Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by Andr, Oct 4, 2018.
For some people, probably
I dont want to state the very obvious, but ok then, they would seem to apply to eeer high school children
What % difference have you seen someone on here claim?
But that wasn't the original comparison, as I saw it. I said women started out with a disadvantage compared to men because of mass and muscle strength. That's not comparing trained to untrained.
And do you have evidence that this can't be generalized from adolescence to adulthood?
Gerry beat me to it, but we know that it applies to high school students, we know it applies to collegiate athletes, we know it applies to professional athletes, at what point can we accept that it is generalized that men, on average, are stronger than women, on average?
the evidence burden lies with the one claiming it can
well we dont know any of those things
How are you disadvantaged in krav?
It is not competitive.
They don't grade as quickly?
My last post in this thread because at this point it's pointless.
1. We can assume a disparity in high school students based on what I said and you agreed to earlier. Not going to repeat for more nitpicking.
2. We know for collegiate athletes because of the existence of men/women teams in different sports, and the abilities of each, which is observable by just about anyone. Along with how women have traditionally fared when entering a sport with a large physical/strength component to it.
3. We know for professional athletes for...read number 2.
4. Based on three separate instances of three different age groups, one taking the totality of the age group and the other two taking the elite and semi-elite of their age groups, (plus, you know, all the science already stating men have a higher starting point for strength than women), we can make the assumption that men, in general, will be stronger than women, in general.
Edit: Just adding this in. Unfortunately it's only the abstract, while I can access the full link the site I use is associate with my hospital and is password protected. But just the abstract explains the physiological differences in strength. Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. - PubMed - NCBI
And this has nothing to do with krav at this point. Since the main goal is SD, and you're not competing against each other, you're not inherently worse at krav by being male or female, and you can obviously improve (either gender) by training.
In a pure debate sense, yes. But we're in a discussion about the utility of numbers. Just tossing out "nuh uh" isn't helpful. If you know of evidence that this trend - seen everywhere I've ever seen any measures - doesn't generalize, then please share it. If you're not aware of a problem with the data, then I'm not sure what the issue is.
what data ? no one has posted data, that support this generalisation
The statement I made was that a woman starts with a disadvantage of not being able to hit as hard. I haven't gone back to my original post on that thought, so I'm not sure if I was clear on the implication: it would take more skill to overcome that disadvantage. Meaning that an average untrained woman, compared to an average untrained man, will need more skill to be able to fight against an average man.
I'm pretty sure you understood all that, though.
I posted a link to actual data many posts ago.
you couldn't even tell me what the average strengh for a Male was, and how you had defined strengh. I've no idea how you have arrived at the firm conclusion that the female average is lower than the Male, when you dont even know what the Male average is ? and what strengh is .. and if its mean mode or medium
you've not even gone close to proving that statment
well you've clearly never done or even read a properly conducted study on anything. you cant take three untypical groups 5hat only make up a small % of the population and make cast iron predictions on " average people" 5hats silly and just screams selection bias
A link was posted to a study earlier that tested the strength and muscle mass of men and women and came up with comparative numbers showing that a non-outlier male (since no one wants to say "average", even though most can agree that it is a descriptive word that communicates the message) has more muscle mass and strength than a non-outlier female. It was also posted comparative strengths for males/females in regards to lifting based on bodyweight and experience levels, that again men are stronger than women and how to show the level of training for females to make it a more equal playing field in regards to strength.
But, as they say...
There are two types of people in this world...
1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
that was doing bench pressing at a gym wasnt it. that got a high selection bias as well, not to mention all those steroids that young Male weight lifter are fond of ttend. you need a study where they were screened for drugs for it to have even remote relevance to " average" otherwise your just proving that steroids increase both muscle mass and strengh, which isn't in dispute
How is that a response to the link, which contained actual data? You're being argumentative for the sake of argument at this point. You apparently don't have a point to make, nor any information to contribute.
I can't see how anyone would benefit from continuing this discussion.123
Separate names with a comma.