-Mark Zhang
mzhang59@gmail.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The Evidence - Freaks of Nature
When Shenk brings up the conventional yet flawed wisdom that "it's in the genes," Shenk points to an example of what columnists are reporting. Shenk mentions the Longley column which wrote that "Phelps [has been] blessed with so many gifts, he is nothing short of a freak of nature (180)." Keep in mind, now, that Shenk wants his readers to be wary of such articles that praise talent and blame it on genes. But remember from our circulatory unit when Ms. Inselberger brought up the notion of Lance Armstrong, who has a resting heart rate of 30 bpm, which is less than half the average. Of course, Lance obtained this ridiculously low heart rate as a result of strenuous training, but isn't it true that Lance himself was born with a naturally stronger heart? In a similar manner, does Michael Phelps actually have genes that make him a "freak of nature"? Find studies that have researched the natural conditions of reputed athletes who are considered to be born to play their sport. Shenk constantly proposes that ultimate skill comes from GXE, but that G can play an exponentially large role if an athlete was truly endowed with a physical body that far surpassed the average. Try to focus on finding a relationship between structure and function as you analyze what makes a naturally superior physique.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Multiple times, Shenk actually does concede that certain genetic factors may give someone an advantage in a certain skill, although he never truly addresses that viewpoint. On p. 52, Shenk writes, "Everyone is born with differences, and some with unique advantages for certain tasks. But no one is genetically designed into greatness and few are biologically restricted from attaining it." In the case of Lance Armstrong, while it is possible (and disputed) if he was at a genetic advantage, without his dedication to improvement, he would not have been able to accomplish what he has been able to with dedication. According to Ed Coyle, Armstrong's talent came with his training; there are data showing how Armstrong's muscle efficiency increased from average levels due to his training (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html).
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Michael Phelps, there are some factors that give him an a distinct advantage, namely his wingspan. Most humans measure their wingspan -- the distance between fingertips when extending arms -- to be very close to their height. Phelps's wingspan is abnormally long, at 4 inches greater than his height. However, just as with Lance Armstrong, there may be factors that make Phelps above average, but those advantages would not have been enough to make him the most accomplished Olympian without intense training. Plus, it should be noted that while Phelps's wingspan is above average, it still falls in human range. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good). Once again, while certain characteristics make Phelps a better swimmer, they did not automatically assure that he'd have a successful swimming career. Furthermore, chances are that other athletes, perhaps less well-known, have distinguishing physical characteristics that play a factor in their success as an athlete. Given the diversity among human life, I would not be surprised if many athletes had SOME above-average physical characteristics, perhaps genetically influenced characteristics, that allowed them to excel. Therefore, I would not characterize Phelps as a "freak of nature", but rather as one of many examples of the immense physical possibilities of humans.
One interesting case that I would like to mention is marathon runner Dean Karnazes (Not many scientific stories about him, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Karnazes). A study performed on him showed that, over a long period of time of exercise, his body was able to reduce levels of lactic acid. Lactic acid is the result of fermentation, which occurs when exercising when cellular respiration cannot occur because of low levels of oxygen. Dean's ability to reduce lactic acid over time suggests that, while working out, his muscle cells are able to use oxygen more efficiently or that he is able to transport more oxygen to the muscle cells. This physical advantage certainly gives Dean an advantage; however, without training, he would not have been able to build his endurance to the point where this makes a substantial difference. Nonetheless, while Phelps and Armstrong were examples where training was by far the key factor in their becoming successful athletes, Dean is an example of how a "truly endowed ... physical body that far surpasses the average" can lead to a massive improvement. Among the 3, I would say that Dean's abilities were the most influenced by physical characteristics.
Brandon Axe
brandona0701@aol.com
The theme of evolution, stating that organisms in a population with a selective advantage will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass down their genetic material through natural selection applies to these individuals with unique physical advantages. Primarily, their physical advantages are a selective advantage when it comes to their physical event -- Dean's ability to reduce lactic acid over time is clearly a selective advantage in running. As a result, the population of competitive runners has a chance to shift towards people who have this ability. Furthermore, Dean's children will potentially have this same ability to reduce lactic acid over time; if this trait continues to be passed down through generations, the world population will shift towards people with this ability, as there will be more of them. Yet an even bigger selective advantage of these successful individuals is their behavior, their motivation, that drives them to success. Without their intense training, they would not be the athletes we know them as. This mindset of motivation is a selective advantage when it comes to being successful. These athletes will obviously see the value of hard work in accomplishing a goal and will promote the same mindset in their children. Their children, then , will have a selective advantage towards success. This cycle of promoting hard work and motivation fostering success leading to more promoting hard work and motivation will lead to the natural selection of these successful individuals with the motivation to work towards their goals. Additionally, an even bigger impact of these individuals on the mindset of motivation is their effect on their fans. Fans of these highly motivated athletes will see the advantages of motivation and will thus become more motivated themselves. The athlete not only is promoting a direct change in mindset through the behavior of their children, but also promoting indirectly a change in the mindset among their fans. The world population will evolve as more and more individuals become highly motivated and hard-working.
DeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteShenk does not argue against the fact that genetic differences do exist and thus everyone has a different potential. To address the specific case of brain "plasticity," Shenk reminds us that "plasticity does not mean that we're all born with the exact same potential. Of course we're not' (36). According to Shenk's beliefs, Lance Armstrong could have been endowed with a heart that greater potential than most. However, no specific studies can possibly be made to affirm Armstrong's "naturally stronger heart." We must remember the comment by McGill University's Michael Meaney that "there are no genetic factors that can be studied independently of the environment" (16-17). Instead, we can only compare the different traits that contribute to Armstrong's greatness. As Brandon mentioned, researcher Ed Coyle believes that while Armstrong did have a naturally stronger heart than most, his muscle efficiency was no more than average until he began intense cycling training. In fact, Coyle downplays Armstrong's "innate" heart strength, noting that other athletes have the same advantage. Instead, according to Coyle, "Armstrong was able to increase his muscle efficiency by 8 percent through hard and dedicated training," becoming "the only human who has been shown to change his muscle efficiency" (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ news/2005/07/0722_ 050722_armstrong.html). Thus, while the "naturally stronger heart" may have been due to gene-environment interaction, the fact that Armstrong's muscle efficiency was not above average like his heart strength suggests a potential genetic boost in that regard. Nevertheless, since a strong heart is more widespread, this potential genetic advantage did not provide Armstrong with a significant lead over competition, which his training to increase muscle plasticity did accomplish.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, due to the limitation described by Meaney, we cannot determine whether Michael Phelps's incredible body proportions are dictated by his inherited genes or also due to environmental factors. One clue, however, is that Phelps may be a victim of Marfan's Syndrome, "a connective tissue disorder which [is] characterized by long limbs and long, thin fingers" (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/6446). This condition is believed to have genetic explanations and has been reported in a number of historical "geniuses," most notably among musicians. Violin virtuoso and composer Niccolò Paganini and piano virtuoso and composer Sergei Rachamninov were both believed to have Marfan's Syndrome. Music historians and scientists argue that their long, extraordinarily-flexible fingers enabled them to play difficult passages that required large stretches and jumps more easily than their unaffected counterparts. It is also important to note that biologists have identified the specific gene, the fibrilin-1 gene on chromosome 15, that is responsible for the condition. The specific relationship between this trait and gene indicate with greater certainty that these "freaks of nature" had significant help from their genetic material. (http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A3065140). However, while these potentially innate advantages certainly raised the potential of these individuals in comparison to others, the bottom line is that the extensive training created the skill necessary to utilize these physical advantages. Thus, the argument could be made that Phelps and others are "freaks of nature" due to their rare condition that affects 1 in 5000, but this condition does not necessarily provide an athletic advantage, nor an extremely unique quality that none can match (an estimated 200,000 people in the US have Marfan's Syndrome; there are not 200,000 Americans winning eight Olympic gold medals). In fact, the loosening of the heart tissue caused by Marfan's Syndrome could actually be a serious physical disadvantage (http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A3065140). Thus, while I agree with Brandon's argument that Phelps has innate advantages as a swimmer but was not guaranteed success, I disagree that Phelps possesses an immense physical capability (only 1 in 5000). Likewise, I do not believe that Armstrong possesses a significant advantage. Only the training that each underwent truly created advantages between these athletes and their competition.
ReplyDeleteThese potentially genetically-endowed physical traits create advantageous structures that contribute to the functions of various body parts in each athlete's respective activity. Lance Armstrong possesses an enlarged heart that "is almost a third larger than that of an average man" (http://www.nndb.com/people/ 702/000030612/). The size of the heart allows a greater stroke volume of blood, thus decreasing the amount of contractions per minute (Campbell 904). When multiplied by his maximum heart rate, the volume of blood circulated greatly exceeds what a normal human is capable of, providing Armstrong's muscle cells with more oxygen faster, giving him an advantage over his opponents. The long structure of Michael Phelps's body, especially his torso, arms, and fingers, and his "hypermobile joints" allow him to generate more thrust from his upper body, increasing his speed in the water (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/ 6446). Nevertheless, while these supposed physical advantages are an example of the biological theme of structure and function, they do not necessarily account for the success of the individual. There are so many factors that contribute to shaping an incredible athlete that I believe observers will always be able to create an excuse for the success of an individual. Likewise, I am sure that there are individuals with similar physical advantages that do not become as successful (like the 199,999 other Marfan's Syndrome patients in the US).
- Justin Doong (jbdoong@gmail.com)