Genetics

[Guest guest]

Before I bow out of this discussion, let me make a few remarks to

respond to Mr. Tolbert.

1.I did not say that American coaches rely solely on genetics. I

said that they have a better starting point than most of the rest of the

world. There is no question that the Soviets were far ahead of us in

the scientific and coaching areas. I assume that most will agree with

that. That begs the question; why couldn't they produce a 100m world

record holder? Even if we were as knowledgeable, you still have to

explain the difference. I am open to other explanations than

genetics.

2.Just because those coaches worked with champion athletes does not

necessarily mean they are the most able coaches. That would be like

saying Phil is the best coach of all time because of his

success. Let him go to the Clippers and win a title. The fact is,

most successful coaches have started with gifted athletes. The real test

is how much these athletes improve over the course of their career.

A good example of this is in professional sports. Tim Grover makes a

handsome living from his association with Jordan. People

believe that he must be an expert because believes he is. The

question is, did improve his athletic ability[jumping,

quickness]? He got bigger and stronger and slower. Incredibly, people

are going to buy Grover's book on jumping for $40.

3. I did not say that all Blacks were more gifted than all Whites.

That would be plain stupid. However, if you look at high school

athletics [where the coaching is normally minimal] you would see that

Blacks are more successful than Whites in sprinting, basketball, etc.

How do you explain this?

I am sure that Mr. Tolbert is a very able coach and I did not intend

for my comments to sound personal. I don't think anyone is limited by

their genetics. I just think we should admit that certain groups may

be predisposed to doing certain things better than other groups.

Respectfully,

Yosef

[Guest guest]

> 3. I did not say that all Blacks were more gifted than all Whites.

> That would be plain stupid. However, if you look at high school

> athletics [where the coaching is normally minimal] you would see that

> Blacks are more successful than Whites in sprinting, basketball, etc.

> How do you explain this?

I do not want to be racist and limiting. On the lower levels, anyone can

be good at anything. You can defy your genetics to a certain point. To a

certain point, the key to success is will and training. However, in the

elite level it is undeniable that some races will dominate some events.

Chinese SHW female weightlifters, Kenyan (?) marathoners, all these black

sprinters. I don't know why. Maybe it's natural selection, the conditions

which black men were raised eliminated a strain of people and only the

fast sprinters or the marathoners stayed alive! Hahaha... it's hilarious

to think about, but I really think your genetics helps, and racial groups

have relatively similar genetics.

But somehow I hope that by sheer will and effort, some Asian will

top the shotput this Olympics. Just a wish. Somehow I'm hoping that while

genetics can help you, they can't limit you.

[antonsevilla]

[Guest guest]

_______________________________________________________________________

Message: 1

From: Anton Sevilla <anton14@...>

>However, in theelite level it is undeniable that some races will dominate some

>events.Chinese SHW female weightlifters, Kenyan (?) marathoners, all these

black

>sprinters. I don't know why. Maybe it's natural selection, the conditions

>which black men were raised eliminated a strain of people and only the

>fast sprinters or the marathoners stayed alive! Hahaha... it's hilarious

>to think about, but I really think your genetics helps, and racial groups

>have relatively similar genetics.

>

>But somehow I hope that by sheer will and effort, some Asian will

>top the shotput this Olympics. Just a wish. Somehow I'm hoping that while

>genetics can help you, they can't limit you.

>

>[antonsevilla]

For what it's worth, the Chinese dominate women's weightlifting because they

have more women weightlifters than the rest of the world combined. Thus, the

law of large numbers dictates that they will get more " gems " than any other

country. The level of state support for weightlifting is not any greater in

China than in a number of other countries. The same occurred when the Soviet

Union was alive an well - they had more male weightlifters than all other

nations combined, and dominated the sport. Untill the Bulgarians came along

and said " we are a small country with few resources, so we will only allow

the most gifted weightlifters train for weightlifting, and we will make

train harder than anyone else ever thought was possible " .

What explains the domination of a sport by any one group is the product of

many factors, and these factors are dynamic and will change over time, and

with it the group which dominates will also change.

Verikios

[Guest guest]

Genetics can have an effect on more then just maximum potential. They also

effect the length of muscle bellies, recovery ability, muscle fiber type,

sleep needed, bone density, body fat, metabalism, height etc. You are

correct in saying that most people will not reach their genetic potential,

and if you go to a commercial gym you will learn this is because of both

genetic factors and (bad) training habits. Genetics are probably the SINGLE

most important factor to muscle gain. However, all the other factors still

have a HUGE impact on results, never forget that. While some find genetics

limiting and discouraging, others empower themselves by realizing those

limits and rising to meet them. The choice is yours to make.

Good luck with your training,

" Elfan " Burroughs

USA

Genetics

I have seen a vast array of posts on the subject of Genetics lately,

(other boards) claiming that they are the ultimate reason why we can

not run faster or jump higher after exhausting all training routes.

I find this to be a excuse for poor training habits and or methods.

Coach Poliquin has said that a perosn usally will spend their entire

lifetime training and will not reach their genetic potential.

I do not know if this statement holds any truth to it but it makes me

wonder how much of a role genetics plays in training.When is it time

to throw in the towel and blame it on our genetics?

Any thoughts on this?

Maki Riddington

Vancouver BC Canada

[Guest guest]

Everything that I've read says that both parents have to carry the SMA gene

in order for the child to have SMA. Is this question related in any way to

your curiosity about marriage?

Lori

> Genetics

>

>

> If a person has a SMA positive deletion, does that automatically mean

> their parents are carriers?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm pretty sure both non-SMA parents have to be carriers of recessive

genes for one of their children to have it. Since I have SMA, I had

two recessive genes to pass on, so both of my daughters are carriers.

> If a person has a SMA positive deletion, does that automatically mean

> their parents are carriers?

[Guest guest]

Yes for the vast majority of cases. There can be spontaneous mutations to

the gene but it is very rare. We just assume that and I are carriers

because we have a child with SMA.

..tAt 10:47 PM 8/21/02 +0000, you wrote:

>Ok....so if I have an SMA deletion, does that automatically mean my

>parents are carriers?????

>

>SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER. THANKS

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Apparently we are giving Jess the wrong answer, Tufty! lol

Vicki

[Guest guest]

On 26 Aug 2002 at 2:53, pickndaisies2002 wrote:

> If I have a sma deletion does that mean my parents automatically have

> to be carriers?

Jess

You have asked this question many times and we have answered

many times. Change the record eh

TuftySue

[Guest guest]

Jess,

It means that you've asked the genetics question many times before. And,

eventhough we've answered it, you still keep asking the same question. Don't

you like the answers that we are giving?

Vicki

[Guest guest]

Yes, unless you have a very rare spontaneous mutation.

At 02:53 AM 8/26/02 +0000, you wrote:

>If I have a sma deletion does that mean my parents automatically have

>to be carriers?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

whats that supposed to mean, vicki????

[Guest guest]

in order to have SMA, both parents must be a carrier---so yes--both your parents

are carriers or u would not have SMA. They have a 1 in 4 chance of having a

child w/ SMA.

Tufty wrote:On 26 Aug 2002 at 2:53, pickndaisies2002 wrote:

> If I have a sma deletion does that mean my parents automatically have

> to be carriers?

Jess

You have asked this question many times and we have answered

many times. Change the record eh

TuftySue

[Guest guest]

Some people answers are different when I asked before. So, I am

confused.

[Guest guest]

That's ok!

Re: GENETICS

Some people answers are different when I asked before. So, I am

confused.

[Guest guest]

Apparently not.

[Guest guest]

Wow Jill, I am amazed at your intolerance of a diversity of opinions illustrated

by the " And that is dumb " .. I have just spent 4 days with Bruce Lipton (

www.brucelipton.com ) and he gives compelling evidence that genes do not have

any control of the destiny of our health and he was a mainstream biogeneticist.

I really have no problem with you " thinking " that others contributions are dumb

but I really do have a problem with your way of expressing it. I also

understand your claim to be a scientific journalist somehow gives you the right

to make such authoritative statements however, it has been my experience that it

has historically been the medias (read:journalist) misunderstanding, distortion

or outright ignorance of the scientific studies that has led to much of the

incredibly uninformed (or " dumb " , as you may call it) dogmas that have become

accepted as fact over the years.

Please visit http://www.spirit2000.com/ if you would like to attend one of his

seminars and possibly send an apology to Jack for calling his diet decisions

" dumb " . Bruce's information almost totally supports Jack's reply to you about

individual responsibility. Keep well.

Best wishes and much love, Ken

Ken Gullan

Institute for Research Integration (IRI)

San Diego, CA 92106-2424

IRI is a 501C(3) non-profit corporation established to help children with

developmental difficulties.

To contact me off-list use kengullan@... or call 619-222-1104

Genetics

On 7/20/03 7:44 PM, " jill1313 " <jenbooks13@...> wrote:

> In addition, you are ignoring genetic propensities. And that is

> dumb. Please talk to some smart biologists. Depending on which genes

> are dominant in a particular individual, and what their geographical

> legacy is, they will need to vary diet accordingly. Some do well,

> for instance, on a macrobiotic diet while others fall into terrible

> health. It is individual. There is no one fits all.

Thank you for your many opinions. Since all you have provided are opinions,

not any facts, I will provide you with my opinion on the subject of genetics

and diet.

I think that medical science has seized upon genetics as a basis for

defining disease characteristics because its previous foundation for

prescribing drugs had no basis. How quickly many of them abandoned the germ

theory. They are now peddling the notion of genetic responsibility for ill

health, and the population is accepting it because it means no one is

responsible for bad health. I don't buy it, for the most part, because I

know that each one of us is responsible for creating our own health

condition, primarily through diet. It is much easier to believe that some

" gene " is responsible for one's breast cancer than to accept the notion that

one ate one's self into the condition.

I have found that people will believe anything, do anything, say anything,

attack anyone to avoid having to give up their favorite foods, the ones that

have been toxifying them slowly over the years.

The reason why people often do well, initially, in the macrobiotic diet is

that they are giving up a worse diet, usually based on meat and dairy. Any

diet that lowers fat will show an immediate improvement in a matter of days.

So they shift to a rice (grain) based diet. This is similar to the Pritikin

approach. However, after years of the diet, the practitioners of this diet

find that eating cooked grains has a toxic effect on the body. Grains are

food for some birds who have gizzards, but unless the grain is cooked,

salted or otherwise spiced, it is inedible to humans.

As one example alone of why grains are unfavored for human consumption,

grains contain phytic acid. During digestion, the body must yield up

considerable amounts of calcium to neutralize the acidity. Grains contain

very little calcium and other base minerals such as sodium, chlorine, iodine

and sulfur. Grains also contain abundant quantities of acid forming

minerals, requiring the body to provide calcium from the bones to neutralize

the acidity. Eventually, the body runs low on calcium, resulting in

osteoporosis.

Jack

[Guest guest]

I know Lipton's work and have his videos although I'm not sure I buy

his thesis, he is a good man and intends well, however I don't see

how it supports the idea that a diet high in good fats is harmful to

every individual's health, quid pro quo. I think that's dumb. IT

allows for no genetic diversity thus ignores all of genetic

anthropology. My writing about science has nothing to do with that

statement and I did not say, " I am a science journalist

therefore... " You said that.

Meanwhile, on energetic medicine you never responded to my post

detailing what incredible strides the activists in the lyme community

have made and how claiming the truth of having something can be the

beginning of getting well--you had suggested that it could be an

impediment to " identify " with a " disease " etc...I don't ask for an

apology from you for your incorrect characterization of me, but you

ask for an apology for Jack from me...

>

> > In addition, you are ignoring genetic propensities. And that is

> > dumb. Please talk to some smart biologists. Depending on which

genes

> > are dominant in a particular individual, and what their

geographical

> > legacy is, they will need to vary diet accordingly. Some do

well,

> > for instance, on a macrobiotic diet while others fall into

terrible

> > health. It is individual. There is no one fits all.

>

> Thank you for your many opinions. Since all you have provided are

opinions,

> not any facts, I will provide you with my opinion on the subject

of genetics

> and diet.

>

> I think that medical science has seized upon genetics as a basis

for

> defining disease characteristics because its previous foundation

for

> prescribing drugs had no basis. How quickly many of them

abandoned the germ

> theory. They are now peddling the notion of genetic

responsibility for ill

> health, and the population is accepting it because it means no

one is

> responsible for bad health. I don't buy it, for the most part,

because I

> know that each one of us is responsible for creating our own

health

> condition, primarily through diet. It is much easier to believe

that some

> " gene " is responsible for one's breast cancer than to accept the

notion that

> one ate one's self into the condition.

>

> I have found that people will believe anything, do anything, say

anything,

> attack anyone to avoid having to give up their favorite foods,

the ones that

> have been toxifying them slowly over the years.

>

> The reason why people often do well, initially, in the

macrobiotic diet is

> that they are giving up a worse diet, usually based on meat and

dairy. Any

> diet that lowers fat will show an immediate improvement in a

matter of days.

> So they shift to a rice (grain) based diet. This is similar to

the Pritikin

> approach. However, after years of the diet, the practitioners of

this diet

> find that eating cooked grains has a toxic effect on the body.

Grains are

> food for some birds who have gizzards, but unless the grain is

cooked,

> salted or otherwise spiced, it is inedible to humans.

>

> As one example alone of why grains are unfavored for human

consumption,

> grains contain phytic acid. During digestion, the body must yield

up

> considerable amounts of calcium to neutralize the acidity. Grains

contain

> very little calcium and other base minerals such as sodium,

chlorine, iodine

> and sulfur. Grains also contain abundant quantities of acid

forming

> minerals, requiring the body to provide calcium from the bones to

neutralize

> the acidity. Eventually, the body runs low on calcium, resulting

in

> osteoporosis.

>

> Jack

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I comment I heard from an ortho at the seminar we went to last

month. A parent asked about when the teens with scoli grew up and

had children, if their children could develop it. The doctor then

looked at a teen on stage and said " What did I tell you about your

future husband? " She replied " That he has to have a PERFECTLY

STRAIGHT back. With NO scoliosis ever! " He went on to add that it

would mean the she was SURE to have a child with scoli if she

married a man with it, just that her chances are greater. She had

sever progressive idiopathic that required surgery. I think her

degree was over 100 before surgery. Now, this was about adolecent

idiopathic and not infantile... and also he didnt mention anything

about grandparents having it or anything like that. Just the

parents... but like I mentioned before... I would think that if it

was genetic then it wouldnt be labeled as " idiopathic " since that

means " unknown " and genetic infers they know the cause. Maybe...

[Guest guest]

Jen,

I just re-read my post and I found it a little confusing. I should

have added that if the father has the scoliosis gene, he can pass it

down to the daughter, but not the son. If the mother carries the

scoliosis gene she can pass that gene to either the son or the

daughter by virtue of the ovum having the X chromosome. Of course,

like everything else in life, there are no guarantees.

Celia

[Guest guest]

,

My mom had colon cancer. Son with ulcerative colitis. Dad with sulfa allergy. Family history of gallstones. That's about it.

Martha

genetics

- I'm so brain dead. I also have a daughter with celiac disease. She was diagnosed 7 weeks before me. What a mess! Cindi

____________________________________________________ IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

[Guest guest]

I only type III, along with untreated spina bifida and scoleosis, because

in seventy's, the said that my little sister and I wouldn't make it school

age. Then at twelve, the same dr. said that our body's couldn't carry a child to

term and if we did we'd die & the baby if it lived, it would have SMA.

I decided no kids, so boyfriends were out and since I'm bisexual; I'd

just have do without. The only safe sex was & is no sex.

Love & Blessings Be,

L

[Guest guest]

I know someone with SMA whose child has SMA. He was Type II in a

wheelchair since childhood, and his daughter developed adult onset SMA

in her 30's. She still walks a bit but has trouble.

Pamela

[Guest guest]

That's very interesting as I believe the Adult onset form (type IV) is

caused by a different gene than Types I, II, and III. I wonder if

that's just a coincidence?

Re: Genetics

I know someone with SMA whose child has SMA. He was Type II in a

wheelchair since childhood, and his daughter developed adult onset SMA

in her 30's. She still walks a bit but has trouble.

Pamela

A FEW RULES

* The list members come from many backgrounds, ages and beliefs So all

members most be tolerant and respectful to all members.

* Some adult language and topics (like sexual health, swearing..) may

occur occasionally in emails. Over use of inappropriate language will

not be allowed. If your under 16 ask your parents/gaurdian before you

join the list.

* No SPAMMING or sending numerous emails unrelated to the topics of

spinal muscular atrophy, health, and the daily issues of the disabled.

Post message:

Subscribe: -subscribe

Unsubscribe: -unsubscribe

List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@...

oogroups.com

List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@...

[Guest guest]

Thanks Stasia. I appreciate that. In order to save money, I may have to

freeze my gym membership for a while (which will reduce it to 10.00 a month

until I un-freeze it), and go walking, jogging and work out at the gym in my

complex or something. We'll see how things go. But, the BFL plan is also a

great way for me to save money too. I wish I had a digital camera to upload

photos & stuff. I guess I'll have to manually take the pictures, scan them,

etc.

Thanks! )

-Kay