• Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is far from the first paper indicating this, despite how the media is framing it. There's been more and more re-investigation of findings from the past century and earlier, with much of it not only finding that a number of the "warrior" skeletons discussed in the past were women, but also a lot of the physical evidence otherwise showing that women were involved in these activities.

    Both men and women gathered and both men and women hunted. Often together and they may have had different overall skillsets depending on personal body structure and endurance. But there's often enough of an overlap anyways that everyone could be involved in everything in some fashion.

    The long-standing claim that women couldn't be involved in hunting because of biology is like claiming that women can't be muscular or lift weights because of biology. It's a ridiculous claim.

    • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think there are two sets of claims in the article. The first set - women hunt - is blindingly obvious and it was stupid to ever think anything different. The second set - women are better suited for endurance activities is dubious and weakly argued.

      Timothy Noakes is as good a scholar as we have in endurance exercise, and he points out that all of the ultramarathon evidence is a bit dubious because the sport does not attract the best runners. So East African runners dominate the marathon scene (especially the Kalenjins) but are virtually absent from the ultramarathon world. Why? No prize money or sponsorship. So the fact that European ancestry dominates the longer distance is more a function of who's running than it is a difference in physiology.

      So looking at the role of estrogen in race times requires some deeper understanding of who's running and what their overall potential is. I'll note that the ultra scene is generally populated by an older crowd who are following the " if I can't go faster I'll go longer" approach. So maybe men maintain competitive marathon times later into life so are slower to join the ultra scene?

      Noakes also points out that a smaller body size works for women in several ways - smaller bodies use less energy to move, generate less heat, and shed heat more effectively. So without correcting body size, sex based comparisons are not deeply informative.

        • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The optimal pacing strategy is even splits. You want to leave everything on the course and finish with nothing in the tank (this is the "drop dead" pacing strategy Daniels wrote about in… "Oxygen Power"?). Negative splits means you went out too slow and positive splits means you went out too fast.

          What the article shows is that men have larger positive splits which means they had worse performance against a theoretical optimum (even with that they're still faster). Women were closer to optimal pacing strategy. The article says they don't know if that's physiological or tied to strategy and decision making.

          Maybe women are just more realistic about their performance and pace appropriately?

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        and that's why old women are always cold, while their husbands are boiling and turning down the thermostat.

    • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do all those "findings" read like borderline retards trying to make HBO show plotlines into historical fact?