prevent that by denying the existence of genetics. It's like if you are taking a walk somewhere nice and enjoying the scenery, and it's starting to rain. The rain may ruin your nice ballad, but you can't stop it by denying its existence ( "if I believe that rain doesn't exist, then it will stop raining" ). You can limit its influence however by opening your umbrella, and then you can continue to enjoy your walk.

One cannot deny the existence and the impact of genetics on your abilities ,( especially physical ones). Now, what percentage do they represent compared to your environment and your own will, is hard to quantify. The fact that it is hard to quantify doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people will be able to do everything considered wrong in this forum, overdrink alchol, smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day, have high risk behavior, and still live happily and in perfect health until they get very old. Some kids will develop cancer at age 5, and die a few months later.

Is it unfair ? Yes, it is TOTALLY and utterly unfair. Life IS unfair. If you are born under the shape of a mouse, you WILL be eaten by a cat. There is no way around it.

The difference is : Recognising that doesn't mean you're approving it, or giving up on the hope of correcting that unfairness , to at least some degree.
All because of this phenomena called "consciousness". Being conscious of one's existence , and being able to look outside of yourself and seeing the big picture, what is referred to as "the human condition". We are conscious of our own existence, therefore our own limitations.
And consciousness brought with it another phenomena called "empathy". The ability to see the world from the point of view of another human being, and even to feel ( up to a certain degree) things as they are experienced by that other being. This is huge, this changes everything. We experience pain , and we are able to experience other people's pain. We recognize the unfairness of some of our genetic heritage, and we say : " Well, that sucks. What can we do about it ? What techniques/supplements/chemicals/thoughts can we use or invent, to modify these given elements we are born with, and change them in such a way that we feel LESS limited by them, LESS rectricted by them". We examine each other bodies, we create theories, we experiment, we suggest to each other tools and techniques that will allow us to influence and act on our own individual and particular limitations. That is not elitism, or defeatism, or racism. Its is the OPPOSITE of it. It is trying to know reality better, so that we can act on it more efficiently. This what humans do, they modify the reality they live in. We ( humanity ) are all together in this same boat. And we still have a looooong way to go before we get a substantial advantage over whatever genetics we were born with. Lots of work to do.

( Now, back to wich 'racetam is better )

Edited by BlueCloud, 18 September 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[TheFountain]

Then you don't understand basic arithmetic.

And you apparently don't understand how to cite proper statistics without insulting someone elses intellect.

If I was appraised of that number do you think i'd have broken it down that way? I was quoting what's his name!

Borenstein et al. found that it was 12.1% of Caucasians,

Caucasian Americans?

The math works like this: Take 13% as the fraction of Americans that identify as African descent, and 87% for all the rest, since we don't have numbers for other groups.

13 * .295 + 87 * .121 = 14.36

That gets you a value of 14.36, i.e. 14% overall. This is one of many genetic differences between Blacks and Whites that go a long way toward explaining disparities in health outcomes. Apparently some people find this concept to be "politically incorrect".

It still deduces to a thinner figure than an entire population of a country when accounting for the ethnicity and mixes involved. Plus, we would need at least an epidemiology study to cite more than mere basic statistics of this phenotype.

[TheFountain]

I think I can illustrate the role of genetics a lot easier using this example:

What you are looking at is a comparison table of 3 distinct genetic phenotypes that Whippet breeders have been able to produce through selective breeding. The difference lies in the expression (mutation) of the (MSTN) myostatin gene. Type A is the standard bred racing whippet. Type B is the single copy MSTN mutation. Type C is the the double MSTN mutation. It should be noted that these dogs were bred this way:




It is the type B that is most interesting.. The study makes a pretty direct statement which I have highlighted below, and I agree with 100%:

STUDY: A Mutation in the Myostatin Gene Increases Muscle Mass and Enhances Racing Performance in Heterozygote Dogs

Dana S Mosher, Pascale Quignon, Carlos D Bustamante, Nathan B Sutter, Cathryn S Mellersh, Heidi G Parker, Elaine A Ostrander

"An individual's genetic profile can play a role in defining their natural skills and talents. The canine species presents an excellent system in which to find such associative genes. The purebred dog has a long history of selective breeding, which has produced specific breeds of extraordinary strength, intelligence, and speed. We have discovered a mutation in the canine myostatin gene, a negative regulator of muscle mass, which affects muscle composition, and hence racing speed, in whippets. Dogs that possess a single copy of this mutation are more muscled than normal and are among the fastest dogs in competitive racing events. However, dogs with two copies of the same mutation are grossly overmuscled, superficially resembling double-muscled cattle known to possess similar mutations. This result is the first to quantitatively link a mutation in the myostatin gene to athletic performance. Further, it emphasizes what is sure to be a growing area of research for performance-enhancing polymorphisms in competitive athletics. Future implications include screening for myostatin mutations among elite athletes. However, as little is known about the health issues and potential risks associated with being a myostatin-mutation carrier, research in this arena should proceed with extreme caution."


The direct linkage is there in lower species (this is a peer reviewed study and rather a well known one), and if you look at the opinion of most experts on PED's they will agree that the future is gene doping, just as the authors of this study postulate. IMHO, the future studies in humans will play out exactly like this one.

I would be VERY interested to see research delve into this area:

Future implications include screening for myostatin mutations among elite athletes.


I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a high degree of correlation between the MSTN gene and elite human sprinters. (I think its very interesting that even at the canine level, the dog pictured in the top pane of phenotype B has a physio-type that looks very much like an human elite sprinter athlete).

The problem is... the human genome is large, and it is complex, it will take time to properly identify the correct markers. The early evidence is building in that direction. Is it jumping the gun to assume that definitive proof already exists? I say yes (proof exists) but I guess it depends on which side of the argument your on

We'll be seeing a study like this one in humans... Its just matter of time.

 

I already pointed out that people are basically different. Different sizes, different skin color, different eye color. Different body types.

 

None of this means that the genes that make them basically different, make them extraneously different beyond these differences. 

 

For example, the gene for height does not automatically determine you to be a better basketball player. 

 

Michael Jordan was kind of short for a basketball player. He still dominated much taller men. 

 

Mike tysons shortness did not mean he succumbed to reach advantages often. 

 

Muhammad ali's lack of extreme musculature did not mean he was going to suffer in his boxing skills because other fighters were stronger and more muscular. 

 

And there are a ton of other examples which may be applied. 

 

The point is that what makes basic genetic differences does not necessarily make gigantic genetic differences to the degree that individuals who are committed do not have every chance of success as someone taller, more muscular or whatever the case may be. 

 

Yes people are BASICALLY different genetically.

 

No, people are not INSANELY different genetically. 

 

We are all the same fuckin species. 

Edited by TheFountain, 17 April 2014 - 02:26 AM.

[niner]

The point is that what makes basic genetic differences does not necessarily make gigantic genetic differences to the degree that individuals who are committed do not have every chance of success as someone taller, more muscular or whatever the case may be.

Sorry, that's just not the case. This is just politically correct wishful thinking, kind of like the mom who tells her dull child that he can grow up to be the President. There have been examinations into the genetics of athletes, and there are certain phenotypes that are a LOT better than others. If you have sub-par visual acuity, you are not going to be a great baseball player. If you have a sub-par brain, you are not going to be a great theoretical physicist.

Life isn't fair, and in the US, we seem to be bent on making it even less fair through the creation of winner-take-all compensation structures. That said, don't interpret what I'm saying as "genetics is destiny". It's not. If someone is really determined, and they work really hard, maybe they can get into the big leagues. But they don't have "every chance of success as someone taller...". They just don't. They will have to work harder for a lower chance of success. If they are really defective, then no amount of hard work is going to make them a superstar. Like I said, it's not fair. I suppose that it would be more correct to say that if your genetics are bad enough, then genetics IS destiny, at least as far as excelling far beyond the norm is concerned.

[TheFountain]

 

The point is that what makes basic genetic differences does not necessarily make gigantic genetic differences to the degree that individuals who are committed do not have every chance of success as someone taller, more muscular or whatever the case may be.

Sorry, that's just not the case. This is just politically correct wishful thinking, kind of like the mom who tells her dull child that he can grow up to be the President. There have been examinations into the genetics of athletes, and there are certain phenotypes that are a LOT better than others. If you have sub-par visual acuity, you are not going to be a great baseball player. If you have a sub-par brain, you are not going to be a great theoretical physicist.

Life isn't fair, and in the US, we seem to be bent on making it even less fair through the creation of winner-take-all compensation structures. That said, don't interpret what I'm saying as "genetics is destiny". It's not. If someone is really determined, and they work really hard, maybe they can get into the big leagues. But they don't have "every chance of success as someone taller...". They just don't. They will have to work harder for a lower chance of success. If they are really defective, then no amount of hard work is going to make them a superstar. Like I said, it's not fair. I suppose that it would be more correct to say that if your genetics are bad enough, then genetics IS destiny, at least as far as excelling far beyond the norm is concerned.

 

How do you have any clue that many super athletes have not chosen to be what they are and that the entire "genes are destiny" dogma was thrown out the window in favor of epigenetic expression (not saying they thought of it this way, but choice creates outcomes)? 

 

How can anyone claim to know these things down to any specific detail? It's really so beyond any of us that it's ridiculous to even be arguing over it. 

 

I have seen too many threads on various forums blaming 'genes' for the fact that some fat ass doesn't have the desire or will power to get his ass to the gym and build some muscle instead of being fat, skinny fat, or to change his overall Aesthetic to one more favorable to himself. It is hopeless mind sets like this which are a disease to personal development. And nobody should ever listen to them. 

 

And please, do not enter the president argument in relation to genetics. That non-sensical stance presupposes that W. was predestined because of his genetic stock, when it is entirely possible he was manipulated into office twice. Just an example for the heck of it. I am not an Obama fan either. Not a fan of many presidents in our history at all, nor their policies. 

 

Furthermore how many members of this site believe, and have re-stated constantly over the years, that we all should basically be on the same diet, more or less? Does such an argument not attest against extreme genetic differences? 

 

I advocate balance. We are all the same species regardless of how much people try to make us believe any of us belong on the high or low end.

 

I can last several rounds of Randori and Na Waza against Olympic athletes, and I do it by choice. Not because I am 'genetically gifted". Mind you these are people who are several belts higher than me. I choose it because I have the desire for it. And desire is a universal human trait. 

 

Therefor my message to everyone is to stand the fuck up and try. Nevermind genetic arguments that will just run you in circles chasing your tail. It will get you no where to deliberate on genetic inferiority, superiority and what have you. These terms are useless. People are basically different, not EXTREMELY different. 

 

 

Edited by TheFountain, 17 April 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

 

The point is that what makes basic genetic differences does not necessarily make gigantic genetic differences to the degree that individuals who are committed do not have every chance of success as someone taller, more muscular or whatever the case may be.

Sorry, that's just not the case. This is just politically correct wishful thinking, kind of like the mom who tells her dull child that he can grow up to be the President. There have been examinations into the genetics of athletes, and there are certain phenotypes that are a LOT better than others. If you have sub-par visual acuity, you are not going to be a great baseball player. If you have a sub-par brain, you are not going to be a great theoretical physicist.

Life isn't fair, and in the US, we seem to be bent on making it even less fair through the creation of winner-take-all compensation structures. That said, don't interpret what I'm saying as "genetics is destiny". It's not. If someone is really determined, and they work really hard, maybe they can get into the big leagues. But they don't have "every chance of success as someone taller...". They just don't. They will have to work harder for a lower chance of success. If they are really defective, then no amount of hard work is going to make them a superstar. Like I said, it's not fair. I suppose that it would be more correct to say that if your genetics are bad enough, then genetics IS destiny, at least as far as excelling far beyond the norm is concerned.

 

 

You pretty much are hitting the nail on the head with this Niner. Unfortunately, no amount of rational or reasonable discussion or scientific evidence is going to convince the entitlement generation or their parents that spawned them any differently.

[RJ23_1989]

 

You pretty much are hitting the nail on the head with this Niner. Unfortunately, no amount of rational or reasonable discussion or scientific evidence is going to convince the entitlement generation or their parents that spawned them any differently.

 

 

 

That's pretty much it exactly. 

[TheFountain]

 

 

You pretty much are hitting the nail on the head with this Niner. Unfortunately, no amount of rational or reasonable discussion or scientific evidence is going to convince the entitlement generation or their parents that spawned them any differently.

 

 

 

That's pretty much it exactly. 

 

 

Who the fuck is talking about entitlement? I am talking about getting off your ass and working for what you want. This applies to EVERYONE. 

 

You know what 'entitlement' is? Thinking you are several notches above everyone else due to 'genetic' inheritance. And that you thus do not need to WORK for it. 

 

That is what entitlement is. And that is bullshit.