no it isn't.... not according to some s**t i copied off the internets

not according to British physician James M. Tanner. His The Physique of the Olympic Athlete, published in 1960 after the Rome Olympics, found an ideal body for each sport, although the study noted considerable overlap in types - a classic bell curve. Sprinters were the most muscular. Beginning at 400 meters on up to the marathon, athletes competing in these events were progressively less muscular in the upper body. Long-distance runners were generally small, short-legged, narrow-shouldered, and ectomorphic, or lacking in muscle.

"Amongst competitors in both track and field events there are large significant racial differences," Tanner wrote. As nature would have it, different populations are better suited to excel at anaerobic activities such as sprinting, jumping, and lifting, than at aerobic sports such as distance running, cycling, and swimming.

We see these differences on the playing field, but they are apparent at the micro level as well. In the mitochondria of cells, the body's powerhouse, oxygen combines with the glucose released by carbohydrates and, eventually, fats to produce sustained energy. When the body demands quick bursts, it breaks down carbohydrates quickly, if incompletely. At roughly 400 meters, about 40-50 seconds of running for a top athlete, or 100 meters in swimming, the body has depleted much of its anaerobic capacity. That is the point at which anaerobic athletes experience an accumulation of lactic acid, the waste product of the muscles. If physical activity continues past this bio-physiological divide, the body begins to process energy more deliberately. Scientists are definitive in their findings that athletes of West African ancestry are the most anaerobically efficient athletes, East African are the fittest aerobically, and whites fall in the middle.

Posted By: Tombs, Oct 31, 15:01:04