Women are better endurance athelettes than men.

By size comparison only, I would think if you stripped the tall heavy skeleton out of the male and gave him a smaller lighter one he'd most likely go even faster. Like putting a v8 in a volkswagen beetle.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


What's your height and weight?

reply to post by Jepic


5-8 125 lbs

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
According to this the only thing keeping a male in front is his god given height, not any biological superiority.
source

On the racetack the colts are driven harder because they ae more expendable. As far as height we had a tall mare called Zenyatta that wasn't too shabby when she went up against the colts.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


And how old are you?

And to not sound like a creep I'm gonna give my age which is 20.

reply to post by Jepic


is there a point to this?

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by Jepic

 

is there a point to this?

Yep. If you lived in London we could meet and do an endurance test you against me. I asked for your age because I'm not really interested in meeting an 50 plus lady which I know I might beat.

reply to post by Jepic


Mid 20s. Not anywhere near London.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


As expected. Chances were pretty slim.

Hi

I think the calculation quoted in the op is ridiculous.

It uses distance travelled, speed taken and how TALL the athlete is to work out relative speed.
This is farcical.
What about weight? Body mass? The percentage of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles the respective athletes have? What about human variation?

Men, in general are better athletes than women. This is not an anti-woman stance. It is an accepted biological fact.

I don't understand why this is an issue for some people.

To the person who said he "figured out what women are for"............
No person is FOR anything, that is a pretty foolish thing to say. I can understand why someone would take offence to that (I did slightly, to be honest), it seems ignorant at best to me.

Cheers

reply to post by Jepic


is it just me or is god given height a form OF biological superiority, if by DNA males are naturally taller and that seems to be giving them the upper hand in these endurance contests....

Op, this research is flawed. I'm sorry that you feel slighted by being female. That said, we, the male sex, are faster, stronger, and better at math. Accept and quit causing a ruckus over your lack of a penis. Sorry, I got a Y chromosome. Yay me!

Boohoo for you, you get a period and you can't pee standing up. What a wasted thread, no real science or debate here, just more male bashing crapola!

Originally posted by chi_z
reply to post by Jepic

 

is it just me or is god given height a form OF biological superiority, if by DNA males are naturally taller and that seems to be giving them the upper hand in these endurance contests....

Hmmm... I'm gonna ignore the "god given" part because honestly that's another debate entirely.

Instead my friend I'm gonna tell you with absolute certainty that height IS a biological superiority, YET it can also be a biological hindrance to optimum performance of a human.

I guess the KEY is "equal balance across the physical and gravitational spectrum". I say gravitational because I think it has been proven that once an animal passes a certain physical dimension relative to the gravity of a planet, performance decreases dramatically.

But you are spot on that height gives a physical advantage!

Women are NOT more superior. This guy is just another one of those weak "feminist male supporters" who call themselves feminists just so they can find a way to get laid.

Throughout his whole presentation he did nothing but point out the superiority of males yet, doctored it by hypotheticals so that by weight and size females would come out on top.

But at the end of the day, if women and men race...men win, swim, fight whatever...it doesn't matter. the only way that women are more superior is if we men make mistakes ...like marrying them, for instance or worse, having a child with them.....no quicker way to make a woman wealthy, you as a man, however will be homeless and destitute.

The only way this guy could make women superior is to do things like the following:

If the 'dead weight' of body fat is the key factor separating male and female running speeds, attaching weights to the bodies of male runners should nearly equalize the performance times of the two sexes. Ingeniously, Sparling and Cureton collaborated in 1980 on a study in which weight-bearing harnesses were strapped over the shoulders of 10 male distance runners .

So, let me get this straight.
Men have less fat, but because women have more fat retention and are adept at carrying it, when you strap weights on a man to slow him down ..that makes women more superior?

Women are more efficient at carrying more fat than men? Well, I guess you are more superior ...AT GETTING FAT AND LEARNING TO CARRY IT. This is the dumbest article ever.

They are better because men that had to strap on a harness, to prove his point, couldn't efficiently handle it better than women. This is the study? We are already more superior for not having the fat in the first place and of course women are going to be more efficient at carrying fat...they have had a lot of practice.

He goes on further to say:

In a test in which the athletes ran as far as possible in 12 minutes, males ran 568 metres further than females when not wearing weights, but only 395 metres further when wearing the weighted harnesses

.....so men are faster than women (again)....unless you strap a lot of simulated fat on them..again, another hypothetical that makes women more superior for being fatter. LOL classic.

Everything this guy says points to the superiority of males except for when he "adds weights" or doctors the image.
And by the way, you will see this superiority of women thing all over the net, but make sure you look at who wrote the article. Most ARE women and of course, they are going to say this. Just like the OP who put this on here proved...their egos are just as large as their bodies.

I had to stop reading after this because the "buried" superiority of men was riddle throughout his whole article but only masked with the superior fatness of women and somehow that makes them better....they dont have to wear weights to be superior.

The fat content probably has to do with childbirth anyway, a situation where they would nee more endurance. We don't have that uh hem..."pleasure" of enduring childbirth so we save our energy for providing and hunting...so goes the story of Darwin.

any way the guy also says: (I am getting tired at this point of reading this crap at this point and wish I was fatter so I could endure it more.)

If you use a fairer scale - 'heights', not metres - then the women are really quicker than the men.

Yeah, big deal.....a mouse is quicker than a cat and has smaller legs...but who's running' from who. It's the mouse's @ss if it gets caught, despite how superior it thinks it is. It's the same with women, you can sit around eating your Bon-Bons and gaining more endurance than men and brag about it, but in a war between a man and a woman....we wouldn't even need endurance...THE FIGHT WOULD BE OVER WITHIN SECONDS, and don't let any Milla Jovovich, Hollywood crap convince you any different.

Now I don't go around hitting women, but there's a part deep inside that wants to every time I hear them spouting off this kind of crap about how much better they are than men.

you are not better than men and the only reason why women are able to do anything they do today that financially rips men apart in courts and in child support cases etc. is NOT because your smarter. It's because the America government has an evil agenda to emasculate and weaken men so that they will have no fight left in them when the government tries to install a police state. WHICH IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. You women are not smarter...you just have the government on YOUR side and are helping you to destroy men. Your feminist organizations should be called FEMINIST TERRORIST, because everything from Christians to American people in general are called homeland terrorists now...yet, somehow, you feminists escape that government tag. It's because you are being used for a purpose but they will throw you away when finished with you, and then you will have to prove your superiority against all the men you have pissed off and stolen "pay" from in over the top child support cases, and the men you stole children from and used as a tool to oppress them emotionally. There will be a payday and not the kind you're used to. I personally will do no harm to a woman, and the aforementioned does not apply to me.But history, is the best predictor of human events and when man is pushed into a corner and overly angered....it is MAN, not woman,....that always stands victorious in war.


This guy who wrote this is nothing more than another traitor to his own kind and if I were running this country he would be imprisoned in an internment camp and re-indoctrinated on why he should remain a man instead of trying to be a woman. He's English (so he's already somewhat effeminate we've seen it all before).

It is Men who are superior in every way. I don't care what this pink fruitstand says. Women have always been weak in comparison to man and always will be. That's why THEY have never been the protectorates.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


Is that you in the picture? If it is, you are hot!

If not I just screwed up...

is there a point to this?

That's.. kind of my thought for this entire thread. Is there a point to it?

You may well be true, but things are what they are. Men are the height they are, have the muscle mass they have, and if they outperform because of this, they do. At the end of the day, all those studies mean.. nothing.

I used to run races for the Army. There was a girl in my battalion, we often ran together, she was very fast. I was a bit faster though. She was tiny. I had massive legs, and use their strength to run fast. I was certainly an atypical runner. She I believe was also training to be in the Olympics. She was pretty darn fast. But she, unlike you it seems, was not bitter or angry about her size and speed versus mine. She probably was an overall better conditioned athlete than I was. I used to run quite a bit on my own, but that's all she did in her free time. But bodies are what they are. She accepted that. She was not bitter. Why are you?

Nothing against the OP, but I think she has some issues with men. Probably because of issues with her father in her childhood.

reply to post by fleabit


If you had to say who was the better athlete, you or her. Who would you say?

reply to post by damouse83


My father is the person on this earth that I am closest to. He's a great guy and he's the one that taught me to be competative. Please do not disrespect him.

If you had to say who was the better athlete, you or her. Who would you say?

Hard to say. Her conditioning was better. All we did was run. Only other sports I was involved in were weights (mostly for my legs), and racquetball. Nothing quite as fan as slamming yourself into walls.

I gave her all the credit in the world when I knew her, for the running and training she did. I was no slouch mind.. I worked hard too, but there is no doubt in my mind she had to work harder to attain the same goals. Not exactly fair, but then, I don't have a pair of boobs, so in my mind, it works out to be even.

I actually found a picture of me in a race while in the Army. Ha.. thanks for bringing up memories. I forgot what I looked like! My legs are a bit more normal now, but I'm a lot stronger elsewhere, I work weights for my entire body now, not just my legs. And I only run on the treadmill. Running is a painful sport.. I'd not recommend it to anyone honestly. For health reasons. I'm serious.