posted
Anybody ever read this book? As the title says, it's about whether women might be much more physically capable than conventional wisdom says. Here's an excerpt (which is all I've read):
It looks interesting. I was struck by the fact that if you normalize different people's speeds by converting them so many units of each person's height per unit of time,* the fastest women come out ahead of the fastest men.
*So if a 6' person and a 5' person run a given distance in the same amount of time, that 5' person actually ran it faster because he/she ran more units of his/her height in the same time. I assume this is to account for the fact that the taller you are, the more distance you can cover with a single step.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something like sprinting is really a question of power. Because there's force, mass, and time in the equation. Yeah, a shorter person covers less ground in a single step. But it's also easier for them to do so. That's why the tallest sprinters aren't typically the fastest; there's an optimization between leg length and leg strength (this category also includes the number of fast-twitch muscle fibers, which is maybe the single biggest determinant).
I'd be interested in seeing some pound by pound results for strength, speed, and power broken down by gender.
edit: Well done, porter. You win this round. Of course, you're taller than me so that's to be expected.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did think the excerpt could have explained why measuring speed in units of height per time unit made sense; I had to guess why she used it. When I first saw those statistics, I thought they had an air of being chosen to make women come out ahead; maybe my first instinct was correct.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Analyzing jumping in men and women, researchers tested military trainees on the task of maximal vertical jumping while carrying a rifle and wearing an 80-pound backpack. The women and men subjects differed significantly on three variables: The men jumped higher, took longer to jump, and created greater forces against the ground in preparing to jump. From these results the researchers concluded that the men were "better performers" than the women. Yet biomechanics experts like Jackie Hudson will tell you that jump scores probably would have been insignificant if different heights of the trainees had been taken into consideration.
And there's the problem. If these soldiers jump and climb over a wall, it won't adjust itself because the person (man or woman) going over is shorter than the person before him. If I need to run 100 feet to the bus stop to make it onto the bus so I can get to class on time, that distance isn't going to shorten itself for my roomate, even though she's shorter than me.
Abandoning objectivity doesn't make the sexes physically equal. Advantages and disadvantages exist for both genders. Let's acknowledge them where we find them and leave it at that.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess her point is that a woman isn't "weaker" simply because she's shorter; maybe women and men of the same height would have done about the same. This distinction may not matter for certain practical tasks, but it should keep us from thinking of women as the weaker sex (assuming the data in the excerpt is correct).
Then again, I suppose for some time people have agreed that the strongest woman is stronger than the weakest man.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I learned it in high school, if you had a man and woman with the same weight and exercise routine, the man would have more upper body strength and the woman would have more lower body strength.
And to be completely mercenary about it, I love being the weaker sex. Walking in to the auto parts store and getting the clerk to find and carry whatever I want is a good deal. My guy friends go get me things and carry all my stuff. Some nice man is always willing to help me. Weak works.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the issues of maximum lung capacity and how the hips are constructed, especially when it comes to running. Biomechanically, it's easier for men to run, and they've got higher lung capacity as well.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: And to be completely mercenary about it, I love being the weaker sex. Walking in to the auto parts store and getting the clerk to find and carry whatever I want is a good deal. My guy friends go get me things and carry all my stuff. Some nice man is always willing to help me. Weak works.
Yeah, I've really had to train women that I work with not to bug me about stuff they can do themselves or that can be done by them and a friend.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
This gives me a great idea. I'm gonna start a moving company with an all-woman staff. And moving into your new home will be easier because they always know where everything's supposed to go.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid: Women, differently-abled sex?
This gives me a great idea. I'm gonna start a moving company with an all-woman staff. And moving into your new home will be easier because they always know where everything's supposed to go.
Namely, where you can't find it afterward. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you get to your house and half the stuff has been thrown out to get rid of the 'clutter'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The van full of your stuff is swapped with an identical van full of tasteful furniture from Pier One, tasteful appliances from BB&B, and everything else from Target.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
