It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Originally posted by Midyew
I am very tired and have not read this ENTIRE thread, BUT; From what I have read, I see one disturbing trend. A serious separation of the sexes. This is not good. Men and Women are EQUAL!!! There is no which one is better than the other. We need each other. I am a married man and I understand the extreme importance of both sexes.
If society as a whole doesn't get over this separation (among other separations) we will NEVER solve anything wrong with this world.
WE. ARE. ONE.
NO men and women are not EQUAL. And any who think so will be in for a rude awakening, not saying that males are better, or that females are better. But there not equal that's for sure, even a blind man can see that.
Both males and females have things about them that make the other sex either love or hate them, and in some things one or the other is usually better at, but such is life. If we were all equal then there would not be any such thing as male or female gender. So love it or hate it....it is what it is.
But I know its all semantics so I wont even bother. You might want to reevaluate what equal means to you, and what equal actually means. A dictionary would help.
Were you training for the olympics?
Btw, I'm not trying to claim that women are better at all things in life. I'm saying that women endurance athletes are slightly better athletes than men, if you accept the two that were compared as worthy subjects to represent their gender in the debate.
Then by that thinking wouldn't that make her a better athlete than you? The physical shortcomings are not always gender specific. There have been many men and women that have overcome disadvantages. If you read the article in my post you'll see that the fastest women in endurance running was shorter than me. Yet she managed to come in pretty close to the fastest man. Who was much taller than her. She overcame more of a physical shortcoming than he did according to the data. Wouldn't that also make her the superior athlete? Despite not crossing the line first imo she was a better athlete than him.
Btw, I'm not trying to claim that women are better at all things in life. I'm saying that women endurance athletes are slightly better athletes than men, if you accept the two that were compared as worthy subjects to represent their gender in the debate.
Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
This extensive test proves that per their size women are indeed faster at endurance running and sprinting than men. Why all the big talk from guys about how great they are? A man of equal height can't out run a woman, biologically speaking according to this. Isn't a simple footrace the manly end all to the discussion of who's better?
In this snipet they compare the two fastest cross country runners in the world. According to this the only thing keeping a male in front is his god given height, not any biological superiority.
That's great, but aren't men still faster if we look at the very top-level athletes? Let's compare two of the 'hottest' Kenyan runners - Paul Tergat, current world cross country champion, and Tegla Loroupe, winner of the 1994 New York Marathon and an assortment of other major races. Paul is 1.82 metres tall and has run the half-marathon (21 . 1 K) in about 60 minutes. Tegla is just 1.5 metres in height and covers the half-marathon in 68 minutes. Paul's pace for the half-marathon is about 11,593 heights/3600 seconds = 3.22 heights per second. Tegla's tempo is 14,067 heights/4080 seconds = 3.45 heights per second. Tegla is actually faster than the world champion male!
Here's another snippet of the comparison of the world's fastest male and female sprinters. According to this again, a man holds the record only by his god given height. The fastest woman is actually 2% faster.
What about world record performances? Certainly you would think that the very best male sprinter would be faster than the topmost female. Leroy Burrell, who stands 6 feet tall, currently holds the men's world record for 100 metres with a clocking of 9.85 seconds, which turns out to be a velocity of 5.55 heights per second. Florence Griffith-Joyner, who stands 5'6-1/2' tall, holds the women's world record for 100 metres with a time of 10.49 seconds, which is a speed of 5.64 heights per second. Using fair velocity comparisons (in heights per second, not metres per second), the fastest woman in the world is almost 2 per cent faster than the quickest man !
I think the attitude that women are inferior in terms of physical ability needs to be rethought. The fact that women are discouraged from participating in sports or any physically demanding environment is stupid.
source
Ok let me tell you what every other male in the world knows. You do have superior upper body strength. Women have superior core and lower body strength (for their size). That's why men have more back injuries. Men rely on their large shoulders and arms to lift something, women rely on their legs, hips, and core strength.
fleabit you oughta try sprinting instead, rather than long distance. distance runners tend to look weak and frail, no muscle, as endurance burns fat AND muscle. sprinting burns fat and BUILDS muscle, and improves your joints over time if you do it on soft surfaces like grass or tracks rather than tarmac.