Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 14 2019, @11:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the *you*-try-keeping-up-with-a-bunch-of-children-all-day dept.

From Medium article:

https://elemental.medium.com/what-makes-women-strong-2c927bf286ef

"What Makes Women Strong?
Science is revealing that when it comes to physical prowess, women may actually be the more powerful sex"

"If discussions of human physical strength used endurance as the yardstick, women would be strongest. Women have already caught up to, or surpassed, men in some sports like long-distance swimming and ultrarunning, racking up the wins in mixed-gender races (with less support and training than the men). Recently, Camille Herron won 2018's Desert Solstice run, which lasts for 24 hours (she ran 162.9 miles in that time) and Courtney Dauwalter has won 11 mixed-sex ultramarathons, including the Moab 240, a 238-mile race along the Colorado River in Utah. Dauwalter beat the next-fastest competitor there, a man, by 10 hours.

In fact, plenty of research points to the idea that the longer the distance, the better chance a woman has in beating a man, possibly due to a combination of factors like high pain tolerance and less muscle fatigability. There could also be metabolic reasons — some researchers theorize that women burn energy in a way that supports long-distance energy needs. As investigative reporter David Epstein notes in his book, The Sports Gene, when a man and a woman are evenly matched, "the man will typically beat the woman at distances shorter than the marathon, but the woman will win if the race length is extended to forty miles."

[...] "Women are also bodily powerful (the definition of strong) in other ways: Women are also more flexible. "Women tend to have somewhat more laxity in their tendons than men; they are more limber," Dr. Steve Jordan, an orthopedic surgeon at the Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, told The New York Times. Limber people are less likely to get hurt — less time spent on the sidelines or in surgery. Woman also have a very high degree of accuracy — and depending on the physical pursuit, that can make one athlete stronger than the next. Women on the Ladies Professional Golf Association tour regularly significantly outdrive professional men. And according to the National Rifle Association's Colonel Kenneth Haynes — a military logician in the Army who taught both men and women to shoot over a multi-decade career — women shoot guns more accurately: "My units had around 20 percent female personnel in both officer and enlisted ranks. All the women fired Expert their first day, but less than a third of the men did so," writes Haynes."

So, I really wanna hear the fireworks....


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:34PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:34PM (#855529)

    le incel meme!

    Maybe we just don't like clickbait social politics on an ostensibly technology oriented news aggregator? You know damn well the only reason this story here is to rile, so why are you acting surprised?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:30PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:30PM (#855555)

    so why are you acting surprised?

    Oh I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. But mostly sadened, sadened to see that there are so many people out there that are unhappy and hate their lives, while simultaniously trying to convince everyone, but mostly themselves, that them living in a constant state of frustration, anger and bitterness is somehow perfectly rational and justified.

    Had this topic been the other way around, i.e. painting men in a better light than women, it would have been equally "clickbait social politics"-y. And yet, are you telling me that it would have triggered and equal amount of trollish, flamebaity, hatefull comments as this one did ?

    If your sincere, honest answer is "yes", them I feel sorry for you. Keep deluding yourself.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:44PM (#855571)

      Sadists are often sadened, right?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:59PM (#855589)

      Had this topic been the other way around, i.e. painting men in a better light than women, it would have been equally "clickbait social politics"-y. And yet, are you telling me that it would have triggered and equal amount of trollish, flamebaity, hatefull comments as this one did ?

      Yes, it absolutely would have still been clickbait politics, only if it were in favor of men it would be more fashionable to call it out as such. As far as this article stands, I see way more virtue signalling than trolling and hate. A handful of people calling this out as clickbait isn't trolling or hateful.

      Men and women are different. I don't come here to read about it, or I would be on Jezebel. Or some male-oriented news aggregator.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @02:32PM (3 children)

    So articles discussing scientific research into *physiological* differences between humans, and the impact that those differences have on athletic performance is "social politics?" Huh? You lost me there.

    Now if this were an article about how women make better managers, nicer people, worse software developers, or how women skew more D than R, you might have a point.

    But comparing how the *physical* differences between men and women with respect to athletic performance in different scenarios is "political?"

    You may disagree with the findings, the methodologies or the data itself, but testing hypotheses about physical performance doesn't seem like anything "political" to me.

    If you ask me, scientific research [bmj.com] (that link is from TFS, BTW) is absolutely appropriate for this site.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:53PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:53PM (#855580)

      I don't particularly want to read a bunch of articles about how men are better heavy-weight lifters than women, regardless of how scientific the process is.

      It isn't because I disagree with the conclusions, it's that I find the study redundant and its existence only serves to engender stupid gender political arguments.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @03:11PM

        I don't particularly want to read a bunch of articles about how men are better heavy-weight lifters than women, regardless of how scientific the process is.

        It isn't because I disagree with the conclusions, it's that I find the study redundant and its existence only serves to engender stupid gender political arguments.
        .

        Fair enough. If that's so, who forced you to read TFS *and* the comments, and then insisted that you express your disinterest in a confrontational fashion?

        If I found an article here uninteresting and redundant, I would just move on to the next article, with my non-interaction being a clear statement of my disinterest.

        Given that, I have to wonder if your negative and confrontational comments are more than just disinterest. I suppose I could be wrong, but if you really don't care/aren't interested, you're sure expending a bunch of time and energy on it.

        Perhaps that time and energy might be better used submitting articles that you *are* interested in. Wouldn't that improve the front page much more for you than complaining? Just a crazy thought.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 14 2019, @03:58PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 14 2019, @03:58PM (#855626) Journal

        I don't particularly want to read a bunch of articles about how men are better heavy-weight lifters than women, regardless of how scientific the process is.

        And you won't, because that's common knowledge. People rarely write lots of articles on stuff that's common knowledge (except for children).

        In fact, generally speaking, it's "common knowledge" that males are better at females at almost all athletic events. That's the rationale behind having separate divisions for men and women in most sports. And physiologically, male bodies seem equipped to do better in a lot of ways athletically.

        BUT, this article talks about successes women have had lately in performing BETTER than males in some ways in certain sports. Perhaps you were aware that women have been winning some long-distance races against men in recent years, have been outperforming men in some endurance swimming events, have better stats of some types than top in men other sports (e.g., accuracy in driving in golf). If you knew all of that before visiting here, I applaud you for being supremely informed... better than I am.

        But I sincerely doubt you knew all of that. Therefore, TFA is NOT "redundant" as you would claim.

        I do agree that TFA is poorly written and misrepresents some of its findings (as I've discussed in other comments on this thread). But unless you're a whiny male who is threatened by the fact that women might actually perform better in certain physical tasks, why would you complain about information that defies "common knowledge" and may tell us something useful about genetics and physiology (that enhances and provides nuance to the standard scientific narrative)?