• blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    238
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 年前

    Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons.

    We have a lot of marathon data. There is a large, consistent difference showing the opposite. This article is horrendously unscientific, so many claims, assumptions, and over summarizing and simplifying

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      Author does address this, btw. I still think it’s a bad argument. I just couldn’t fathom that they would say this and not further clarify.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        77
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 年前

        they make claims and assumptions to address it, they dont really cite anything. Shit like this “The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.” is a hypothesis, but it is not being stated as one, it’s being stated as fact. It’s a testable hypothesis, they could have controlled for the variable of pace setting runners that they bring up by only looking at statistics of running events that do not have this variable.

        And like, the whole premise could be true, that women were also hunters, modern runners with modern sports medicine arent ideal evidence, that kind of endurance might not have been needed for their hunting, women are still humans and humans have the greatest running stamina of any animal. But besides capability, ancient humans also could have had roles determined by sex, it’s at least prevalent in other apes like gorillas. Either way is possible without more solid evidence and it’s pretty crazy to say one way or another is scientifically true.