In an amusingly titled blog post, Reality 7, Fantasy 0, the zman (Z-man? Zman? Z?) makes a claim:
Maybe that’s true, but it would be amazing to me if that many humans were walking the earth unaware of the stark differences between male and female athletes. A woman in her prime years has the cardiovascular capacity of a man in his 50’s. It’s why girls cannot pass the same physical tests as males in the military.
A commenter makes a request for the data behind this, which is provided:
There was a study by the government using military people:
In that report: “The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men. Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.”
Yeah, well, so what? What’s really important? Being physically capable of fighting fires, fighting crime, and/or fighting enemies? Or being able to feel real good about yourself for having “done something” so as to signal your virtuousness to others of your ilk?
Oh, and, by the way, the rest of the post is very interesting, and indeed, the zman blog in general, rarely fails to be interesting.