"Country Loon"  wrote in
news:cl1e3g$2063$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> I have heard that the best long distance runners come from a tribe in
> Ethiopia who could get more wives(and hence more offspring) by buying
> them with livestock which they had to catch by running. The fastest
> ones had more offspring and hence the predominance. I would have
> though that this favoured sprinters more than long distance. Look at
> any Olympics and you will see 90% black runners in the final (or
> more!). There has to be a reason.Or is this a taboo question?


This subject has been debated previously, so it isn't taboo. But you should 
first take a closer look at the "black" runners in the Olympics. You will 
notice few Indians or New Guineans, both groups that are also "black". OK, 
so perhaps what you really meant was 90% are runners of African descent. 
But look a little closer, and you will notice that the African runners that 
dominate the sprints are all of West African descent, those that dominate 
the long distance runs are all of East African descent, and many of the 
"black" milers are North Africans. There are some distinct general 
differences in physique between these groups that make them better adapted 
to different distances. It has also been argued that because modern man 
arose in Africa there has been more time for development of extremes in 
ability, so one could likely find both the fastest and the slowest of 
runners among people of African descent. 

By the way, another thing you will notice if you look at the Olympics is 
that the fastest swimmers are almost entirely of Northern European descent. 
Any theories on the reason for that?

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/20/04 4:29:07 PM