• reliv3
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually dont think testing this hypothesis is as easy as you think. You can’t just control for social biases when analyzing marathon data because these social biases are longitudinal. At a young age, women quickly learn from modern society that they are physically inferior to men. Because of this, the best bet for testing this hypothesis is to look at ancient societies, because these societies are largely independent from our modern society.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, it’s also unlikely to be true. The difference between male and female bodies is the equivalent of years of high end steroid use.

      If you wouldn’t let a man who had taken steroids for a decade and still takes them compete with other men, then you already acknowledge the biological advantage men have over women at physical sports.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean we also see a lot of what I would define as “outlier behavior” from men more generally. We see crazier olympic world records being set and broken, we see higher rates of suicide and violent crime, that sort of shit, which I’m personally kind of interested in figuring out the reason for. If you took some theoretical “average” man and some theoretical “average” woman I think they’d probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina and shit than comparing athletes of different sexes to one another, I think the gap would be smaller.

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you took some theoretical “average” man and some theoretical “average” woman I think they’d probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina

          They would not. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.

          The difference between the average man and the average woman is the same as the difference between a man who’s been taking steroids since he was 12, and an average man.

          • reliv3
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Estrogen is also a hell of a drug… It’s actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.

            Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one…

            • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s nothing compared to testosterone.

              For example I am an average height and weight guy. I had never gone to a gym in my life, but at 25 decided to start powerlifting with some friends for fun. Within 3 months I was already lifting nearly as much as the world record lifts by women in my weight class.

              I started going to my university powerlifting competitions, having lifted for less than a year, and was definitely lifting poorly compared to the other men, but I out-lifted every woman there most of whom had been training for years.

              I don’t think you understand the average difference in strength between men and women, it’s rather large.

              • reliv3
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I don’t think I’m arguing against your evidence. It’s your idea that this difference in men and women’s strength is simply explained by a difference in testosterone. This claim does not nullify the questions posed in the article.

                Both biology and the environment play roles in defining people’s personality and physique. Higher testosterone is only a piece of biology’s role, but it’s only loosely related to environment’s role. It’s not an unreasonable hypothesis to claim society’s artificial rules placed on women might have had an effect on women’s physique through things like sexual selection. This is why scientists still explore these things.

                • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Testosterone is a hell of a lot of the explanation though. When people inject more testosterone they get a hell of a boost to muscle development and strength.

                  Although past sexual selection may have led to women being smaller and having less testosterone and ability to develop muscle mass, it does not change that women are indeed smaller and have less testosterone and ability to gain muscle mass than men, leading to the average woman being slower and physically weaker than the average man. My replies have been directed at the assertion earlier that men only hold records because of outliers, and the average man and woman are close in strength and speed, but that is just not true.

                  • reliv3
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    In that case, there may be a flaw in argument. Your anecdotal story doesn’t disprove their point. The moment you started powerlifting training for 3 months, you’ve already became stronger than the average male. Most men on Earth don’t do any sort of strength training, and it’s not unreasonable to think that these men are not much stronger than the average woman.