RE: Ketogenic Diets for Endurance Athletes

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>In this case we have athletes freely choosing their food

>sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

>live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

>and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

>still stands on its own and is strong.

When their trainers and physicians and support people are all telling them

that's the way to go, are they really " freely " choosing, particularly with

all the distorted and outright counterfactual pseudo-information out there

that makes deciding what to do so difficult?

Barry Groves used to have an article on athletic performance and switching

to low-carb high-fat eating that I can't find on his site (Second Opinions)

at the moment. In it, he said it takes about a year to fully adapt to the

switch and return to one's former levels of performance. How many elite

athletes are willing to essentially take a year off to retrain? It reminds

me of Ivan Lendl's refusal to switch to larger rackets even when literally

nobody else was playing with a standard.

-

[Guest guest]

>What will count as evidence is affected by the context of the question that is

being resolved. Without having delved at all into some of the issues that are

discussed here, and someone were asked as to whether low carb diets were good

for elite athletic performance, they might say, and not incorrectly, that the

fact that none of them used such a diet was evidence that they didn't work well.

>

Well, this guy has done it, so know we can say someone who is an elite

endurance athlete has tried training on a low carb diet. Ultradistance

athlete Stu Mittleman set the world record for 1,000 miles of 11 days

and 20 hours under sponsorship of Gatorade in a chinmoy race. He is low

carb, eating lots of fish and veggies basically. Here he is in a photo

running 2 marathons a day across America.

http://www.journeyacrossamerica.com/progress.html

He has a book, _Slow Burn_ you can see at amazon (chapter 21 is " Make

Friends with Fat " ).

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>Now what I want to know is, if they did the same study, but 75% of the

>fat came from coconut oil or MCT oil, how would the results have

>changed?

>

>In a diet dominated by long-chain fats, the most efficient thing to do

>with the fats is store them. Breaking them down for energy would be

>less efficient, but worth it if there was insufficient carbohydrate

>for energy. Breaking them down and *then* building them back up (into

>glycogen) is doubly inefficient, but I would *guess* would probably

>increase to some degree with heavy glycogen-requiring training.

>

>

It would be very interesting to see. I have increased the VCO in my

diet recently.

>(By the way, I just thought of a second point: did this study use

>trained athletes? It could be that carbs are needed for endurance in

>an untrained athlete, but one who is trained for high glycogen stores,

>and then continues to train for such under a high-fat regimen might

>adapt to that need.)

>

>

Probably so. Trained subjects are generally more efficient with a

higher anaerobic threshold. Unfit folks will burn more glycogen simple

because they go AT at 70% of VO2 max, whereas trained is about 90%.

>Anyway, if MCFAs and SCFAs are used, suddenly it becomes INefficient

>to store the fat, because it will have to be elongated, and more

>efficient to break them down. Thus there is a considerable shift of

>the efficiency equilibrium towards breaking down to sugar and building

>up glycogen and away from storing as fat. If the need for glycogen is

>present during the diet, I would suspect that a greater amount of fat

>would be turned into glycogen on a diet emphasizing coconut oil and/or

>MCT oil.

>

I was going to ask you about this, thanks for bringing it up.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Hi:

This is probably not relevant to the current debate. I don't know how

accurate the information is, but thought you would learn something

from this.

JC

THE ROMAN GLADIATOR'S DIET

Frequent massages and hot baths formed part of the gladiator's

hygiene but food remained the most important point. Here is

some " Roman Gladiator's Diet " information.

The professional roman gladiators were treated well and fed properly

with high protein diet. At least 3 meals a day. Seneca writes: " The

gladiators eat and drink what they will give back with their blood " .

The roman gladiator's diet consisted of proteins from different

sources, cereals and vegetables.

A fermented bread made of Farro (a famous cereal in Rome) and a soup

made of farro and orzo were the base for the carbo and amids. High

protein sources derived from roasted meat, dry fruits, fresh cheese,

goat milk, eggs.

Among the vegetables, onions and garlic were used abundantly, along

with wild lettuce. The popularity onion grew into ancient Greece

where athletes consumed large quantities because it would " lighten

the balance of the blood " . After Rome conquered Greece, the onion

became a staple in the Roman diet. Roman Gladiators were rubbed down

with onion juice to " firm up the muscles " .

Roman gladiators in their diet also ate barley for strength and

stamina. Another very important vegetable in the Gladiator diet was

Anethum graveolens. The Romans thought that it increased physical

force. For the gladiators, it was therefore an indispensable

ingredient to add without parsimony to every meal.

Olive oil was used frequently with meals. Fried cakes, boiled meat

and cold drinks were prohibited.

A great snack for energy in the Roman Gladiator's diet was Goat Milk

with Honey and Walnuts... The Roman Gladiators, like any athlete, did

not drink wine immediately after training but only water.

When they ate their " Coena Libera " (the last dinner before the fight)

they " stuffed themselves " so much that the dinner lasted long hours.

Moreover, they were advised to chew their food well in order to

extract the maximum energy from it...

[from the Internet]

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Whoa! Welcome back, .

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Whoa! Welcome back, .

Thanks, Chris. Sorry I've been an absentee listlord lately, so to speak.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi Deanna,

>

> >I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature

> of the evidence

> >is much different. In this case we have athletes freely

> choosing their food

> >sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate

> win. Sure they

> >live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet

> is carbohydrate

> >and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that

> it clearly

> >still stands on its own and is strong.

> >

> No, elite athletes are choosing based on the recommendations of

> professionals. And unless you are privy to their diet plans

> pre-race,

> then this is an assumption. Besides, these recommendations are

> beginning to crack and change towards moderation of all

> macronutrients

> for best performance. Chew on this from the fat-friendly crowd.

I'm not sure if you are understanding me. I'm totally on your side as to

health benefits of eating and exercising this way. I do it myself as we

discussed before.

On the other hand I know for a fact that the winner of the Tour de France

for the past 6 years eats a very high carb diet. I also know that most

other champion athletes eat high carb. Hence my theory that carb burners

will beat fat burners in a race. Bad news for us fat burner types, and of

course I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

As your ideas are implemented in the athletic world (if they are) we will

get to see for ourselves who is correct. Wishing doesn't make it so,

however. " Science " is useless in the face of the fact that most champion

athletes today eat high carb. And calling my assessment of unknown diet

plans an assumption is counter to what is reported regularly about the diets

of high performance athletes. While it may be true in fact it is unlikely

that they are all lying.

It looks as though much has been written on this topic that I have not yet

read. I did want to respond to you directly before I read the later posts

though.

Ron

[Guest guest]

> We are trying to resolve the issue of whether a low carb diet

> helps or hinders elite athletic performance, where it is

> known that very few (if any?) have actually tried the diet.

This is where we disagree. While I'm sure there have been far fewer who

have tried low carbing I'm sure that there have been a substantial number.

This type of diet is not new. Certainly tons of work done on it in the

bodybuilding world and all of the champions there eat tons of carbs. So

here is the crux of the problem. Neither of us can prove our point and by

skewing our assumptions either way we are presenting our conclusions as

strong.

I'm saying that there have most likely been sufficient numbers of people who

have tried low carbing to make the fact that almost all of the champions in

sports are carb eaters a strong argument for the athletic advantage of a

carbohydrate metabolism.

You, and Deanna are saying that there have been insufficient attempts

made at low carb diets amongst athletes to make the fact that almost all of

the champions in sports are carb eaters a weak argument.

I don't think that either of us have the data to make a definitive statement

-- which I acknowledged in my original post. Just a strong but unpopular

(here) hunch.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I'm sorry if this has all been hashed out already. I'm answering as I'm

going along.

> >Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem to

> be strong

> >evidence in support.

>

> Hmm, since most people nowadays believe that a low-fat

> high-carb diet is

> healthiest, is that then evidence in favor of the proposition that a

> low-fat high-carb diet is in fact healthiest?

Certainly not. We are discussing function rather than belief. That's why I

conceded the God issue. Belief is different than the observable fact that

most of the champions in Sport are carb eaters.

>

> >Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which

> I am unfamiliar?

>

> The fact that most or all elite athletes today carb-load is

> evidence that

> most or all elite athletes today believe in carb-loading.

But the fact that the athletes who win sporting events are carb metabolisers

has little to do with belief in a world in which there are choices. The

argument about the degree to which there is freedom of choice in sports

nutrition is a reasonable one, I think.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>But the fact that the athletes who win sporting events are carb metabolisers

>has little to do with belief in a world in which there are choices. The

>argument about the degree to which there is freedom of choice in sports

>nutrition is a reasonable one, I think.

The word " choice " is insufficient, I hope you'll agree, to encompass the

process of decision-making. A rat in a maze it's never been in before

comes to a 'T' junction and has a choice -- left or right. An athlete

deciding how to eat has a far greater range of options than merely

" low-carb " or " high-carb " , and experiences many factors affecting his

decision. The fact that mainstream medical and athletic thought strongly

favors low-fat high-carb diets for all purposes cannot be ignored. The

fact that most or all other athletes are eating that way can't be

ignored. The fact that most trainers and coaches and dieticians and so on

advocate high-carb low-fat eating cannot be ignored.

For your tentative conclusion to be correct, various athletes would have

had to properly try out various diets and then conclude that high-carb is

the way to go. But that's not what's happened.

I'm not saying it's impossible that high-carb eating enables SOME people to

reach (perhaps slightly) higher performance than they would have on a

high-fat low-carb diet. It may be true. But you should also consider the

fact that medical orthodoxy filters people. The athletes reaching the top

of their sports today are by and large the ones who respond well (at least

in the short term) to high-carb eating. People who suffer more immediately

from that sort of diet tend to be left behind, obviously. But if the

mainstream advocated healthy high-fat low-carb eating, how well would the

people best suited to that sort of diet do? It's absurd to even try to

guess with the skimpy data we have available, but there is some evidence to

suggest that high-fat low-carb diets can work very well for athletes, and

not just endurance athletes either.

-

[Guest guest]

> Hi ,

>

> I'm sorry if this has all been hashed out already. I'm answering as I'm

> going along.

>

> > >Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem to

> > be strong

> > >evidence in support.

> >

> > Hmm, since most people nowadays believe that a low-fat

> > high-carb diet is

> > healthiest, is that then evidence in favor of the proposition that a

> > low-fat high-carb diet is in fact healthiest?

>

> Certainly not. We are discussing function rather than belief. That's why I

> conceded the God issue. Belief is different than the observable fact that

> most of the champions in Sport are carb eaters.

But you have acknowledged that the great majority of athletes believe that high

carb diets are better for athletic performance, and that this believe is related

to the fact that they use such a diet. So ultimately we are discussing belief.

>

> >

> > >Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which

> > I am unfamiliar?

> >

> > The fact that most or all elite athletes today carb-load is

> > evidence that

> > most or all elite athletes today believe in carb-loading.

>

> But the fact that the athletes who win sporting events are carb metabolisers

> has little to do with belief in a world in which there are choices. The

> argument about the degree to which there is freedom of choice in sports

> nutrition is a reasonable one, I think.

>

Of course there is choice - but that choice is constrained by the fact that an

athlete will probably use the diet that he is taught will yield the best

results, no?

[Guest guest]

On 7/21/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> You, and Deanna are saying that there have been insufficient attempts

> made at low carb diets amongst athletes to make the fact that almost all of

> the champions in sports are carb eaters a weak argument.

Actually, I also pointed out that the Kenyans who are notoriously

superior runners, and who win something like 80% of all international

long-distance running championships, are largely from the very

populace Kalenjin (sp?) cattle-herding tribe, who eat very high-fat,

relatively low-carb diets consisting of (fermented, I believe) milk,

blood and meat mostly, similar to the Masai but with a greater

proportion of milk.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Yes. I knew about him. I think that there is a triathlete who low-carbs

successfully also. But that's TWO guys.

Ron

> Well, this guy has done it, so know we can say someone who is

> an elite

> endurance athlete has tried training on a low carb diet.

> Ultradistance

> athlete Stu Mittleman set the world record for 1,000 miles of 11 days

> and 20 hours under sponsorship of Gatorade in a chinmoy race.

> He is low

> carb, eating lots of fish and veggies basically. Here he is

> in a photo

> running 2 marathons a day across America.

> http://www.journeyacrossamerica.com/progress.html

>

> He has a book, _Slow Burn_ you can see at amazon (chapter 21 is " Make

> Friends with Fat " ).

>

[Guest guest]

,

> When their trainers and physicians and support people are all

> telling them

> that's the way to go, are they really " freely " choosing,

> particularly with

> all the distorted and outright counterfactual

> pseudo-information out there

> that makes deciding what to do so difficult?

>

> Barry Groves used to have an article on athletic performance

> and switching

> to low-carb high-fat eating that I can't find on his site

> (Second Opinions)

> at the moment. In it, he said it takes about a year to fully

> adapt to the

> switch and return to one's former levels of performance. How

> many elite

> athletes are willing to essentially take a year off to

> retrain? It reminds

> me of Ivan Lendl's refusal to switch to larger rackets even

> when literally

> nobody else was playing with a standard.

Fair enough question. But do you really think that Lance Armstrong would

ever properly metabolize fats in the same way that he metabolizes carbs? I

guess my Metabolic Typing background is showing here. I'm seeing this as an

either/or proposition. You are a carb or fat burner. Conversion from one

to the other will make you less efficient so the winners of athletic events

process carbs well by nature. The fat burners tried their high fat diets

and couldn't keep up.

Again -- perhaps I'm wrong. There are too many variables for us to know and

I'm sure the ultimate test -- Lance switching to coconut oil and racing

again -- will never happen.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Fair enough question. But do you really think that Lance Armstrong would

>ever properly metabolize fats in the same way that he metabolizes carbs? I

>guess my Metabolic Typing background is showing here. I'm seeing this as an

>either/or proposition. You are a carb or fat burner. Conversion from one

>to the other will make you less efficient so the winners of athletic events

>process carbs well by nature. The fat burners tried their high fat diets

>and couldn't keep up.

I don't know whether Lance Armstrong could have become LANCE ARMSTRONG if

he'd grown up eating right and kept eating right. Maybe, maybe not. It

depends in part on how much metabolic typing is innate and how much is the

result of circumstance (i.e. diet, exercise, etc.). I also don't know for

sure whether someone else could've become even better than Lance Armstrong

if mainstream orthodoxy weren't so rigid and stultifying, but I do think

it's quite possible.

>Again -- perhaps I'm wrong. There are too many variables for us to know and

>I'm sure the ultimate test -- Lance switching to coconut oil and racing

>again -- will never happen.

Sorry, but that's a piss-poor excuse for an " ultimate test " . An ultimate

test would involve a large sample population and rigid controls, not one

person who's probably already on the downside of his fitness curve trying

to make a fundamental metabolic change after years and years of optimizing

his short-term results in very specific ways. I mean, seriously. Would

the " ultimate test " of the usefulness of larger tennis rackets have been

Lendl switching at the very end of his career?

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>I'm not sure if you are understanding me. I'm totally on your side as to

>health benefits of eating and exercising this way. I do it myself as we

>discussed before.

>

>

Whew, as long as your on my side. ;-)

>On the other hand I know for a fact that the winner of the Tour de France

>for the past 6 years eats a very high carb diet. I also know that most

>other champion athletes eat high carb. Hence my theory that carb burners

>will beat fat burners in a race. Bad news for us fat burner types, and of

>course I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

>

>

I think it depends on diet, the race distance/particulars, muscle fibers

and physical stature of the race, etc.

>As your ideas are implemented in the athletic world (if they are) we will

>get to see for ourselves who is correct. Wishing doesn't make it so,

>however. " Science " is useless in the face of the fact that most champion

>athletes today eat high carb. And calling my assessment of unknown diet

>plans an assumption is counter to what is reported regularly about the diets

>of high performance athletes. While it may be true in fact it is unlikely

>that they are all lying.

>

I think addressed this best, perhaps you'll see his words. Um, I

am 5'3 " , but the good news is, I will race at the bottom of my age

group. :-)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> Yes. I knew about him. I think that there is a triathlete who

low-carbs

> successfully also. But that's TWO guys.

>

Ron,

My client I mentioned in a previous post is a very competitive surfer

and--more or less--will eat only food I prepare, despite having a

family. He is *extremely* lean and has been eating a high-fat,

low-carb diet for a few years now. One day I looked at him and said,

" muscle wasting " , which was confirmed quickly with blood tests. He's

eating lots more carbs now.

B.

[Guest guest]

>

>Actually, I also pointed out that the Kenyans who are notoriously

>superior runners, and who win something like 80% of all international

>long-distance running championships, are largely from the very

>populace Kalenjin (sp?) cattle-herding tribe, who eat very high-fat,

>relatively low-carb diets consisting of (fermented, I believe) milk,

>blood and meat mostly, similar to the Masai but with a greater

>proportion of milk.

>

I heard on NPR this week how many Kenyan runners are going to other

countries for better sponsorship, so who knows how long " Kenya " will be

so superior. I also wonder what diet changes will come as a result of a

runner moving to say, the US? Mostly it is the Middle Eastern region

they are transferring to, however.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761888

Deanna

[Guest guest]

,

>

> Sorry, but that's a piss-poor excuse for an " ultimate test " .

> An ultimate

> test would involve a large sample population and rigid

> controls, not one

> person who's probably already on the downside of his fitness

> curve trying

> to make a fundamental metabolic change after years and years

> of optimizing

> his short-term results in very specific ways. I mean,

> seriously. Would

> the " ultimate test " of the usefulness of larger tennis

> rackets have been

> Lendl switching at the very end of his career?

>

You were taking me literally and I was not being literal. I was theorizing

a perfect Lance before and after and I most certainly did not make that

clear. And yes, it would be a perfect test to take the perfect Lance,

switch his diet, and then see what happened. Of course, it's not possible.

Ron

[Guest guest]

> Actually, I also pointed out that the Kenyans who are notoriously

> superior runners, and who win something like 80% of all international

> long-distance running championships, are largely from the very

> populace Kalenjin (sp?) cattle-herding tribe, who eat very high-fat,

> relatively low-carb diets consisting of (fermented, I believe) milk,

> blood and meat mostly, similar to the Masai but with a greater

> proportion of milk.

No disagreement, Chris. If you go back and look at the original post that I

made addressing Deanna's comments I acknowledged that there is some evidence

for the efficacy of low carb diets in long distance events.

Come to think of it, the fact that there is actually a population of people

who win sporting events based on a low carb regimen makes my argument that

much stronger. Why don't the Kenyans win the 100 meter dash? How about the

high jump? Low carb wins limited number of slow endurance contests. High

carb wins everything else.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> My client I mentioned in a previous post is a very competitive surfer

> and--more or less--will eat only food I prepare, despite having a

> family. He is *extremely* lean and has been eating a high-fat,

> low-carb diet for a few years now. One day I looked at him and said,

> " muscle wasting " , which was confirmed quickly with blood tests. He's

> eating lots more carbs now.

Huh. Very interesting. Some truth to metabolic typing perhaps?

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Come to think of it, the fact that there is actually a population of people

>who win sporting events based on a low carb regimen makes my argument that

>much stronger. Why don't the Kenyans win the 100 meter dash? How about the

>high jump? Low carb wins limited number of slow endurance contests. High

>carb wins everything else.

It's practically random, at this point, that we happen to have a remaining

population naturally suited to long-distance running that even allows us to

be discussing this in the first place, but my understanding is that the

physique required of sprinters is different from the physique required of

long-distance runners. Distance runners need to be very lean. Sprinters,

I think, need more muscle bulk, right? Well, for a variety of reasons,

Kenyan runners tend to be very lean -- perfectly suited to distance

running, ill-suited to short powerful bursts of sprinting speed. It's

dubious at best to connect that to low-carbing.

Again, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A COMPETITION BETWEEN LOW-CARB ATHLETES AND

HIGH-CARB ATHLETES, so it's MISLEADING AT THE VERY LEAST to say " Low carb

wins limited number of slow endurance contests. High carb wins everything

else. " as though they've been tested against each other.

This should be obvious.

-

[Guest guest]

>I don't know whether Lance Armstrong could have become LANCE ARMSTRONG if

>he'd grown up eating right and kept eating right. Maybe, maybe not. It

>depends in part on how much metabolic typing is innate and how much is the

>result of circumstance (i.e. diet, exercise, etc.). I also don't know for

>sure whether someone else could've become even better than Lance Armstrong

>if mainstream orthodoxy weren't so rigid and stultifying, but I do think

>it's quite possible.

>

Maybe he would have done even better low carb. He did survive

testicular cancer. Perhaps he's not eating his optimal diet.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>And yes, it would be a perfect test to take the perfect Lance,

>switch his diet, and then see what happened. Of course, it's not possible.

It would be more interesting to clone him and raise one high-carb and one

low-carb, but that wouldn't be a " perfect " or " ultimate " test either. A

sample size of one or two simply isn't adequate.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/21/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> Come to think of it, the fact that there is actually a population of people

> who win sporting events based on a low carb regimen makes my argument that

> much stronger. Why don't the Kenyans win the 100 meter dash? How about the

> high jump?

Genetics?

Oh I know its politically incorrect, even thought of as racist in some

circles, but heck we talk about everything else on this list, why not

this? LOL!

" If decent people don't discuss this subject, " writes Mason

professor Walter E. , an African American, in an admiring

review in The American Enterprise magazine, " we concede the turf to

black and white racists. " "

Warning - long aticle below.

Breaking the Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports

And Why We're No Longer So Afraid to Talk About It

http://www.jonentine.com/skeptic/entine.htm

Jon Entine

" If you can believe that individuals of recent African ancestry are

not genetically advantaged over those of European and Asian ancestry

in certain athletic endeavors, then you could probably be led to

believe just about anything. " Or so says biological anthropologist

Sarich. To which professor of sociology Harry , also of

University of California/Berkeley, provides the antithesis: " What

really is being said in a kind of underhanded way is that blacks are

closer to beasts and animals in terms of their genetic and physical

and anatomical make up than they are to the rest of humanity. And

that's where the indignity comes in. "

For the synthesis, turn to Gideon Ariel, Biomechanist, former U.S.

Olympic Committee scientist, former Israeli Olympic athlete: " I know

that the American system is very sensitive to statements of black and

white. But you cannot defy science. You cannot just say that day is

night and night is day. These are facts. "

In fact, in running, basketball, football, and soccer—sports in which

the social and economic barriers to participation are very low,

creating the most level of playing fields—the yawning performance gap

between blacks and everyone else is nothing short of astonishing. Yet

allegations of racism often quash the overwhelming scientific evidence

which convincingly suggests that this growing on-field disparity

cannot be explained by culture and environment alone.

Even a casual mention that there exist any meaningful genetic

differences between races can ignite a firestorm. In a speech before

the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1995,

Bannister, the distinguished neurologist, retired Oxford dean, and the

first man to break the four minute barrier in the mile, in 1954, was

showered with ridicule for venturing his opinion " as a scientist

rather than a sociologist " that all athletes are not created equal. " I

am prepared to risk political incorrectness, " he said, " by drawing

attention to the seemingly obvious but under stressed fact that black

sprinters and black athletes in general all seem to have certain

natural anatomical advantages. "

That's the explosive " N " word—natural. " Nurture " alone cannot explain

the remarkable trends. Over the past 30 years, as sport has opened

wide to athletes from almost every country, the results have become

increasingly segregated. There are only 800 million blacks, or one in

eight of the world population, but athletes of African origin hold

every major world running record from the 100 meters to the marathon.

In the United States, where African Americans make up about 13% of the

population, almost 90% of professional basketball players, 70% of the

National Football League, and more than a third of professional

baseball is black. In Britain, with a black population of less than

2%, one in 5 professional soccer players is black. Blacks have also

come to dominate world boxing.

Why do blacks of West African ancestry dominate sports in which the

social and economic barriers are lowest?

Fifty years of anthropological and more recent physiological studies

have documented clear, if overlapping, biologically-based differences

between athletes of different populations. Scientists are just

beginning to isolate the genetic links to those differences (though

the fact that the anatomy and physiology are in large measure

inherited is unequivocal). That's the science. The politics is more

precarious. Any suggestion of human differences is publicly and

politically seen as divisive or worse in a country which sometimes

gives lip service to equal opportunity and where race remains a

festering sore.

African Americans understandably are suspicious about where this

discussion can lead. " People feel if you say blacks are better

athletically, you're saying they're dumber, " Deford, the

respected author and sports reporter once noted. " But when Jack

Nicklaus sinks a 30-foot putt, nobody thinks his IQ goes down. "

Athletic achievement has long been a Catch–22 for blacks. When an

athlete lost a contest, it encouraged racist notions that blacks were

an inferior race, intellectually and physically. But winning

reinforced the equally pernicious stereotype that blacks were closer

to animals and therefore less evolved than whites or Asians. That is

the fate that befell Owens after he shocked the 1936 Olympics,

held in the capital of Hitler's Germany. His four gold medals were

subtly devalued as a product of his " natural " athleticism.

The racist stereotype of the " animalistic black " stretches back

centuries. Fascination about black physicality and black anger about

being caricatured as a lesser human being, closer to a jungle beast,

have been part of the dark side of the American dialogue on race, with

deep historical roots in hundreds of years of European colonialism. In

the 19th century, white Europeans were enraptured by pseudosciences

such as phrenology. Racial and ethnic groups were ranked by skull size

that supposedly proved that white males were intellectually superior.

Jews, blacks, and other minorities were targets of the most egregious

generalizations, usually associated with physical characteristics and

intellectual prowess.

Since World War II, in an understandable reaction to extremist race

theories that provided intellectual fuel for Nazism, anthropological

orthodoxy has held that the very concept of race is a meaningless

social construct. Discussing " race science " as it came to be called,

became a taboo subject, publicly and academically. The issue took on

incendiary proportions in the early 1970s when it was publicly married

to findings of race differences in I.Q.

Growing up in the Sixties, it never occurred to me to judge blacks as

less intelligent. And I celebrated with most liberal-thinking

Americans when Muhammad Ali redefined boxing and when the raised black

fist of the 1968 Mexico City Olympians became a potent symbol of

freedom. I entered the shark infested waters of this debate in 1987,

when Los Angeles Dodger general manager Al Campanis had been fired

after commenting on national television that he believed that blacks

didn't have the mental " necessities " to be a manager or general

manager. The following January, Jimmy " the Greek " Snyder, a

prognosticator with CBS Sports, was fired and publicly ridiculed after

making an off-hand comment that slave owners had bred blacks to

produce the best physical specimens and that this contributed to black

success in sports. At the time, I was producing for Tom Brokaw at NBC

Nightly News. After much internal hand-wringing, we decided that maybe

we should address the myths and stereotypes of blacks in

sports—including the racial taboos. Perhaps dialogue could dissipate

some of the noxious poison.

The end product was our 1989 documentary, Black Athletes: Fact and

Fiction. Before it aired, it provoked intense reaction, dividing

journalists, frequently along racial lines. A white columnist at

Newsday called it " a step forward in the dialogue on race and sports "

while a black writer at the same daily wrote that " NBC had scientists

answer questions that none but a bigot would conjure up. " Yet the

public, particularly African Americans, seemed far more receptive to

the balanced treatment of a heretofore untouchable subject. Even Harry

, a long-time critic of the suggestion that there are any

meaningful racial differences, would comment that " the NBC documentary

opened the door to enlightenment on a controversial subject. " Black

Athletes went on to win numerous awards including Best International

Sports Film.

Over the next few years, the science of human performance and our

knowledge of human genetics barreled forward at breakneck speed. I

became even more intrigued by the genetics of human performance. At

the urging of my literary agent, I circulated a book proposal that

offered to explore the issue in far more depth. The timing, I

believed, was opportune. This was a chance to write a cutting edge,

popular but scholarly book that discussed genetics and the problematic

social history of race. Sports would merely be an access point for a

wide-ranging conversation.

As a measure of my commitment, I assembled a " board of advisors " —top

biologists, anthropologists, exercise physiologists, and sociologists,

black and white, from all over the world, who offered to act as

informal scholarly reviewers as the book took shape. They embraced the

proposal as provocative and responsible. Perhaps that's why I was so

stunned by the consistently negative response it engendered from

publishers, many of whom refused to even read it—on " principle. " Again

and again, I heard: " This is a racist subject. By even suggesting that

blacks may have a genetic edge in sports, you are opening up the

Pandora's box of intellectual inferiority. "

Finally, after more than a dozen rejections, an independent-minded

editor at Macmillan, Rick Wolff, offered a contract for what was to

become Taboo. The turn of good fortune proved fleeting, however. Soon

after, Mr. Wolff moved to Warner Books. Though he wanted to take the

book with him, Warner balked. " It was considered too dicey a subject,

too controversial, " Wolff recalls. " Once the other editors heard it

was about racial differences, they wouldn't even let me present it at

an editorial meeting. "

Unfortunately, Mr. Wolff's eventual replacement as editor,

Chapman, knew nothing about sports and was only vaguely sensitive to

the science and politics of race. Nonetheless, I proceeded with an

early draft, always staying in close contact with my advisory board

and an expanding list of experts, who were sent the evolving

manuscript for feedback.

By this time, I had grown quite confident of my findings. Using DNA

evidence, scientists were in the process of compiling maps of the

waves of human migrations that have led to today's " races. " Although

the move out of Africa by modern humans to Europe and Asia occurred

rather recently in evolutionary time, scientists were nearly unanimous

in their belief that even small, chance mutations can trigger a chain

reaction with cascading consequences, possibly even the creation of

new species, in relatively few generations. Economic ravages, natural

disasters, genocidal pogroms, and geographic isolation caused by

mountains, oceans, and deserts have deepened these differences.

As a result of evolution, every population group has some unique

physical and physiological characteristics, many of which have a

genetic basis. Most of today's genetic research focuses on finding

cures for diseases, more than 3,000 of which are genetically based.

For instance, blacks are predisposed to carry genes for sickle cell

anemia and susceptibility to colorectal cancer.4 Beta-thalassemia is

most prevalent in Mediterranean populations. A form of diabetes has

been linked to a gene most commonly found among North American

Indians. Northern European whites are more susceptible to cystic

fibrosis.

" Since the word race causes such discomfort, ethnic groups is often

substituted, but it is inappropriate, " adds Theresa Overfield,

University of Utah professor of anthropology and expert on the biology

of health and illness. " Race is a characteristic used most effectively

to describe, rather than explain, health difference. … Ignoring the

differences between humans is at least shortsighted and can be

medically harmful. "

So why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out Ashkenazi

Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs, or blonde haired and

blue-eyed Scandinavians, yet find it racist to suggest that blacks of

West African ancestry have evolved into the world's best sprinters and

jumpers?

" In human biology and clinical studies, as well as in epidemiological

research, it is important to understand if age, gender, race, and

other population characteristics contribute to the phenotype

variation, " wrote Claude Bouchard, Laval University geneticist,

obesity expert and exercise physiologist, in a recent article in the

American Journal of Human Biology. " Only by confronting these enormous

public health issues head-on, and not by circumventing them in the

guise of political correctness, do we stand a chance to evaluate the

discriminating agendas and devise appropriate interventions. To

disregard monumental public health issues is to be morally bankrupt.

" I have always worked with the hypothesis that ignorance fosters

prejudice. [Critical inquiry] is the greatest safeguard against

prejudice. "

In fact, highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure,

the distribution of muscle fiber types, reflex capabilities, lung

capacity, and the ability to use energy more efficiently are not

evenly distributed across racial groups and cannot be explained by

known environment factors. Consider diving, gymnastics, and

ice-skating, sports in which East Asians excel. Asians tend to be

small with relatively short extremities, long torsos, and a thicker

layer of fat. " Chinese splits, " a rare maneuver demanding

extraordinary flexibility, has roots in this anthropometric reality.

Eurasian whites are the premier wrestlers and weight lifters in the

world. Evolutionary forces have shaped a population with large,

muscular upper bodies with relatively short arms and legs and thick

torsos. These proportions tend to be an advantage in sports in which

strength rather than speed is at a premium. This region also turns out

an extraordinary number of top field athletes—javelin throwers,

shot-putters, and hammer throwers (whites hold 46 of the top 50 all

time throws).

Athletes who trace their ancestry to western African coastal states,

including British, Caribbean and American blacks, are the quickest and

best leapers in the world. Consequently, they almost completely

monopolize the sprints up to 400 meters. No white, Asian, or East

African runners have broken 10 seconds in the 100m. Athletes of West

African descent hold the top two hundred times in the 100m—all less

than 10 seconds––and 797 of the top 800 times. All 32 finalists in the

last four Olympic men's 100-meter races were West African. The

likelihood of that happening based on population numbers alone is

0.0000000000000000000000000000000001. Yet there are no—not one—premier

distance runners who trace their ancestry to this region in Africa.

Studies have shown that athletes of West African origin hit a

biomechanical wall after about 45 seconds of intense, anaerobic

activity, when aerobic skills come into play. East Africans, who have

small and slender ectomorphic body types and are therefore hapless in

the sprints, dominate distance running.

Whereas the West African population evolved in the lowlands and

remained relatively isolated, East African runners trace their

ancestry to the highlands. This region in Africa is also a genetic

stew, with studies indicating a mixture of genes from invading Arabs

and Middle Easterners. Kenya, with 28 million people, is the athletic

powerhouse. At the Seoul Olympics in 1988, Kenyan men won the 800,

1,500, and 5,000 meters, along with the 3,000-meter steeplechase.

Based on population percentages alone, the likelihood of such a

performance is one in 1.6 billion. The Kalenjin people of the Great

Rift Valley adjacent to Lake —who represent 1/2000th of the

world population —win 40% of top international distance running honors

and three times as many distance medals as athletes from any other

nation in the world. One tiny district, the Nandi, with only 500,000

people, swept an unfathomable 20% of major international distance

events. By almost any measure, the Nandi region is the greatest

concentration of raw athletic talent in the history of sports. It's a

potent example of the interacting bio-cultural forces that shape great

athletes.

By this time, the draft of Taboo was taking shape. I sent it off to

Macmillan and waited. And waited. Eight months passed without a word

before I received the brush-off in a brusque letter. " Much of the

manuscript is smoothly and elegantly written, and most of it is quite

enjoyable to read, " wrote Chapman. " [but] while I admire the goals of

the book, I must regretfully inform you that [it] lacks sufficient

persuasiveness…to avoid being torn apart by critics, reviewers, and

readers. "

Years of work were suddenly in mortal danger. My agent embarked on a

full court press to find a new publisher, but to no avail. As before,

most everyone treated the proposal (and now an early manuscript) as a

skunk on the loose. Basic Books, a first-rate independent publisher

affiliated with Harper, appeared ready to publish Taboo until

an African American consultant nixed the book, without reading it, as

" potentially racist. " One female editor lectured my agent about how

insensitive he was even to propose such an idea. Would she please read

the book? he responded. " I don't have time for such trash, " she

retorted.

Such intense personal reaction was all the more dispiriting given the

lengths to which I had gone to include, in a non-polemical way, many

diverse historical and ideological perspectives. To a man and woman,

the board and reviewers were on record that they respected Taboo as

fair and constructive, with racial healing as one of its messages.

" You will be accused of spouting old fashioned racism for even raising

the issue of African American superiority in athletics, " wrote Earl

, chairman of the department of sociology and ethnic studies at

Wake Forest University, a leading black scholar and author of several

books on race and sports, and one of my board members. " All this

beating around the bush has to stop. This is a good book. I am quite

excited with the arguments that are raised. "

But Dr. 's endorsement, along with reviews and letters of support

from the president of the Human Biology Association, then the editor

of the Journal of Human Biology, a US Olympic Committee scientist,

prominent African American anthropologists, and top athletes couldn't

crack the political status quo. As I was learning, when it comes to

race, " the cortex shuts down. " No one would even read the manuscript

and give Taboo a chance.

Public Affairs, another independent publisher with authors such as

international financier Soros, former Secretary of Defense

during the Vietnam war McNamara, and 60-Minutes commentator

Andy Rooney, broke the log jam when an editor read it, loved it, and

assumed the rights. Yet even with a respected publisher behind Taboo,

the hysteria continued in some quarters. In early January, just before

the book was released, The New York Times Magazine informed me that it

was killing plans to publish an adaptation, calling the book's thesis

potentially " dangerous. " " Our reluctant decision to drop the project

is no reflection of my regard for your work, which remains high, "

wrote Crichton, an editor who had championed the article. " In

brief, the whole subject worries my editor…. "

Taboo is now finally in the hands of the public. Will it be as

skittish about the contents as the publishing industry? Apparently

not. As of the day I write this, Taboo has so far received

consistently positive if sometimes guarded praise in dozens of

reviews. Ironically, the negative comments have come from those

journalists who consider themselves " liberals. " For instance, writing

in the Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Rick Telander, apparently

attempting to inject some " balance " into a review that generally

praised the book, wrote: " Reviews of Taboo have been as uptight as

anything, with reviewers figuratively holding the book the way an

exterminator might hold a spraying skunk. "

To buttress this incendiary conclusion, Telander writes: " 'Some Things

Are Better Left Unsaid,' is how USA Today titled its review. " Minor

problem: The title of the article was 180 degrees the opposite: " Some

Things Not Better Left Unsaid. " In fact, columnist Brennan

praised the book, writing " the dialogue that [Entine] almost certainly

will provoke is not the problem. It's the solution. "

Telander also quoted a Washington Post reviewer that Taboo " underplays

the political and cultural land minds underlying the discussion " —is

equally misleading. Ruffins, a former editor of the NAACP's

Crisis magazine actually admired the book. " Because it bravely tackles

the exhaustive list of ideas that must be considered in any

open-minded discussion of this topic, Taboo could well be the most

intellectually demanding sports book ever written, " Ruffins wrote.

" Taboo is an informed exploration of a fascinating phenomenon. Entine

marshals such an impressive array of evidence that we should no longer

be content to explain why blacks excel at certain sports by simply

resorting to the old cultural argument that athletics have been the

only avenues of upward mobility that were truly open to them. He's

raised the argument to new heights. "

A number of columnists (every one white) apparently have felt

uncomfortable about being seen as praising a book that suggested that

humans are indeed as diverse—culturally and biologically—as

multi-culturalists claim. Stan Hochman of the Philadelphia Daily News

and Winokur of the San Francisco Examiner injected a racial,

almost hysterical, tone to their articles, anticipating and inviting

widespread anger among blacks. Yet the reaction has been just the

opposite. As Slate.com writes in its culture column, " Summary

Judgment " , " You might expect that claiming to show a genetic basis for

the dominance of certain sports by people of African descent would

raise a firestorm. But in fact Entine's book gets warm reviews: " a

careful and reasoned case for this point of view " (The New York Times)

… a " balanced, well-reasoned and—above all—calm examination of the

issue " (Sports Illustrated).

What has been the reaction from the black community, to the degree

that it has been homogeneous? Sailes, editor of the Journal Of

The African American Male, wrote a blurb for the book in which he

calls Taboo " Compelling, bold, comprehensive, informative, and

enlightening. " The black magazine Emerge, in its March issue, called

the book " thoughtful, thorough, and sensitive. …Taboo is a good read

for anyone interested in the history of black athletes in the United

States and world-wide. " C. Walter, professor of history in the

American Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Washington, in

a review in the Seattle Times, writes that " Taboo is both provocative

and informed. Entine has provided a well-intentioned effort for all to

come clean on the possibility that black people might just be superior

physically, and that there is no negative connection between that

physical superiority and their IQs. "

What are we to make of this phenomenon in which some whites, so quick

to crow about their own racial sensitivity, recklessly inject racial

divisiveness into a debate in which most African Americans see

thoughtfulness? It's apparent that many blacks have become irritated

to the point of anger by the patronizing censorship and condescension

of many journalists and academics. " I am an editorial columnist, "

wrote Bill Maxwell of the St. sburg Times in a personal note to

me after his glowing column on Taboo. " I reviewed your book because I

enjoyed reading it. It cut through all of the bullshit. I am black. "

The evidence that there are bio-culturally grounded differences

between populations in body type, physiology, and athletic performance

is overwhelming and growing. Although the African biological edge in

some sports is not great, at the level of an elite athlete, even a

small advantage can be the difference between a gold medal and

finishing out of the money. On-the-field trends create a cultural

advantage that forms a biosocial feedback loop, with nature and

nurture fueling each other. Nevertheless, it is critical to remember

that no individual athlete can succeed without the 'X-factor,' the

lucky spin of the roulette wheel of genetics matched with considerable

dedication and sport smarts. " It's the brain, not the heart or lungs,

that is the critical organ, " Sir Bannister told me. " But one

would have to be blind not to see a pattern here. I hope we are not at

a time and place where we are afraid to talk about remarkable events.

I hope not. "

Popular thought is now beginning to catch up with scientific

knowledge. The genetics revolution has decisively overturned the dated

belief that all humans are created with equal potential, a tabula

rasa, or blank slate, for experience and culture to write upon.

Acknowledging human biodiversity may approach a danger zone, but

pretending that there are no slippery questions does not prevent them

from being asked, if only under one's breath.

Taboo is not so much a sports book as it is a cultural and historical

account, warts and all, of how western culture has understood what it

means to be human. It debunks facile theories of race that have been

used for hundreds of years to justify racism and even genocide. Most

important, it shatters stereotypes that blacks or whites or any racial

group are innately " superior " or " inferior. " This is a book about the

rich diversity of life, free of the myths of " ranking " that have

plagued Western thought for centuries. That's the message of Taboo;

for the most part, it is being heard.

" Entine understands the reasons Blacks lash out against the

determination theory, knows that whatever White America gives to Black

athletes in terms of athletic superiority, it takes from their mental

abilities, " wrote Carolyn White of Emerge magazine. " Great athletes,

dumb jocks. And the stereotype, suggests Entine, is probably the

single most important reason people have problems debating the issue. "

Human beings are different. Although it should never be far from

anyone's mind that white fascination with black physicality has long

framed this issue, it's more than clear that the stereotype that

blacks make better athletes than whites is neither wrong nor racist.

The major criticism, by well-meaning blacks and whites, is 'why even

take up this subject'? The answer is that we have no choice.

Censorship and the invocation of a taboo on issues of human diversity,

biological and cultural, are not viable options. Limiting the

rhetorical use of folk categories such as race, an admirable goal, is

not going to make the patterned biological variation on which they are

based disappear. The question is no longer whether these inquiries

will continue but in what manner and to what end.

If we do not welcome the impending genetic revolution with open minds,

if we are scared to ask and to answer difficult questions, if we lose

faith in science, then there is no winner; we all lose. Science is a

skeptical endeavor. It is a method of interrogating reality, a

cumulative process of testing new and more refined explanations, not

an assertion of dry, unalterable facts. It is a way of asking

questions, not of imposing answers. The challenge is in whether we can

conduct the debate so that human diversity might be cause for

celebration of our individuality rather than serving as fodder for

demagogues.

If decent people don't discuss this subject, " writes Mason

professor Walter E. , an African American, in an admiring

review in The American Enterprise magazine, " we concede the turf to

black and white racists. "