Yep. Roughly 1 in 4 women are stronger than the weakest 25% of men. Only the very very very top of them will rival even average men.
------------------
The upshot is that the very strongest female athletes are barely above the median of grip strength for men. The top 75th percentile of female athletes are below the bottom 25th percentile o…
Yep. Roughly 1 in 4 women are stronger than the weakest 25% of men. Only the very very very top of them will rival even average men.
------------------
The upshot is that the very strongest female athletes are barely above the median of grip strength for men. The top 75th percentile of female athletes are below the bottom 25th percentile of men.
Another way to look at it is cumulative distributions. You can tell looking at this that there is overlap between the two sample distributions. How much? Ten percent of women have stronger grips than the bottom five percent of men. The difference in distributions is big enough that the very strongest non-elite athlete female in the whole data set has a weaker grip than most of the men.
On the other hand women maintain their physical strength to a much greater age than men, or so I have read. Since we spend most of our lives outside of our prime, it may be that the aggregate average physical output of women is greater than that of men. 'Stronger' can have more than one meaning.
I'm just reporting something I read a long time ago ('or so I have read'), and that is the sum of my contention. I have neither cites nor experimental evidence, but the proposition accords with my personal (anecdotal) experience and might be worth looking into if one is interested. We do know that women live longer than men on the average. My main point, though, is in the last sentence above.
It was some kind of filler or 'content', a long time ago, and I am pretty sure no references were given. The more exact statement was that at age 60, women's average physical output is 90% of what it was when they were 20, whereas men's is 50% etc. This seemed to comport with what I observed informally/anecdotally, but I have not studied the question closely. I would think you might find something by putting the proposition in a search engine.
Men are obviously faster/stronger in sprints and marathons, but in ultra-marathons-races of 100 miles or more, women are superior. Women also survive war/famine situations at a higher rate than men. Physical prowess and the “ability” to physically grind/survive are not necessarily correlational.
Women survive famines better because they carry more fat, proportionally and on average. Also cold water, because their subcutaneous fat serves as insulation. They may also respond more rationally to crises - eg the Donner party.
Also, women are typically spared in combat/massacre situations for obvious, distasteful selfish reasons. That shows up over long periods, for instance comparing female (mitochondrial) lines vs. male (Y-chromosome) lines. There are a LOT more female lines; more women have survived and reproduced, long term.
I’m just going with what I heard on Rogan-women are competitive with men in their nitrate-marathoning, and have better survival rates in famines, concentration camps,etc.
Yep. Roughly 1 in 4 women are stronger than the weakest 25% of men. Only the very very very top of them will rival even average men.
------------------
The upshot is that the very strongest female athletes are barely above the median of grip strength for men. The top 75th percentile of female athletes are below the bottom 25th percentile of men.
Another way to look at it is cumulative distributions. You can tell looking at this that there is overlap between the two sample distributions. How much? Ten percent of women have stronger grips than the bottom five percent of men. The difference in distributions is big enough that the very strongest non-elite athlete female in the whole data set has a weaker grip than most of the men.
Well, also size of a person makes a difference.
On the other hand women maintain their physical strength to a much greater age than men, or so I have read. Since we spend most of our lives outside of our prime, it may be that the aggregate average physical output of women is greater than that of men. 'Stronger' can have more than one meaning.
So your contention is that old women are stronger than old men?
I think men--esp. those who worked physically--have worn out some of their joints. So old women may seem stronger.
I'm just reporting something I read a long time ago ('or so I have read'), and that is the sum of my contention. I have neither cites nor experimental evidence, but the proposition accords with my personal (anecdotal) experience and might be worth looking into if one is interested. We do know that women live longer than men on the average. My main point, though, is in the last sentence above.
Can you say where that thing that you read was at least?
If we want to redefine the term "stronger", we should probably have some sort of alternate definition or at least data that shows it?
It was some kind of filler or 'content', a long time ago, and I am pretty sure no references were given. The more exact statement was that at age 60, women's average physical output is 90% of what it was when they were 20, whereas men's is 50% etc. This seemed to comport with what I observed informally/anecdotally, but I have not studied the question closely. I would think you might find something by putting the proposition in a search engine.
Men are obviously faster/stronger in sprints and marathons, but in ultra-marathons-races of 100 miles or more, women are superior. Women also survive war/famine situations at a higher rate than men. Physical prowess and the “ability” to physically grind/survive are not necessarily correlational.
"Women also survive war/famine situations at a higher rate than men."
LOL I wonder why that could possibly be!??!?!!?
Women survive famines better because they carry more fat, proportionally and on average. Also cold water, because their subcutaneous fat serves as insulation. They may also respond more rationally to crises - eg the Donner party.
Also, women are typically spared in combat/massacre situations for obvious, distasteful selfish reasons. That shows up over long periods, for instance comparing female (mitochondrial) lines vs. male (Y-chromosome) lines. There are a LOT more female lines; more women have survived and reproduced, long term.
I would assume that combat deaths were controlled for in the study.
Like you assumed that women have better times at Very Long Races?
I’m just going with what I heard on Rogan-women are competitive with men in their nitrate-marathoning, and have better survival rates in famines, concentration camps,etc.
Maybe check that for yourself before passing it along. The times aren't even close.
S, "but in ultra-marathons-races of 100 miles or more, women are superior". Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon#IAU_World_Best_Performances. Men hold all of the listed records.
100 mile race records:
11:28:03 Oleg Kharitonov
12:42:40 Camille Herron
1000 mile race records
10d 10:30:36 Yiannis Kouros
12d 14:38:40 Sandra Barwick