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.

 

Women are better endurance athelettes than men.

page: 16
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Then you might fail at wheelchair racing as badly as a woman then.
These are generalizations. They're generally correct about the majority. I'm highly proportional compared to most women. My hips are about as wide as my shoulders. I have longer legs than most people compared to my body size, so I'm also somewhat atypical in that respect. Doesn't mean that my arms and shoulders are strong though. If you want to understand how your strength in your lower body stacks up to a woman, find a woman roughly your size and condition and see who can do more standing squats. Like it or not there are some things that women can do better. Even in athletics.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Thestargateisreal
 


It's a statistical fact that men have more back injuries because they fill all of the jobs worldwide that require strength and involve the lifting of loads, thereby putting them at much greater odds of a back injury. It has nothing to do with center of gravity or women's superior ability to follow proper safety procedures while lifting.....women just don't lift! Call the man over....he'll do it. Women lifting their lattes before their stroll in the park with the baby stroller club doesn't constitute labor that runs the risk of a back injury.

I'll also head you off at the pass before you quote us trivia off of a Mountain Dew commercial about men getting struck by lightning more than women. I suppose you attribute this to some sort of magical super powers that women have. It's also due to the fact that men are outside, generally due to profession, more than women. We are on horseback rounding up cows, working out in the open at surface coal mines, on roofs putting on shingles and doing repairs, building skyscrapers, etc...... Therefore, our chances of getting struck by lightning go up exponentially.

Check your facts, Ms. Core Strength. Your dribble has irritated me and I can't believe I even got caught up in this exchange.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by donbot1000
 


If we make a role reversal, that wouldn't be bad at all. Actually, it would be good since many men are a lot better than any female in cooking, homemaking (if given a chance) and interior design. And many women are better than men in the army, business and the corporate world.

I am all for role reversal, provided male bashing by pseudo feminists that give feminism a bad name stops. And feminism should be renamed to humanism as the term is slightly sexist.

But I get the feeling that most modern women don't want role reversal. They just want to take all the things from men while keeping their things only to themselves. "If you want to get some, you've got to give".

Problem is, females want to occupy areas, traditionally thought of as "men only", yet they want to keep their "girls only" things to themselves, which is totally wrong. I think they are afraid that men would become better at women's stuff? Then again, there are men that think that women shouldn't be in the army or at the business field...
edit on 21-8-2011 by damouse83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
People should research a guy named Dean Karnazes

350 miles in 80 hours without stopping

edit

but seriously gender vs gender feuds are silly IMO posting such threads makes you look insecure
edit on 21-8-2011 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3xil3
People should research a guy named Dean Karnazes

350 miles in 80 hours without stopping

edit on 21-8-2011 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)


Why don't you tell us about him?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Who knows, probably in the distant future we will have genetically modified people with cheetah genes. Then they will be the best at running, no matter what their sex, age, weight and height is.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by donbot1000
 


Men have more back injuries because they do not contract their core muscles along their spinal cord as they lift. You know the posters that every physical job has with instructions on how to lift properly? Women have to follow that in order to lift, they have to do it right because they lack strong arms and shoulders. A man can grab something and move it with just his arms/shoulders and keep his core muscles along his spine relaxed, and that's how and why back injuries happen. A man lifting properly will not injure himself unless he's lifting too much. Those physical jobs are strict about not lifting too much, but they're not very strict about lifting properly. It's a case of you having enough strength to hurt yourself if you're not educated about why you need to lift properly.

Men have the capability to lift more weight than women and not injure themselves IF they do it right. Watch weight lifting if you want to see how much a man can lift if he does it right, then compare that to some of the people that have injured their back on something that weighed 40lbs. Injury comes from a lack of conditioning of those core muscles, and ignorance in using them.

Read it, watch it, learn it.

Anyone working in a mine or anything of that nature might as well accept that their body is going to fail them early in their life. It's not a place that any human wants to be. If your back doesn't go, your lungs will, or your heart. You get the idea.
edit on 21-8-2011 by Thestargateisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by 3xil3
People should research a guy named Dean Karnazes

350 miles in 80 hours without stopping

edit on 21-8-2011 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)


Why don't you tell us about him?


He is like a real life forest gump can run forever


edit on 21-8-2011 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Greetings!

As I understand the reason for discussing this thread, I won't stay long


Just wanted to point out that humans totally shouldn't run long distances. Regardless of gender. I suppose the argument still stands, but it's just silly (to me) to discuss something like this.

I suppose we could say we are better swimmers than some sea animals... but really, we didn't evolve to swim. We just learned to deal with what we were dealt. Same with running. A LONG time ago we ran for food (depending on the culture/tribe), but then we invented weapons and vehicles that helped us get around quicker. Thus, no need for evolution to make our bodies fit to run long distances.

You can google "running NOT meant for humans" and you'll get plenty of hits. And PLENTY of thoughts on the matter


Here is an article that pretty well describes what I'm trying to say. I even used his 'swimming' example.

I suppose I'm just hoping to point out how detrimental this kind of activity is to one's health. Ask a runner- I'm sure they've had a myriad of injuries due to their 'sport'.

Just be careful!!!

Oh- and sure, woman are made of endurance. We gotta be! We are the bringers of life- thank goodness for endurance.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by ker2010
 


It's a fact that the fastest woman endurance runner in history pushed her body 2% harder than the fastest man. She's a better athlete than the fastest man. Maybe not faster, but better. She was about 20 minutes behind him, which is a close finish in an endurance race. Did you even read the article?


Yes and she was a rare exception, not the common denominator. The average man is faster, stronger, and has more endurance than the average woman, ergo women are not "better" athletes than men. Deal with it.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElizaAshdene
Greetings!

As I understand the reason for discussing this thread, I won't stay long


Just wanted to point out that humans totally shouldn't run long distances. Regardless of gender. I suppose the argument still stands, but it's just silly (to me) to discuss something like this.

I suppose we could say we are better swimmers than some sea animals... but really, we didn't evolve to swim. We just learned to deal with what we were dealt. Same with running. A LONG time ago we ran for food (depending on the culture/tribe), but then we invented weapons and vehicles that helped us get around quicker. Thus, no need for evolution to make our bodies fit to run long distances.

You can google "running NOT meant for humans" and you'll get plenty of hits. And PLENTY of thoughts on the matter


Here is an article that pretty well describes what I'm trying to say. I even used his 'swimming' example.

I suppose I'm just hoping to point out how detrimental this kind of activity is to one's health. Ask a runner- I'm sure they've had a myriad of injuries due to their 'sport'.

Just be careful!!!

Oh- and sure, woman are made of endurance. We gotta be! We are the bringers of life- thank goodness for endurance.


Both males and females are made for endurance. It all comes down to practice.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by damouse83
Nothing against the OP, but I think she has some issues with men. Probably because of issues with her father in her childhood.



Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
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.


Sounds like an Electra Complex then.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Just another note to make mention of. When these women who are competing for the best in their class in athletics, what is their driving force to make it to the end? Or maybe lets consider if there was a war, and a woman had to for some reason go out and fight, what would be her driving force to motivate her to push on, and to stay alive?

With that thought in mind, lets look at a Man.

When a man is wanting to become the best in his class for athletics, what is his driving force? Or maybe lets look at war, if he had to fight, what would be his driving force? What would motivate him to stay alive and push on?

Heres some answers to these questions.

Women:

1. A woman will push on to prove that shes as good or better than a man, so specifically speaking, just trying to prove herself, her driving force is her own pride or selfish reasons

2. A woman will push to prove herself stronger or faster to bring up the woman superiority movement, so selfish motives once again, just for the 'female class'.


Man:

1. A man will push himself to prove he is worthy for the job, could be a name for himself or for fame, that would be for selfish reasons.

2. A man will endure and push himself to survive to prove he can be a leader, or a driving force and inspiration for other men to be the 'best you can be'. The driving force could be here inspiration for others to be leaders, to be strong in all you do.

3. A man will endure and push himself for his woman, his wife or girlfriend. Now here this motive that pushes man forward can be more powerful than the previous all combined. A man will be virtually an unstoppable force, if he has his woman behind him pushing him to the end. That is why woman are to be behind men pushing them to the limits, because its what they do best.


I have yet to hear, from a woman, that they are pushing themselves for their man, and their man is their driving force. 99% of the time, when a women is trying to prove they are tough, strong, and resilient, they are doing it for selfish reasons.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Both males and females are made for endurance. It all comes down to practice.


this



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xadaz
 


So you're saying that these top level female marathon runners just aren't trying hard enough? Male or female...they are putting every ounce they can in to win.

Fat doesn't have anything to do with it imo. You don't "need" a lot of fat for energy when you're running. A pound of fat has around 3000 calories in it. If you're running for two hours, you aren't going to be going through pounds of fat. Male or female you will have enough fat.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3xil3

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by 3xil3
People should research a guy named Dean Karnazes

350 miles in 80 hours without stopping

edit on 21-8-2011 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)


Why don't you tell us about him?


He is like a real life forest gump can run forever


edit on 21-8-2011 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)


Wow, incredible.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Thestargateisreal
 


Do you have any statistics that compare two professional runners m/f of the same height? What if being short makes you more efficient? In being tall, you gain the extra stride, but you add weight, so tall people no matter what are less efficient. Now take a women of the same height of the tall male record holders? Who would win? It is easy to look up world records and say this is so or that is so, but without more data all you have is that short females (and possibly people) are more efficient runners compared to tall males. This makes sense.

If women are so superior, I would be glad to take their secretary job if they want to give construction a try for up to 16 hours a day.
edit on 21-8-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

I have yet to hear, from a woman, that they are pushing themselves for their man, and their man is their driving force. 99% of the time, when a women is trying to prove they are tough, strong, and resilient, they are doing it for selfish reasons.

I totally agree. A woman won't push herself for any man, even if that man is her son.
Truth is, fathers and daughters are usually closer than mothers and sons.

Seems like generally none of the two parents is close to the male child, you know a guy doesn't need love, he should have it tough, etc. while the female child is getting all the attention from both her father and mother.

I think most mothers of boys hate them subconsciously (or even consciously) and if they have only male children, they wish they had female ones.

Mothers OR fathers that betrayed their sons are more common in history than fathers OR mothers that betrayed their daughters. Because daughters are usually treated like little mommy/daddy's princesses, while sons are not treated like the Little Prince, etc. but like crap, like the only thing they are useful for is passing their family name.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
16 pages on a scientific fact of decades, maybe centuries? Women physiologically ARE designed for endurance, men for strength. Of course there are anomalies. One can train ones self for damn near anything with determination. Both men and women have that. We should be talking about the average person. Not whether Chyna is as strong as Ahnold.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
16 pages on a scientific fact of decades, maybe centuries? Women physiologically ARE designed for endurance, men for strength. Of course there are anomalies. One can train ones self for damn near anything with determination. Both men and women have that. We should be talking about the average person. Not whether Chyna is as strong as Ahnold.


Which is why the average male has more endurance than the average female? Women have the physiological advantage when it comes to endurance and they still aren't as good as men in that respect. Just face it, women aren't designed for athleticism.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join