PDA

View Full Version : Women are more fit


donnyz89
07-11-2005, 10:12 AM
i think it was biology, in a video, it said in a decade or two, women will have evolved to be more fit and higher endurance and stamina than men. according to the marathon time charts, womens time have been increasing by a much bigger margin than men in the past decades.

Timecop
07-11-2005, 10:25 AM
If us guys continue to drink beer at the rate we do...

Babblelot
07-11-2005, 10:34 AM
i think it was biology, in a video, it said in a decade or two, women will have evolved to be more fit and higher endurance and stamina than men. according to the marathon time charts, womens time have been increasing by a much bigger margin than men in the past decades.
Yeah, and based on that same study, women will run faster 100m times than men in the future.

The problem with that study (is that it's ridiculous) is twofold:
1. the baselines used at the time, men were much further to reaching their full potential than women. Similarly, I had to laugh when I saw that graph on this mb that showed J.C. Ferrero was actually surging more than Rafa on clay courts. Hey, when you're at the top, not much room for improvement.

Over the timespan of that study, men have been shaving 0.10 seconds off of their 100m times while women were shaving 0.30 seconds off their 100m times.

2. law of diminishing returns--as you approach your full capacity, you expect less and less reward in return for your effort.

IIRC, the scientists/quacks who published this study were actually from some Ivy League school. And, IIRC, ESPN took the bait...hook, line and sinker.

LMAO!

daniel_rst
07-11-2005, 10:42 AM
i think it was biology, in a video, it said in a decade or two, women will have evolved to be more fit and higher endurance and stamina than men. according to the marathon time charts, womens time have been increasing by a much bigger margin than men in the past decades.

Any good scientist knows that extrapolation of experimental data is dangerous and misleading. It is usually the journalists and lay people who are guilty of these poor data interpretations.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the performance of average men and women gets closer over time. That's simply because as the average person gets more and more out of shape, the % differences become smaller. However, when you are talking about professional athletes, these are not average people. There are distinct biological differences that tend to favor men in athletic sports when trained to peak performance. That won't change any time soon.

donnyz89
07-11-2005, 11:38 AM
its actually the way womens body is made. they use less oxygen supposedly than men.

daniel_rst
07-11-2005, 11:54 AM
its actually the way womens body is made. they use less oxygen supposedly than men.

Yes, of course, and a 2 ton SUV uses more gasoline per mile than a 1000 lb 2-door going the same speed.

But, even if a man and woman had the same mass (body weight) a lower Max Oxygen Consumption is a liability in most sports, not a asset. Simplisticly speaking, your maximum excertion rate and the duration of that excertion will be limited by how much fuel (oxygen) your body can convert.

It turns out that, even corrected for size, males have a higher maximum VO2 conversion than women.

There is a lot of information in the literature about this. For a relatively simple explanation, see this article: http://home.hia.no/~stephens/gender.htm

counterpunch
07-11-2005, 12:44 PM
2. law of diminishing returns--as you approach your full capacity, you expect less and less reward in return for your effort.


Exactly, this is true in almost all things. Improvement can occur faster when you are further from your maximum potential. This is especially true in tennis, when you start playing, you improve quickly, but after time progress slows.

Marius_Hancu
07-11-2005, 08:01 PM
guess this is to completely humiliate us men:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050711/hl_nm/health_obesity_d

Kobble
07-11-2005, 08:05 PM
I think some conclusive evidence was reached many years ago that women have better endurance than men at a certain percentage of their 1 rep max. However, it sounds more like a flaw that fails to take into account the law of proportions. If you were the size of an ant, you would be as strong as an ant. Since, women tend to weigh less, it seems to be a factor. Unless, some biochemical factors exist that I am not familiar with. One thing remains a fact to my knowledge, women hold all the long distance swimming records. Pretty amazing.

smarttennis
07-11-2005, 08:13 PM
women hold long distance records for one fairly simple reason, they have a larger percent body fat than men. thus they are able to go longer and stonger than men in extreme endurance events such as marathon swimming and running.

AngeloDS
07-11-2005, 08:18 PM
Women have endurance, but they lack severely in power. It clearly shows.

The reason why most women have better endurance is due to their low oxygen consumption and their body fat percentage, and their muscle build. Guys are fairly muscular, due to our hormones of course.

Though, with women their muscles don't block their capalaries and such. When exerted and such. So their body is a little more effecient in using oxygen. Our muscles sometimes block capalaries and our muscles aren't recieving proper oxygen and can't exert.

In tennis we do exert a lot of force and such. But Tennis is not only an endurance sport. It's also a fairly physical sport. Unless you're volleying a lot.

Women can't sustain endurance and power at the same time. One of the two give, and it's power.

Men can't sustain endurance and power at the same time. One of the two give, and it's endurance.

But there's limits and breaking points for each. That's depended on the person.

Andy Roddick can keep banging tennis balls at 130+ MPH into 5 sets. That's incredible. But it's mostly due to his flexability. I can't even imagine being able to still blast 130+ mph serves into the 5th set. That's astounding both endurance wise and power.

TigerTennis
07-11-2005, 09:11 PM
I saw that somewhere, too. But women are increasing more and faster than men because they have more room to do so. Just like it is easier for the 567th ranked player in the world to move up ten spots than it is for the 15th. I hope that analagy makes sense. But I dont think that women are going to be catching up to men in the hundred yard dash, shot put, marathon or anything else for a LONG, LONG time (like maybe ever). But then again, what do I know, I'm no expert.

zAllianceBmx
07-11-2005, 09:19 PM
i dont think women will ever catch up to men. this is because women will never have testosterone. thats all there is to it

pound cat
07-12-2005, 04:35 AM
I think testosterone has to do with aggression, not fitness.

zAllianceBmx
07-12-2005, 06:22 AM
it does have to do with being more fit. on discovery channel, there was this guy who measured the level of testosterone in a few men and had them run a race. he guessed the man with the highest testosterone level would win. and he was correct.

Topaz
07-12-2005, 05:45 PM
i dont think women will ever catch up to men. this is because women will never have testosterone. thats all there is to it

Women do, and always will, have testosterone. They just don't have as much as a man.

obackvalobasha
07-12-2005, 05:55 PM
dude i don't want women to catch up to men. then women wont be women they will become men. I like my women just the way they are right now!

MegacedU
07-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Women do, and always will, have testosterone. They just don't have as much as a man.
Very true. I'm glad you're educated. Welcome to TW.

morganman
07-12-2005, 07:38 PM
Women do, and always will, have testosterone. They just don't have as much as a man.

thank god they dont have as much tertosterone as men cause beards just arent sexy.

spinbalz
07-13-2005, 11:41 AM
If women continue to improve their performances at the rythm they currently do, then they won't only get better than men, they will achieve god like status, and will finish the races even before they start !!! For exemple if they keep winning 1/10 of seconds every ten years, then they will run the 100 meters in 5.5 seconds in no more than 500 years, and they will have a negative time in 1100 years, they will run 100 meters in -0.5 seconds, meaning that at each 100 meters races women will finish sooner than the start, like if they would use a machine to return in the past...

It shows how stupid is the way to use the statistics from the past to guess the progresses of the future, and that is exactly what do the ones who maintain that in the future women will have better performance in sport than men.