EPTEDIT: That is not to say that testosterone is the entire solution if you wanted to boost a woman, nor the currently most optimal if you want to avoid detection in doping controls.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 404
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
EDIT: That is not to say that testosterone is the entire solution if you wanted to boost a woman, nor the currently most optimal if you want to avoid detection in doping controls. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On February 24 2016 08:02 TMG26 wrote: Bones strutures are different as well. And that makes a different in how you can apply your muscle strenght. This is the second time someone stated this. Please expand upon in which manner exactly bone structure differs in e.g.a female age 25 vs male age 25. EDIT: Outside of the pelvic bones which leave room for birth in females - which is entirely irrelevant to strength. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On February 24 2016 09:49 JimmiC wrote: The sexes differ in skeletal structure, women having a shorter head, broader face, less protruding chin, shorter legs, and longer trunk. The first finger of a woman's hand is usually longer than the third; with men the reverse is true. Boys' teeth last longer than do those of girls. Women have a larger stomach, kidneys, liver, and appendix, and smaller lungs than men. Women's blood contains more water (20 percent fewer red cells). Since red cells supply oxygen to the body, she tires more easily and is more prone to faint. Her constitutional viability is therefore strictly a long-range matter. When the working day in British factories, under wartime conditions, was increased from ten to twelve hours, accidents among women increased 150 percent; the rate of accidents among men did not increase significantly. Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength Female lung capacity is about 30 percent less than in males. from here http://drjamesdobson.org/Solid-Answers/Answers?a=ff773023-2693-410d-b9e1-662f6985be4e And which of these bone structural differences is it that you claim is relevant for muscle strength? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On February 24 2016 10:22 JimmiC wrote: Check out puerk's post for more info: I did not do a ton of research as this is not a difficult question. But the density of bones and so on does matter because they need to support the strength of the muscles. Puerks wiki-link does not support your notion that bone structure is an underlying cause of males superior strength. You should probably have done some more research as you have reversed the causality. Conventional knowledge says that bones tend to become stronger with use and thus it is because women are generally weaker (lower muscle mass) that their bones are weaker. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On February 24 2016 09:49 JimmiC wrote: The sexes differ in skeletal structure, women having a shorter head, broader face, less protruding chin, shorter legs, and longer trunk. The first finger of a woman's hand is usually longer than the third; with men the reverse is true. Boys' teeth last longer than do those of girls. Women have a larger stomach, kidneys, liver, and appendix, and smaller lungs than men. Women's blood contains more water (20 percent fewer red cells). Since red cells supply oxygen to the body, she tires more easily and is more prone to faint. Her constitutional viability is therefore strictly a long-range matter. When the working day in British factories, under wartime conditions, was increased from ten to twelve hours, accidents among women increased 150 percent; the rate of accidents among men did not increase significantly. Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength Female lung capacity is about 30 percent less than in males. from here http://drjamesdobson.org/Solid-Answers/Answers?a=ff773023-2693-410d-b9e1-662f6985be4e women have larger stomach than men ? That would explain why my gf which weigh 1/3 of me eats twice as much | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On February 24 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote: If I have 30% and another person has 20% how much of the remaining 50% do I have to get to end up with more than 50%? 40% of it. Honestly, I just think Rubio and Cruz will stubbornly stay in until Trump is inevitable. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
On February 24 2016 15:34 The_Templar wrote: 40% of it. Honestly, I just think Rubio and Cruz will stubbornly stay in until Trump is inevitable. Actually more than 40% of it. And I am once again questioning the American school system. Unless of course GH knew the answer but wanted to spark off a political debate here instead of in the politics thread. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On February 24 2016 21:12 Acrofales wrote: Actually more than 40% of it. And I am once again questioning the American school system. Unless of course GH knew the answer but wanted to spark off a political debate here instead of in the politics thread. Just groggy and wanted to be sure. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On February 24 2016 21:12 Acrofales wrote: Actually more than 40% of it. And I am once again questioning the American school system. Unless of course GH knew the answer but wanted to spark off a political debate here instead of in the politics thread. I actually thought this was the politics thread... whoops. Yeah, don't discuss US politics here please. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On February 25 2016 02:34 The_Templar wrote: I actually thought this was the politics thread... whoops. Yeah, don't discuss US politics here please. Well, I mean, he was asking something mathematical and not political | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On February 25 2016 02:40 OtherWorld wrote: Well, I mean, he was asking something mathematical and not political Yeah, but I gave a political answer because I thought it was the US politics thread.  | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On February 24 2016 07:49 Ghostcom wrote: Without PEDs, there is no chance for the strongest woman to ever be as strong as the strongest man (testosterone is a hell of a drug). I'm unsure if a women on PED is unable to achieve same levels as a male though. She might have to start before the puberty, but considering that i.e. endogenous testosterone production is pretty much zero in those abuse testosterone. EDIT: That is not to say that testosterone is the entire solution if you wanted to boost a woman, nor the currently most optimal if you want to avoid detection in doping controls. Unsure ... on average there is no contest. If you take "the strongest" man or woman, you have to deal with abnormality anyway. The strongest woman could have higher testosterone levels than any man alive. Not sure any difference measured on averages actually applies. Currently alive, strongest man is almost certainly stronger than the strongest woman. Strongest being considered human female that could be born from existing population might well be stronger than current strongest male. Strongest being considered human female that could be biologically engineered (not that we would know how) is certainly stronger than him. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
| ||
