Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Genetics: Proclivity to Power vs. Endurance
Nathan, I think you might get as excited about this as I just did. Check it out: http://www.gtpersonal.com.au/sports_performance.php. This is a genetic test from an Australian company that will (theoretically) determine whether you have a genetic muscular proclivity towards power/explosiveness or endurance events. Apparently the ACTN3 gene that we inherit from both parents is the genetic determinant for this kind of thing. Holy crap. And its a mouth swab test, so it's non invasive and available for $200 Australian. I am currently jizzing my pants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Here's a link to an article about why the advent of this test sucks for youth athletics:
http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3355
I have to run to catch the bus so this will be brief. I just finished reading a book called Outliers, about success, and what factors we attribute it to. As Americans we like to focus on personal merit as the overriding factor that determines an individuals success, obscuring the handouts and advantages certain individuals receive from their families, communities, social status. He analyzed canadian hockey and found that an overwhelming majority of the pros were born in the months of Jan-March. Why? Because of the arbitrary advantage of a January 1 cut-off date for enrollment among ELEMENTARY-AGE HOCKEY PLAYERS. Hockey-fanatic canadians begin selecting the best players from a particular age group as early as 6 and putting them on the fast track, giving them 3x the practice time and the best coaching. Turns out that the best hockey players at that age are...the oldest! (seems obvious when you think about it). A difference of 11 months is a huge gap in physical development, so those born closest to the cut-off date (Jan-mar) are those most likely to make the select teams. what started off at age six as a slight advantage based on age, grows into a bigger and bigger advantage the older they get and the more special treatment (coaching practice/playing time) the they get. This cuts out a huge group of potentially excellent hockey players, unlucky enough to be born in the second half of the year, who will never get to develop their abilities to the same degree because of an abritrary date when they were 6. FUCKED.
The scary thing is that these abritrary dates exist all over and for far more important things than organized sports, you guessed it, EDUCATION. The fact that I was selected for Math olympiad and advanced reading writing classes in 4th GRADE is still affecting my current educational advantages.
So many of our systems are structured around this "Matthew affect" a sociological term coined after a biblical quote that boils down to heaping special privileges upon the advantaged. Examples? Capitalism: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer through a myriad of advantages available to people with money- tax breaks, political power, access to the Grand Ole US CASINO (stock market).
uh oh missed my bus. more later, check out the author - Malcolm Gladwell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh9ax4QvzoQ
Good points. Here's an article about why this gene isn't that important, by one of the authors of the original research article that discussed the gene and its potential impacts:
http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2008/11/the_actn3_sports_gene_test_wha.php
A summary: the ACTN3 gene probably only accounts for 2-3% of the variation in physical prowess associated with elite athletes. 18% of the general population has the gene variation associated with decreased fast-twitch muscle, while only 2% of elite sprinters do. 30% of the general population has the fast-twitch biased variation, and the remainder (52%) is exactly in the middle. There is also no data to support the idea that ACTN3 expression is a better predictor of athletic success than standard physical test batteries. Nonetheless, it would be pretty cool to know what variation you have.
The ethical issues that this sort of thing (and the hockey/education examples) brings up are numerous and slightly horrifying. At some point in the future we'll probably have fairly accurate genetic tests that can predict everything from mathematic capacity to muscular endurance, and people will probably start to lose sight of the multitude of environmental (social, cultural) factors that also influence development. That could make things very selective and authoritarian, not to mention super-competitive amongst kids who are singled out as being predisposed towards certain abilities and skill sets. At some point we'll start being able to selectively modify gene variations before birth as well, which is even crazier.
On the other hand genetic testing could open the door for cross-cultural excellence. Most people enjoy things that they're good at more than those they're not, so genetic testing could give normally disadvantaged kids a chance to excel.
this may be the first step toward a gattical society of predetermined life.
matt - Interesting stuff! once I have finished finals I will certainly delve deeper into this...
corbin - I also have read outliers and an anecdote that stuck with me that also seemed to emphasize the importance of nurture over nature was 10,000 hour rule. in short it says: to master any given field or skill 10000 hours of practice are required. while that sounds like questionably arbitrary number the point seems plausible and very related to the matthew effect
Post a Comment