Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because B borders on nonsensical?? Like what bizarre circles are you stewing in that you hear "They're great because they inherited the right genes for VO2 max!" more than you hear "They're great because they put in the hard work and effort! That's dedication right there!" And even if we focus on this truly fringe group that you seem to run with, the genetic factors like height are also readily overriden by ine…
I skimmed the paper you linked. It establishes a correlations between nutrition and height. But the analysis specifically adjusted the data 'for age, gender, ethnicity and birth weight', i.e. - the paper didn't claim that nutrition could fully override genetic factors, and - they acknowledged that adult height is correlated with ethnicity (hence the need to adjust for ethnicity before calculating correlations)
Like did you need a paper to realize that environment doesn't *fully( override genetic factors? That we're not born as some blob that morphs into shape based on the current lon,lat?
This isn't about height... this is about the notion that people associate athletic excellence with genetics over environment and personal effort... maybe in Nazi Germany?
And then to top it off, the point you're using as a "gotcha" still shuts down your line of reasoning but you fail to realize that... The study needs to adjust for ethnicity not just because of genes, but because of socioeconomic factors associated with ethnicity!
The point of science is to examine what you set out to examine. You have one study that shows the tie between nutrition and height survives adjusting for ethnicity. Here, have a study showing how socioeconomics are tied to nutrition: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/87/5/1107/4650128
And then from there go ahead and put two and two together. Nutrition is a statistically important factor even when adjusting for race, socioeconomics affects nutrition... and how do socioeconomics tie back into race?