Women are better endurance athelettes than men.

reply to post by themegaoverlord


But the thing is, even with the top training in the world, the men still come out on top. Its a natural occurrence. Training is a whole different subject, because its a variable

reply to post by damouse83


Interesting you say mothers who have only sons, say they wish they had daughters. My mother is exactly what you say. Us 3 boys in my family, and all she does every time someone has a child in a family close to us, or her friends, she says she wished she had a girl. And the youngest of us brothers, is hated the most and treated the worst by our mother. Its disgusting, she is so selfish I dont want to be around her anymore.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


Exactly my point. Are you doing or pushing yourself for anyone or anything else instead of your own personal goal? I dont push myself anymore for my own gain, selfish pleasure or anything of that nature. I push to better myself for my Heavenly Father Yahuwah, and Yahuwshuwah the Messiah. We should remember we are not here in this existance for ourselves, we didnt create our own bodies, we didnt create our surroundings. We were given life, and a chance to choose eternal life in a better place then here. So why think only of yourself, when it leads you to destruction and temporary enjoyment?

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by AnalyticalDreamer

 

Please read the link I provided that identified all endurance sports. Your little army intro test had zero endurance activities on it. Like it or not, not even your 1.5 mile run is endurance. 1.5 miles to a real runner is a sprint. How come? How come? Because you're not reading the post that's how come.

Fair enough I agree it's not endurance. Point is almost mute anyway because your talking about a level of fitness that so little % of people actually attain. Women might have on average, given your evidence a slight advantage but so what? Doesn't change the fact that men still hold the world record over measured running distances (as stated in a post somewhere here with times). Doesn't change the fact that special forces don't even allow women to train since they will never be as strong, all round fit as a man in special forces condition.

So what point are you trying to make?

Doesn't even matter, nobody even cares except you, who seems to be clinging on to it like it means something. Fact is on average men are stronger, fitter and have more endurance than women. My 'little army intro tests' was just an example of why your point is pointless. Women and men can't compete together because men will be stronger, faster and have more endurance on average (even considering your little point about top % of athletes doesn't even matter). Different football leagues, athletics etc...

Your post is irrelevant at best.

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?

It means that because of feminism they LET more women go to college than men as well as give them all of our jobs so we never even have the money to go to college. Even though that actually happened to me in one state, I moved to another state and got a degree in Power Engineering as well as Internet technology. Women aren't so smart, they all (for the most part) just become nurses or something like that anyway. Unfortunately, those who are coddled and pampered, like women are today, by the government..... the men have to do without. Don't mistake favoritism and pampering of women with ingnorance of those who are being victimized by government agenda designed to hold middle classed men down. The ONLY reason the government and feminists are attacking men is because women are not a threat but men are. The government fears the men of America because we are the only ones who will fight for our country in these trying times and women....well.....will do no fighting at all. Instead the women will welcome the NWO because they gave them everything on a silver platter. when this is done, the NWO will turn on the women and chew them up as well.....once they have everything they want, ....like America.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


No one is better at everything. Women are better at some things, men at others, but it also comes down to the individual. I have seen some women do what many men couldn't, and vice-versa.

Naturally, women have stronger legs than men, and men are naturally stronger in the upper body. But it is not only about how strong your muscles are, but how strong your will is.

If you don't have a strong will, no matter how strong your muscles are someone else with stronger will will beat you, whether it is a man, or a woman.

I don't even know why some people keep trying to prove whether men, or women are better. I know society has pretty much instilled in people a need for competition, but this will never really make you happy.

IMHO, Just be who you are, you are bound to have some skills not everybody else has. We are all unique and have our own strengths, different skills, etc, etc. Concentrate in what makes you happy instead of trying to be better than everyone else.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


No mystery here, it's all straightforward biology.
Women have less muscle (which uses energy) and more fat (which is a reserve of energy).
Also their bone structure is slightly less dense, so they are in fact lb for lb more efficient than men.
Ok so men are generally longer & have more muscle, so are generally stronger.
However, stamina & endurance are phsychological traits, it's all between the ears
Now it may be that a woman has a different mindset when the going gets tough, i know my wife can walk 30 miles or climb a small mountain, which would all but kill most of my mates from work. Even though she hates it, she will never give up

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Everyone is equal. This just goes to show that by focusing mostly on strength we're missing the key ingredients that would enlighten us to the broader reality that women are equal. (...) I believe it's male egocentrism. They want to deny that there is a reality beyond the conventional.

The reality is that we are not equal. It is basic biology. Men have greater amounts of testosterone, and that accounts for a lot of differences. There is no such thing as "broader" reality. There is only reality, naked and raw. Being weaker doesn't make women inferior beings. Being weaker makes them weaker. There is no denial of reality on the very biological fact that the male body is built to be strong.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by Leahn
Then it is just a motivational and mental thing, because physically in long distance running it the differences are not that great.

Reality disagrees with you, sorry. See the post above yours about females that are actually taller than males having worse times than the males. The differences remain great regardless of distance.

Sorry bro but I don't consider running even as a sport only something that people do. Infact anything that does not involve blood I dont consider as being a sport. Merely just something to do while bored, or in practice for whatever sport that will involve blood.

Reality also doesn't care about you consider a sport and what you don't consider.

I used to run sprints too when I was in high school. 200m and 400m. Today I don't sprint anymore, I only run 3K and 5K.

Ya sure and bears don't store up on fat because it does not help them in winter. Listen dude its all there for a reason, the trick is to balance it so it works in your favor under whatever competition your going to.

Fat doesn't produce energy. Fat is an energy storage. Consumption of fat by means of converting them to triglycerides allow them to be used as energy by breaking them with ketone bodies. Extra fat is worth for performance as much as walking with a 5Kg bag of frozen dinners in your back. They will be great for you once they're unfrozen, but until then, they're dead weight.

In endurance running it seems to be the opposite were the smaller and lighter runner has the advantage.

Almost. Lighter basically means less weight. You want a better bodyfat%, not merely less weight. But keep in mind that too little fat is also detrimental to your performance.

And all of that is for the fact to compensate that bigger and heavier muscles require much more oxygen. And trust me in terms of conditioning and going long distances full blast having more muscles will require more effort and strain on your body and heart in supplying all that oxygen that would be necessary for it to function properly.

Bigger muscles do help but only up to the point that they reach there max, when that point happens they are a deterrent to the over all performance.

Bigger muscles provide such a greater performance that, even if they reach their max, you're so ahead of the curve that it doesn't matter anymore.

Yes, because when Herkelman tried, she was quite successful.

Sorry I dont know who that is or what sport she is in. But if she was going up against a dude, well did she try hitting him in the nuts. And I have seen a couple of fights were females won against males, so it does happen.

Wrestling. www.usatoday.com...

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?

Have you checked the courses they graduate from? Women Studies. Art. English.

Men? It is Physics. Engineering.

Yeah. Great things that all those women are graduating from all those Colleges with their degree on Women's Studies, so they can become teachers of Women's Studies themselves, as their degree is utterly useless for anything else.

This topic is somehow morphing into a religious talk, how? Beats me. People can tie anything together now days..

Wow....it's tough to believe that there are more than 20 pages on this one thread that have gone so off-topic as to be ridiculous! Talk about dogs barking up the wrong tree!

Endurance needn't have anything to do with great speed or strength. Everyone seems to be arguing about how is faster or who is stronger when endurance and stamina are qualities that, depending on the circumstance, may have little if anything to do with the former two.

Let's take a look at some examples in the animal kingdom. Migratory birds and animals are perhaps the first to come to mind. A monarch butterfly isn't the fastest insect, nor is it the strongest. But yet it is one of few migratory insects and it also migrates the furthest of any insect, at the longest distance in its range all the way from Canada down into central America. So while most people would only find a monarch butterfly to be pretty (as some women are) and not fast or strong, they also have incredible endurance. Great stamina for such delicate little creatures.

Other animals migrate very long distances (the arctic tern is tops, traveling further than any other creature, but again, it isn't anywhere near as fast or as powerful as some other birds) as well, on land, sea and in the air.

In that regard it is important to note that endurance needn't have a time limit either, nor is it always related to motion. For migratory animals, they are generally looking to get to breeding grounds, find food or escape seasonal climate variations. If they get where they are going in time enough to do what it is they need to do or escape from whatever it is they need to avoid, then they have won that race in their lives.

Other types of endurance can have to do with survival rather than any sort of competitiveness or as I noted before, linear motion. For instance, if you really want to compare men and women in this regard, there are some areas in which women would shine and men would falter. I was reading in a magazine the other day about some of the first explorers to reach Antarctica, all of which were men (though they also took dogs with them and in one case some cold-hardy ponies). Women with their extra body fat and (generally) shorter height would be much better suited to explore very cold and harsh places like the polar caps. All that lean muscle and lack of fat would only mean you would starve and freeze to death (and shorter, stockier people do much better in cold climates - take a look at the Neanderthals and native peoples of the Arctic today for examples) that much quicker. So in that regard, an average woman would have more endurance to withstand cold temperatures and lack of food than would an average man, all else being equal (meaning both were healthy, had normal body fat levels and both were about the same weight/mass).
So, high muscle mass and low body fat can propel you thru the finish line first but it can also backfire on you, depending on circumstances.

Also, in addition, endurance (not speed, and not strength) are generally species-specific attributes and are not usually that significantly different within the sexes. For example, a male cheetah is larger and stronger than a female (and perhaps a bit faster), but he will become exhausted just as quickly in a chase as would his mate. Lionesses, on the other hand, are better hunters than lions because they are about half the weight of the male (and have half of his strength) but as a consequence of that have greater agility. But both sexes have an equal level of stamina when it comes to running, which is to say they don't have a whole lot because no species of cat has much running endurance. Therefore, lack of stamina and endurance is a characteristic of the species and not gender. Same thing with species that are long distance runners, like horses - both the mare and stallion can go for a long time without getting tired.
Humans do have pretty high levels of running/walking endurance so there really isn't much of anything to argue about in that regard. Few would dispute that the average man would get from point A to point B a bit more quickly than the average woman, but that is where speed/strength shine rather than endurance.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by kro32

 

Selective reading? According to that women are most likely biologically superior in anything lasting longer than 2 hours and can even finish with times equal to men that can beat them over smaller distances. How does this prove men are superior?

From your article

It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons.

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

Then, answer me this...........why is it that women's tennis is the best of three sets and not 5 sets. ????
Using your argument, that should be a piece of cake.

Actually,

Speed with running is determined by their stride angle and not height. This has been confirmed by both Secretariat and modern day runners. Horse that have a stride angle greater than 85 degrees run faster than any other horse. Humans stride angle of over 100 degrees.

Stride Angle

reply to post by Phenomium


I can see why a woman got the job instead of you.

Originally posted by Taurean27

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by kro32

 

Selective reading? According to that women are most likely biologically superior in anything lasting longer than 2 hours and can even finish with times equal to men that can beat them over smaller distances. How does this prove men are superior?

From your article

It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons.

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

Then, answer me this...........why is it that women's tennis is the best of three sets and not 5 sets. ????
Using your argument, that should be a piece of cake.

Because our minds turn to sex after 3 and we stop watching and go looking for the wife.

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Taurean27

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by kro32

 

Selective reading? According to that women are most likely biologically superior in anything lasting longer than 2 hours and can even finish with times equal to men that can beat them over smaller distances. How does this prove men are superior?

From your article

It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons.

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

Then, answer me this...........why is it that women's tennis is the best of three sets and not 5 sets. ????
Using your argument, that should be a piece of cake.

Because our minds turn to sex after 3 and we stop watching and go looking for the wife.

I always thought it was ..........because they could feel a headache coming on.!!! lol lol lol

I would agree that many women might have better endurance for some things but men still outsurpass in upper body strength, for the most part. I could outrun the boys in my younger days when I was in track and cross country so I get that. And the whole part of women having more fat stores may have some validity.

The OP is feminist garbage.

Don't you feminists have a Marxism rally to attend?

In my opinion it depends on yourself that how much you take care and do exercise on daily basis to keep yourself healthy and fit.

enough with the crazy feminism just enough!

some men are stronger and faster then some women , but some women are faster and stronger then some men.