Do ethnic minoritys ride ?

Daz555

Dense bones, achiles tendons, hip angles, fast twitch muscle - we hear it all and I've always thought it to be bollox to be honest.

For example, the fast twitch thing is very important in sprinting and people from the West Indies do have a higher percentage of people with a high concentration of fast-twitch muscle fibres. However the percentage of white europeans with the same 'advantage' is not actually not very far behind. No shortage of fast-twitch muscle in Chris Hoy for example.

Colin Jackon did a documentary about it a couple of years back - a sort of search to find out why he was so fast.

Culture has a big part to play as much as genetics. In Jamaica, every single boy wants to be a sprinter and nothing else. The obsession the island has with 100, 200 & 400m is incredible - it seems to be ALL they do. As a result 99% of the genetically athletic population end up sprinting. Same thing happens in NZ - 99% of the athletic population there want to play rugby, as a result NZ are bloody incredible at it, even more so when you consider the size of the country.

In contrast say, what percentage of whites in the UK take up athletics at all, never mind sprinting?

Sadly the whole subject is clouded in race issues which makes it difficult to study and to debate. Personally I think there may be something genetic in it but I feel that this is massively overshadowed by cultural influences.

Variation within races is far greater than the variation when you compare races against each other on the whole. Even if West Indian males for example had on average an extended heel, or longer bones, there is still be enough variation in other populations to make this irrelevant from a sporting perspective.

If we buy the genetics argument and look at successful athletes we'd conclude that North African (men and women) are automatically better at everything from 5000m upwards. And yet Radcliffe is the finest marathon runner of her generation. Black people are supposedly better sprinters and yet China has Liu Xiang - Olympic and World Champion in an event dominated by black athletes. Additionally, black American swimmers have won 4 medals (2 gold I think) in recent Olympics and Jeremy Wariner is one of the finest 400m runners of his generation and a 2 times world champion.

It's all down to variation.

I am not dismissing genetics entirely here but get the feeling that some place too much emphasis on it and by only considering the genetics we miss the more complex question around culture/society and simple stuff like "what sport is country x really into?". Additionally, I suspect that when the idea is implanted that one race has an automatic advantage that another does not then this discourages participation and makes the gulf even larger. Interesting subject really.

Oh and back to te subject of black swimmers. If we take the US as an example - it has a great swimming heritage and also supports a vast range of elite sports - ask yourself one question. Is there perhaps another popular sport in the US tha attracts the attention of tall, long limbed black athletes?

Oh, and when whites were still winning most things 50yrs ago, no-one was trying to figure out why.

Blimey, long post. Sorry. :oops:

geordiefreerider

Daz555 wrote:

For example, the fast twitch thing is very important in sprinting and people from the West Indies do have a higher percentage of people with a high concentration of fast-twitch muscle fibres.:

Maybe something to do with Spanish colonisation ???

tjwood

The thing about genetics might explain why there are fewer athletes in top flight professional sport, but not really at a recreational level (I am sure black people can swim, and white people can run fast, even if white swimmers and black runners have slight genetic advantages they can't have much effect until you get really serious).

I suppose a lack of role models at a top level may discourage recreational participation, but it can't be a very significant or the only factor.

Loghopper

Thought I would add my 2p's worth as a "serious mountain biker" who is of Indian descent. In about 10 years of mountain biking, while a student in Edinburgh and now in Yorkshire I've only ever seen one other asian mountian biker (while out in Hebden Bridge). In fact, we were both so shocked we stopped and had a chat for a bit.
Likewise I'm usually the only asian in triathlons and running events.

I think that a lot of the reasons are cultural, sport in general is not seen as something particularly worth pursuing seriously, amongst middle class asians, a lot of emphasis is placed on academic/business interests. Sports like cricket, hockey football are more encouraged. Likewise this is probably why there aren't a lot of black swimmers or cyclists. I don't really think genetic factors play a big part.

As mountain biking grows in popularity I'm sure more ethnic minorities will take it up. Anyway any other asian/black MTBers should pipe up... all 10 of us...

geordiefreerider

Wow, I never thought this thread would cause so much debate, but I tell you what, every post has been interesting and im glad i started it because it's educated me in a lot of ways !!

passout

Daz555 wrote:

Dense bones, achiles tendons, hip angles, fast twitch muscle - we hear it all and I've always thought it to be bollox to be honest.

For example, the fast twitch thing is very important in sprinting and people from the West Indies do have a higher percentage of people with a high concentration of fast-twitch muscle fibres. However the percentage of white europeans with the same 'advantage' is not actually not very far behind. No shortage of fast-twitch muscle in Chris Hoy for example.

Colin Jackon did a documentary about it a couple of years back - a sort of search to find out why he was so fast.

Culture has a big part to play as much as genetics. In Jamaica, every single boy wants to be a sprinter and nothing else. The obsession the island has with 100, 200 & 400m is incredible - it seems to be ALL they do. As a result 99% of the genetically athletic population end up sprinting. Same thing happens in NZ - 99% of the athletic population there want to play rugby, as a result NZ are bloody incredible at it, even more so when you consider the size of the country.

In contrast say, what percentage of whites in the UK take up athletics at all, never mind sprinting?

Sadly the whole subject is clouded in race issues which makes it difficult to study and to debate. Personally I think there may be something genetic in it but I feel that this is massively overshadowed by cultural influences.

Variation within races is far greater than the variation when you compare races against each other on the whole. Even if West Indian males for example had on average an extended heel, or longer bones, there is still be enough variation in other populations to make this irrelevant from a sporting perspective.

If we buy the genetics argument and look at successful athletes we'd conclude that North African (men and women) are automatically better at everything from 5000m upwards. And yet Radcliffe is the finest marathon runner of her generation. Black people are supposedly better sprinters and yet China has Liu Xiang - Olympic and World Champion in an event dominated by black athletes. Additionally, black American swimmers have won 4 medals (2 gold I think) in recent Olympics and Jeremy Wariner is one of the finest 400m runners of his generation and a 2 times world champion.

It's all down to variation.

I am not dismissing genetics entirely here but get the feeling that some place too much emphasis on it and by only considering the genetics we miss the more complex question around culture/society and simple stuff like "what sport is country x really into?". Additionally, I suspect that when the idea is implanted that one race has an automatic advantage that another does not then this discourages participation and makes the gulf even larger. Interesting subject really.

Oh and back to te subject of black swimmers. If we take the US as an example - it has a great swimming heritage and also supports a vast range of elite sports - ask yourself one question. Is there perhaps another popular sport in the US tha attracts the attention of tall, long limbed black athletes?

Oh, and when whites were still winning most things 50yrs ago, no-one was trying to figure out why.

Blimey, long post. Sorry. :oops:

Agreed - well said.

passout

yeehaamcgee wrote:

passout wrote:

Also sport, like many things, it's just racist (even if it doesn't know it). The differences between individuas is far more important than minor differences between races. Anybody see the Japanese basketball team or watch the film cool runnings?? Athletes and audiences have pre-judices...that's the other part of the answer!

That's not an example of racism, at all. Nobody expected a Jamaican bobsleigh team, because Jamaica has an astonishing lack of snow, or ice, or bobsleigh runs. There was nothing about "race" involved.
Also, people finding surprise in a basketball team from a nation which does, generally have a shorter population, is not racism.
It would be racist to deny those countries the right to take part, on race grounds. But it is not racist to be surprised by the unexpected.

Well, we can quibble about words - people having 'expectations' based largely on race/nationality rather than the individual is racist I think, however it is not necessarily hateful. You could argue that 'racism' is too strong a word but I think its accurate. People not been allowed to take part based on grounds of race is 'racial discrimination' which is much more specific, the idea of racism is much more general and usually linked to prejudice - which is exactly what you describe.

I do have some sympathy with what you are saying though. People use the term racist to describe 'bad people' in a very simplistic way whereas in reality racism is often the result of ignorance. This means that it is difficult to have an open and frank discussion about anything linked to race without constantly looking over your shoulder. Generally I wouldn't presume to label any individual a racist unless they were actively racist i.e. discriminating on that basis.

On another point - I worry when people start talking about the genetic differences between races, due to historical precedent. Surely we have got past that rather dated idea & shown that it is much more about the individual?

Anonymous

It's true that genetic differences are overplayed, and it's quite right what others have said that they likely only matter in sports at the extreme top end of competition.

However, to deny that there are genetic differences between races is also improbable.
Take for example, the Celtic nations, they (we) tend to be stockier, shorter builds, and carry more fat than, for example, the mediterraneans.
Russians tend to have great physical strength.
Descnedants of the Inca have very differently proportioned fingers, and longer torsos.

Whilst these differences are not concrete, in so much as you can say that all mediterraneans will be lithe, and all Russians will be the next "world's strongest man", the general spread of such body types defies random distribution.

Rather than claim that all races are the same deep down, wouldn't it be best to appreciate and repsect the differences between races, creeds and cultures? It's these subtle differences that give us our sense of identity, and a belonging to a certain group.
Of course, that doesn't mean that mixing genes is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but I suspect the human race's time on Earth will have ended long before the time any and all genetic differences based on inheritance will become completely diluted.

Surf-Matt

Of course races are different. Anyone been to NZ? Those of Moari and Pacific Island descent are all enormous. Afrikaans of Dutch origin are similar. Scandies are genuinely mostly tall and blond, etc, etc - why is noting differences offensive?

I actually think uptight over PC attitudes are MORE of a threat to society than those that accept and embrace differences.

Anonymous

Surf-Matt wrote:

I actually think uptight over PC attitudes are MORE of a threat to society than those that accept and embrace differences.

Ditto.

passout

I'm not saying that races aren't different, clearly they are - skin tone is the obvious example. But I do think that people make too much of genetic differences and link them to all sorts of abilities & tendencies that just aren't true. Because:
1) science (or at least 'bad' science) reflects the prejudices those behind it - look at eugenics
2) people use science as an argument when they don't really understand it
3) any difference in race isn't as significant as differences between individuals
4) cultural differences are important too - see above
I agree that we shouldn't ignore differences but also why dwell on them? Why not just focus on the individual athlete?

As an aside in Japan the old people are small due to years of poor diet but the youth of Japan are, in the space of a few years, getting taller due to diet - almost the same as the West now. This is NOT a genetic difference despite that popular misconception. Most races (with a few exceptions) are genetically the same height. The rest is environment 0 if you grand parents are malnourished it can effect you. Not genetics.

Anonymous

passout wrote:

3) any difference in race isn't as significant as differences between individuals

Of course there is greater variation between individuals than there is between each race, BUT, there is a clustering, or 'normal' (in the statistical, not subjective sense) in the various races, that reflects the different attributes, strengths and weaknesses of those races.

Kiblams

Stereotyping is a natural response of our brains to the outside world, it is exactly the same behaviour that allows us to identify a chair by just looking at one. The trick of course is to not express your minds stereotypes without first thinking about whether they are appropriate on an intellegent level.

This is easier said than done when a stereotype is so heavily backed up by experiences, which in this case is the lack of ethnic persons out in the woods on bikes.

Every culture has its favourite passtimes, and I personally don't see this as an issue. If the french want to spend their time throwing metal balls into sand... so be it

Anonymous

Kiblams wrote:

If the french want to spend their time throwing metal balls into sand... so be it

:evil: See, that's exactly why the French are a lower class of human, and why we should chase them out of Europe

Kidding of course, but that certainly makes sense. I still believe there are subtle differences between races though, and those differences can come from many sources, such as geographical location, culture, religion, etc.

Naveed

I find this thread to be littered with ignorance because people say that ethnic minority groups don't mtb or engage in outdoor activities because such pursuits are the preserve of the middle classes.

Well guess what numbskulls - wait for it, I'm asian and MIDDLE CLASS, guess what else, wait for it... people from the black community can also be middle class.

DOH!

What a depressing thread - makes me feel that everytime I exchange an 'alright' with a fellow mtber they ride off thinking 'cor, an effnic mtber - geesh'
pathetic.

Aud Reekie MTB

Daz555 wrote:

Dense bones, achiles tendons, hip angles, fast twitch muscle - we hear it all and I've always thought it to be bollox to be honest.

For example, the fast twitch thing is very important in sprinting and people from the West Indies do have a higher percentage of people with a high concentration of fast-twitch muscle fibres. However the percentage of white europeans with the same 'advantage' is not actually not very far behind. No shortage of fast-twitch muscle in Chris Hoy for example.

Colin Jackon did a documentary about it a couple of years back - a sort of search to find out why he was so fast.

Culture has a big part to play as much as genetics. In Jamaica, every single boy wants to be a sprinter and nothing else. The obsession the island has with 100, 200 & 400m is incredible - it seems to be ALL they do. As a result 99% of the genetically athletic population end up sprinting. Same thing happens in NZ - 99% of the athletic population there want to play rugby, as a result NZ are bloody incredible at it, even more so when you consider the size of the country.

In contrast say, what percentage of whites in the UK take up athletics at all, never mind sprinting?

Sadly the whole subject is clouded in race issues which makes it difficult to study and to debate. Personally I think there may be something genetic in it but I feel that this is massively overshadowed by cultural influences.

Variation within races is far greater than the variation when you compare races against each other on the whole. Even if West Indian males for example had on average an extended heel, or longer bones, there is still be enough variation in other populations to make this irrelevant from a sporting perspective.

If we buy the genetics argument and look at successful athletes we'd conclude that North African (men and women) are automatically better at everything from 5000m upwards. And yet Radcliffe is the finest marathon runner of her generation. Black people are supposedly better sprinters and yet China has Liu Xiang - Olympic and World Champion in an event dominated by black athletes. Additionally, black American swimmers have won 4 medals (2 gold I think) in recent Olympics and Jeremy Wariner is one of the finest 400m runners of his generation and a 2 times world champion.

It's all down to variation.

I am not dismissing genetics entirely here but get the feeling that some place too much emphasis on it and by only considering the genetics we miss the more complex question around culture/society and simple stuff like "what sport is country x really into?". Additionally, I suspect that when the idea is implanted that one race has an automatic advantage that another does not then this discourages participation and makes the gulf even larger. Interesting subject really.

Oh and back to te subject of black swimmers. If we take the US as an example - it has a great swimming heritage and also supports a vast range of elite sports - ask yourself one question. Is there perhaps another popular sport in the US tha attracts the attention of tall, long limbed black athletes?

Oh, and when whites were still winning most things 50yrs ago, no-one was trying to figure out why.

Blimey, long post. Sorry. :oops:

What a good post! (Sorry, I don't see the "gold star" button!).

Andy

Kiblams

Naveed wrote:

What a depressing thread - makes me feel that everytime I exchange an 'alright' with a fellow mtber they ride off thinking 'cor, an effnic mtber - geesh'
pathetic.

Would that be a cheaky stereotype there Naveed? (I jest)

I won't be thinking 'geesh' (if I do think anything of it - Im usually busy wandering how/if I am likely to kill myself on the next section) then it would be similar to the OP of this thread; why don't I see more...

Anonymous

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Naveed. Nobody's said anything even remotely offensive - at least not in a serious capacity.

So, seeing as how you recognise that there are so few asian MTBers, why do you think that is, Naveed? Is it a cultural thing? Or maybe there's a sense of intimidation because there are so few Asians taking part - in this country at least?

Kiblams

Now I think about it, I am more likely to be taking a cheaky look at your bike than anything else

jairaj

I've been following this thread for a while and I just don't buy the whole race X's genetic structure isn't made for event Y so thats why they don't do it. Or even the maybe its due to class differences and expendable income etc.

There are plenty of ethnic minorities spread over the different classes. Also there are people from all different classes who go out and ride. So its not a class issue.

Also from the comments by people actually from ethnic backgrounds I get no impression that any of them (including me) think that my body is not made for this sport. Also different cultures have a different view on cycles and how they are used.

A lot of these different cultures just simply do not think a cycle can be used for sporting fun and prefer to do other things in their spare time. There are ethnic minorities out there but as they are minorities they're not seen every where.

Its just a simple case of minorities therefor small numbers and cultural and environmental influences leading to them preferring other activities so even fewer numbers.

geordiefreerider

Naveed wrote:

I find this thread to be littered with ignorance because people say that ethnic minority groups don't mtb or engage in outdoor activities because such pursuits are the preserve of the middle classes.

Well guess what numbskulls - wait for it, I'm asian and MIDDLE CLASS, guess what else, wait for it... people from the black community can also be middle class.

DOH!

What a depressing thread - makes me feel that everytime I exchange an 'alright' with a fellow mtber they ride off thinking 'cor, an effnic mtber - geesh'
pathetic.

Come on Naveed this is the most ignorant post so far, nobodys saying you shouldn't be out riding, and I dont think this post has been littered with ignorance at all, I think people have made some good points and just to see the amount of posts by people of different ethnic backgrounds has proved to me that there are people out there riding, it's just I havn't come across any.

I wouldnt think "cor an ethnic mtber" Like someone said im more likely too be checking your bike out.

I dont think we're all numbskulls either, most people are fully aware of the fact that there are black and asian middle classes and im sure we dont require you to point out this fact !

Thewaylander

You say minority, but the asian Section of the community its ot such a minority in many area's.

But there is a definate lack match representation, if 10% or so of uk population is Asian in origin which i have no idea(random figure but i dare say its higher) then theory says roughly 10% of mtbers should be asian. But this simply isnt the case.

Ithink all the above facts maybe be contributing factors to this culteral views on biking, physical bias and preferance for sports(lets be fair we do the sports we find we are best at most as we like to do well, least i do) these many factors would contribute to the offset social mix of bikers in comparison to UK Society

passout

I didn't know that we were discussing class too. If we are, then it's worth bearing in mind that the biggest socio-economic group is now the middle class (As, Bs and C1s). Also lots of sports these days require money, transport and leisure time. Other than these rather obvious facts I don't think that cycling is a particularly middle class sport. Road cycling clubs in the North have a strong working class tradition. None of this is linked to race in my opinion....different question.

Anyway, isn't society dead?

passout

Thewaylander wrote:

You say minority, but the asian Section of the community its ot such a minority in many area's.

But there is a definate lack match representation, if 10% or so of uk population is Asian in origin which i have no idea(random figure but i dare say its higher) then theory says roughly 10% of mtbers should be asian. But this simply isnt the case.

Ithink all the above facts maybe be contributing factors to this culteral views on biking, physical bias and preferance for sports(lets be fair we do the sports we find we are best at most as we like to do well, least i do) these many factors would contribute to the offset social mix of bikers in comparison to UK Society

Approx 98% of the UK pop is white....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_gro ... transition

Thewaylander

You believe wikapedia.. the on line geeks info group

Sorry can't help but take a dig at it

RedJohn

Thewaylander wrote:

You believe wikapedia.. the only line geeks info group

Sorry can't help but take a dig at it

Hmm, well I was thinking that's a very interesting article.
Kind of loses credibility though when the ethnic group population distribution adds up to 107.9% ...
(Which it does).

passout

RedJohn wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

You believe wikapedia.. the only line geeks info group

Sorry can't help but take a dig at it

Hmm, well I was thinking that's a very interesting article.
Kind of loses credibility though when the ethnic group population distribution adds up to 107.9% ...
(Which it does).

Good point...dam wikipedia, they can't even cut and paste correctly.

Thewaylander

Lol yeh Wiki can be handy for some basic descriptions, but never depend on it for good facts hehe.

but you get my point if wiki was right we should still roughly see 2 people in every 100 that is not white male/female

passout

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273

OK, according to the Government (forget Wiki), 92% of the UK population in 2001 was white. The next census will be in 2011. This is the most accurate info. out there and it does add up to, more or less, 100%.

Thewaylander

So 8% non white, so we should roughly see as above 1/10 riders not being white male/female if it was rough stastics spread.

So obviously something effects this population difference, and all of the above would be contributing factors