Women are better endurance athelettes than men.

So... I take this as scientific evidence we can go ahead and up the long distance running requirement for women in the military's physical training tests past mens as opposed to the other way around?

Judging from what I have seen, the "average" man performs better than the "average" woman in this regard, it might not be such a good idea to make it harder for these women. Men/Women who are conditioned for these activities may be different, but I don't know about this.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You made that claim, not me. Back it up big guy.

Originally posted by whiteblack
I am not being nice to you, anyway.

Hmmm why are you saying this? lol

Strange right?

reply to post by RSF77


I think they should. I know someone that weighed 160 lbs coming out of boot camp. She's fat. Give them more exercise imo.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You made that claim, not me. Back it up big guy.

Big guy??? That sounds kind of sexist.


Well listen hun, I didn't make a claim that no women holds a record...ok doll...let's get some reading comprehension skills sweety....a little logic would help as well, baby.

I wonder if you can take it as well as you can dish it???

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by whiteblack
I am not being nice to you, anyway.

Hmmm why are you saying this? lol

Strange right?

edit on 20-8-2011 by _Phoenix_ because: (no reason given)

Well, I could understand it, women are smaller in stature then men and in long distance running size (or more specifically weight I guess) tends to turn into a ball and chain.

From what I have observed (1 mile - 10 miles, non-professional athletes) this isn't true, but for marathons and such it could be a completely different story.

It may be evolutionarily determined that men are better at short bursts of speed and women are better at long distance running. I read that humans in general are better than most animals (per design) at long distance running, I believe its one of the theories of how we supposedly killed off neanderthal, more access to prey animals by wearing them down over distance.

Among primates, endurance running is only seen in humans, and persistence hunting is thought to have been one of the earliest forms of human hunting, having evolved 2 million years ago.
Persistence Hunting

This is interesting in that I think it is one of the earliest incantations of intelligence, the ability to actively track animals over long distances and time periods. Long after a big cat or some other predator would have given up, the prey animals simply weren't used to being hunted this way and collapsed from exhaustion.

The bigger the prey the harder they would go down in an upfront fight for survival, but they were also quicker to collapse due to their size, giving humans the edge.

Given that men were more than likely the hunters in our ancestry, that would be an argument against this thread. That doesn't say its not true in our modern world though, you may very well be right.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I wonder if you can beat a woman in arm wrestling. Good night troll.

although that is endurance, that's literally just one example of a woman holding an outright record. I'd personally rather be a ussain bolt or asafa powell kind of athlete if given the choice (that and I have a phobia of deep water :| )

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I wonder if you can beat a woman in arm wrestling. Good night troll.

Oh, you got me...I'm just a lil ol' weakling and you big strong women beat me in everything


Someone who is claiming women are superior in sports compared to women calling someone else a troll....ironic.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


How can women be superior to women? That's confusing. Did I read that right?

The essence of your posts, replies to others, and squabbling with people are seriously childish. You have yet to raise a valid point in regard to your nonsensical babbling. All you have executed within the scopes of this thread, is prove the point that you are blind to the facts and you seem to be an overzealous feminist who has zero grip on reality.

You need to cease with your pathetic indications that all men are just primordial apes who are sexist, chauvinist pigs. I really hope one day you understand how ridiculous this thread is as people raise valid points, all you can do to respond is indicate they are sexist.

You are clearly disheartened at something that does not involve the entire male gender and I suggest you get over it as bitterness towards an entire gender because of problems plaguing you is immature, unrealistically absurd and detrimental to any "facts" that you were attempting to present.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

How can women be superior to women? That's confusing. Did I read that right?

You sure did...you caught a typo...and no one has ever pointed out a typo on the internet before.

You know what...I'm going to keep it there...just for you...maybe it will help your self confidence knowing that you got something right in this thread.

Here's a bit of friendly advice...you should spend more time being happy about who you are and spend less time being angry about who you aren't.

Just a thought...give it a try.

Yes, and when women want to become like men, well they really look like them too! Why cant women just do what is natural, and quick bickering about stupid things about 'we can do just as good'. I'm seriously sick of it!

Why are women constantly trying to prove themselves better then men? What is their issue? Just because your weaker, slower, and smaller, doesnt mean your not needed? Men are the bulk, women are the fluff, get used to it!!


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d8e78ec3832.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b88a4fa5c820.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
Why are women constantly trying to prove themselves better then men? What is their issue? Just because your weaker, slower, and smaller, doesnt mean your not needed? Men are the bulk, women are the fluff, get used to it!!

Though stupidity is pretty even across both sexes.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
Did you know that more women graduate college than men? Does that mean that by those numbers you're all less intelligent than women?

No, but college age men are (a) less responsible and (b) more likely to get a decent-paying blue-collar job.

In achievement and capabilities, men tend to have a larger variance---there are more utter idiot men (often ending up in prison as a consequence of testosterone and stupidity), and more obscenely brilliant academic prodigies. On average, it's very close to even.

If you examine the most selective universities you will find more men, and especially in graduate level education.

Originally posted by RSF77


This is interesting in that I think it is one of the earliest incantations of intelligence, the ability to actively track animals over long distances and time periods. Long after a big cat or some other predator would have given up, the prey animals simply weren't used to being hunted this way and collapsed from exhaustion.

The bigger the prey the harder they would go down in an upfront fight for survival, but they were also quicker to collapse due to their size, giving humans the edge.

Given that men were more than likely the hunters in our ancestry, that would be an argument against this thread. That doesn't say its not true in our modern world though, you may very well be right.

edit on 20-8-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

In an ancestral environment, men were the long-distance hunters because women were necessary to feed infants. Only men could afford to be absent for the long time involved in large-game hunting. There were no packaged formulas---without breast-feeding, your offspring die. And human infants are far less capable than infants of other species because of the long time necessary for brain and language development---they require intense and constant supervision and have negligible useful mobility for years. As a consequence sex-based job specialization was a biological necessity for survival. Everybody had it tough.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


For me this is a big "Duhhh"

I mean, have you ever seen a women give birth to a child?

If not, trust me, it's the ultimate test of endurance.

p.s.- sorry but only read the OP, if this has been stated already, my apologies.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


Generally speaking females weigh a lot less then males, so in daily life between normal people they should by all accounts be better runners then males, just because of that fact that they on average weight less then males. I mean I am 6 feet, and my normal everyday weight about 230, but I have been up to over 240 and that extra 10 to 15 pounds made a world of difference in running both in speed and endurance running.

But all of that is just in your average person or athlete, if you were to actually train for running like a professional in the Olympics then between a male and a female of equal height and weight, I would bet my money on whoever trains the hardest and wants it the most.

A lot of who actually would win does not depend on gender or group, it just depends on the individual.

But sorry ladies If it actually came down to it, like seriously if the males in question really wanted to they could blow the females athletes out of the water and leave them in the dust, after all the male gender was bread for such things, by way of competition and natural selection. So in both physical makeup and mental make up men can take a lot more, and achieve a lot more.

You all just don't see it because most times there just trying to get laid and in the good graces of the females and so they must ponder to the ego of the female in question, and play the cards right. But if it came down to it, then most females would not stand a chance even on a level playing field such as same weight and height in pretty much all sports.


Oh and by the way something you might be interested in op.

I heard a story way back about a female athlete runner who won gold at the Olympics who turned out to be a man.
sports.espn.go.com...

Oh and this one from back in the 1940's. Stella Walsh another female who turned out to be a man, or at least a little bit of both genders.
www.answers.com...

And there was one more runner from somewhere in Africa who also turned out to be a man, but I cant really remember the name, or were she/he was from. In fact there doing tests now on those who compete to make sure there actually female, because they want to keep the competition fair.

Not dissing the female gender but some things are just obvious, and I am sure the ladies are better at some things that men aren't.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal

Originally posted by LeeOben
reply to post by Thestargateisreal

 

ok, if you want to go that route of which sex is better at what, name a female that can bench press over 315lbs? Name a female that can squat over 350lbs? Name a women that can get in the ring with some of equal weight and take a beating plus give one back to a male of equal size.

So, in the end what do you really have to prove?? So what males can do what females can't and visa versa. Its people like you that have to out line this absurd differences for what gain?

The women I know that want to be treated as equals can't compare to me because they're just looking for an easy way out. I'm military and know of 2 women that can hold there own out of dozens. I respect anyone that gives their all. Most women I know are free loaders and gold diggers.

Is 420 lbs ok? Drug free according to the video but....she's really big.

Try 1074 lbs.