PDA

View Full Version : women eventually faster than men?


freddy
September 30th 04, 02:38 AM
September 30, 2004

Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow
lane
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent







ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
sprinters in the world.

The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast the
tape in a time of just 8.079 seconds, fractionally quicker than the winning
men's mark of 8.098 seconds, British researchers have calculated.

A mathematical analysis of the winning times at Olympic finals
over the past 100 years has shown that women's performance is improving
significantly faster than that of men.

Should this trend continue - and the scientists see no
compelling reason why it should not - the progress graphs will cross during
the 66th Olympiad in 2156, making the fastest person in the world female for
the first time.

The margin of error is such that the overtaking could happen as
soon as 2064 or as late as 2788. There is also a possibility that men will
never lose their lead.

Many scientists believe that the performance of both sexes will
eventually plateau - though there is no evidence that either has yet - and
that men have biomechanical and hormonal advantages that are likely to keep
them ahead.

The calculations, which are published today in the journal
Nature, also assume that all past and future athletes are drug free - a
prospect that many observers may consider unlikely.

Andy Tatem of Oxford University, who led the research, said the
idea that men will always sprint faster than women is uncertain and that the
evidence suggests that they will not.

"The 2004 Olympic women's 100m sprint champion, Yuliya
Nesterenko, is assured of fame and fortune," he said.

"But we show here that - if current trends continue - it is the
winner of the event in the 2156 Olympics whose name will be etched in
sporting history forever, because this may be the first occasion on which
the race is won in a faster time than the men's event.

"We are not saying categorically that women will overtake men,
but we think there is a chance and we have put this up for discussion. The
trends show (that women) seem to be closing the gap, so maybe one day they
could become the dominant force."

At the first women's 100m Olympic final, staged in the Amsterdam
Games of 1928, the winning time was 12.2 seconds compared to 10.8 seconds
for the men - a margin of 1.4 seconds. By 1952, the interval had fallen to
1.1 seconds and in four of the five Olympics between 1988 and 2000 the
difference was less than a second.

The gap widenend in Athens, with Nesterenko taking gold in a
time of 10.93 - 1.08 seconds slower than Justin Gatlin's winning time of
9.85.

Dr Tatem, however, pointed out that this may reflect the absence
of many leading female athletes, such as Kelli White and Marion Jones,
because of drug-taking allegations.

"This year's women's Olympic final was a little unusual in that
some of the world's fastest runners were not present, so the time wasn't
perhaps as impressive as it could have been," he said.

There is no indication, however, that either sex is approaching
a plateau of achievement, or that the relative improvement in women's
performance has been caused purely by drug use.

He also pointed out that the vast majority of the world's female
population has not yet had the opportunity to compete. "People often argue
that athletes have reached their limits but, in this study at least, that
doesn't seem to be the case," Dr Tatem said.

"We have no idea how low times for the 100 metres could go. We
have to assume that athletes in the future will be drug-free but who is to
say what the rules will be in 2156?

"It was once considered ungentlemanly to even train for athletic
events so who knows what will happen."

The model suggests that at the Beijing Olympics of 2008, the men
's gold medallist will finish in 9.73 seconds and the women's champion in
10.57.

Many sports scientists, however, think that anatomical factors
mean that the present trends will taper off, and that the fastest women will
never sprint quicker than the fastest men.

Men's greater average body size, testosterone production and
muscle mass all provide significant advantages.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 30th 04, 03:57 AM
On 2004-09-30, freddy > wrote:
> September 30, 2004
>
> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow lane
> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
> that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
> sprinters in the world.

Different scientists think different things.

However, scientists have been making such predictions for years, so we
already have a pretty good idea of who appears to be right and who appears
to be wrong.

The main reason that women are rapidly closing the gap is simply greater
participation. There simply weren't many hardcore female track athletes
until recently. The first womens olympic marathon was staged in 1984.

The gap will continue to close because there still aren't as many diehard
female athletes as there are males. I compete in a local running club, and
the male competitive field has more depth (in the sense that there are more
men who run close to the mens record pace than there are women)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Peter Allen
September 30th 04, 02:04 PM
"freddy" > wrote in message >...
> September 30, 2004
>
> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow
> lane
> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
> that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
> sprinters in the world.
<snip>
Same logic as used in that piece would suggest that the No1 tennis
player in the world will be a woman in about 30 years; that probably
won't happen either.

The reason why women's sport in general is trending upwards faster
than men's sport is that women have only been competing seriously for
about 50 years, whereas for men it's more like 100 (or much longer in
some sports). There aren't really any men's sports these days where
someone comes along and takes the game to a new level; there are some
women's sports where that has happened recently.

Peter

Jeff Finlayson
September 30th 04, 02:41 PM
freddy wrote:

> September 30, 2004
> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow lane
> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent

> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
> that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
> sprinters in the world.
>
> The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast the
> tape in a time of just 8.079 seconds, fractionally quicker than the winning
> men's mark of 8.098 seconds, British researchers have calculated.
>
> A mathematical analysis of the winning times at Olympic finals
> over the past 100 years has shown that women's performance is improving
> significantly faster than that of men.
>
> Should this trend continue - and the scientists see no
> compelling reason why it should not - the progress graphs will cross during
> the 66th Olympiad in 2156, making the fastest person in the world female for
> the first time.

This Assumes the a linear progression..

> The margin of error is such that the overtaking could happen as
> soon as 2064 or as late as 2788. There is also a possibility that men will
> never lose their lead.

> At the first women's 100m Olympic final, staged in the Amsterdam
> Games of 1928, the winning time was 12.2 seconds compared to 10.8 seconds
> for the men - a margin of 1.4 seconds. By 1952, the interval had fallen to
> 1.1 seconds and in four of the five Olympics between 1988 and 2000 the
> difference was less than a second.
>
> The gap widenend in Athens, with Nesterenko taking gold in a
> time of 10.93 - 1.08 seconds slower than Justin Gatlin's winning time of
> 9.85.

Using the ratio of the times would be a more fair comparison. The
difference could decrease with the ratio staying the same.

> Many sports scientists, however, think that anatomical factors
> mean that the present trends will taper off, and that the fastest women will
> never sprint quicker than the fastest men.

TheTortoise
September 30th 04, 05:47 PM
freddy wrote:
> The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast
the
> tape
<snip>

heh, heh. . .he said "breast". . .heh, heh
I'm guessing that choice of words is not just a coin-kee-dink. . .

Lordy
September 30th 04, 10:47 PM
"freddy" > wrote in
:

> Should this trend continue -

And here comes the money sentence .. <drum roll> ..

> and the scientists see no
> compelling reason why it should not -

<much applause> ...

> the progress graphs will cross
> during the 66th Olympiad in 2156, making the fastest person in the
> world female for the first time.




--
Lordy

shumway
October 1st 04, 02:24 PM
freddy wrote:

> September 30, 2004
>
> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow
> lane
> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
> predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the
> fastest sprinters in the world.
>
> The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast the
> tape in a time of just 8.079 seconds, fractionally quicker than the
> winning men's mark of 8.098 seconds, British researchers have calculated.
>
> A mathematical analysis of the winning times at Olympic finals
> over the past 100 years has shown that women's performance is improving
> significantly faster than that of men.
>
> Should this trend continue - and the scientists see no
> compelling reason why it should not - the progress graphs will cross
> during the 66th Olympiad in 2156, making the fastest person in the world
> female for the first time.
>

Somehow this study reminds me of one conducted after shortly after Elvis's
death that concluded that due to the increase in Elvis impersonators, in X
number of years 1 out of every n males will be working as an Elvis
impersanator. I do not remember what X and n are, but they are not really
important).

zxcv
October 2nd 04, 05:50 AM
"freddy" > wrote in message >...
> September 30, 2004
>
> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow
> lane
> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
> that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
> sprinters in the world.
>
> The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast the
> tape in a time of just 8.079 seconds, fractionally quicker than the winning
> men's mark of 8.098 seconds, British researchers have calculated.
>
> A mathematical analysis of the winning times at Olympic finals
> over the past 100 years has shown that women's performance is improving
> significantly faster than that of men.
>
> Should this trend continue - and the scientists see no
> compelling reason why it should not - the progress graphs will cross during
> the 66th Olympiad in 2156, making the fastest person in the world female for
> the first time.
>


A 40 year old woman want to marry a boy that she loves. Unfortunately
the boy is only 10 years old and she want to marry an older man.
Right now she is 4 times as old as the boy. She waits 5 years. She
is now 45 and he is 15 so she is only 3 times older. In 15 years she
is 60 and he 30 so she is only twice as old.

How long before he is older?

(about as long as it will take for the women to run faster 100m)

zxcv
October 2nd 04, 05:51 AM
"freddy" > wrote in message >...
> September 30, 2004
>
> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow
> lane
> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
> that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
> sprinters in the world.
>
> The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast the
> tape in a time of just 8.079 seconds, fractionally quicker than the winning
> men's mark of 8.098 seconds, British researchers have calculated.
>
> A mathematical analysis of the winning times at Olympic finals
> over the past 100 years has shown that women's performance is improving
> significantly faster than that of men.
>
> Should this trend continue - and the scientists see no
> compelling reason why it should not

It is 2004. Where is my flying car?

Axel of the North!
October 7th 04, 05:33 AM
On 1 Oct 2004 21:51:43 -0700, (zxcv) wrote:

>"freddy" > wrote in message >...
>> September 30, 2004
>>
>> Women must wait another 150 years to consign men to the slow
>> lane
>> By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ATHENS might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place
>> in history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists predict
>> that this is the year in which women will overtake men as the fastest
>> sprinters in the world.
>>
>> The women's 100 metres champion in 150 years will breast the
>> tape in a time of just 8.079 seconds, fractionally quicker than the winning
>> men's mark of 8.098 seconds, British researchers have calculated.
>>
>> A mathematical analysis of the winning times at Olympic finals
>> over the past 100 years has shown that women's performance is improving
>> significantly faster than that of men.
>>
>> Should this trend continue - and the scientists see no
>> compelling reason why it should not
>
>It is 2004. Where is my flying car?

****in' right, dammit!

Lyle McDonald
November 24th 04, 07:21 PM
DZ wrote:
> "freddy" wrote:
>
>>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
>>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
>>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
>>the fastest sprinters in the world.
>
>
> "They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis) a
> far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
> less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600 years,
> the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for both
> time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
> (Nature 2004 432:147)

Ok, THAT is ****ing funny.

Lyle
>

Elzinator
November 25th 04, 03:03 PM
DZ wrote:
> "freddy" wrote:
>
>>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
>>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
>>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
>>the fastest sprinters in the world.
>
>
> "They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis)
a
> far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
> less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600
years,
> the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for
both
> time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
> (Nature 2004 432:147)

And some insight from our future Texas scientists/biologists:

Nature 432, 147 (11 November 2004)

Biology students find holes in gap study

Sir We are students aged 1618 in a Texas high school. Our biology
teacher Vidya Rajan asked us to comment on the paper by A. J. Tatem
and colleagues (Nature 431, 525; 2004); we believe the projection on
which it is based is riddled with flaws.

The idea of women running faster than men although not novel (see B.
J. Whipp and S. A. Ward Nature 355, 25, 1992; and Correspondence
Nature 356, 21, 1992) is interesting, but one cannot draw these
conclusions based on generalization by extrapolation. Tatem et al.
used a domain of 104 years to extrapolate to a domain of 252 years. It
is not logical to say that the first 104 years will have data with
exactly the same regression as the next 148 years. Using similar
reasoning in 1992, Whipp and Ward suggested that women would run the
marathon faster than men by 1998. This has still not happened.

In Tatem and colleagues' study, men were measured for 32 more years
than women. This ignores the possibility that women might be reaching
a plateau: had women's times been unexpectedly high before 1934, one
could trace a decreasing rate of change for post-1934 Olympians.

Improvements due to the increase in numbers of women running are
likely to level off as the rate of increase in participation slows
down (see http://www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicissueswoman.asp).

Finally, both men and women may reach a physiological limit beyond
which they cannot progress.

With these factors taken into consideration, the predictions made from
the extrapolation seem less than sound.

Advanced Placement Biology Class
A&M Consolidated High School, College Station, Texas 77840, USA

Lyle McDonald
November 25th 04, 04:14 PM
Elzinator wrote:
> DZ wrote:
> > "freddy" wrote:
> >
> >>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
> >>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
> >>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
> >>the fastest sprinters in the world.
> >
> >
> > "They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis)
> a
> > far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
> > less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600
> years,
> > the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for
> both
> > time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
> > (Nature 2004 432:147)
>
> And some insight from our future Texas scientists/biologists:
>
> Nature 432, 147 (11 November 2004)
>
> Biology students find holes in gap study
>
> Sir We are students aged 1618 in a Texas high school. Our biology
> teacher Vidya Rajan asked us to comment on the paper by A. J. Tatem
> and colleagues (Nature 431, 525; 2004); we believe the projection on
> which it is based is riddled with flaws.

It's pretty ugly when a group of Texas high school students can rip your
'research' to shreds like this. I hope the morons who wrote the
original piece went home and cried.

>
> The idea of women running faster than men although not novel (see B.
> J. Whipp and S. A. Ward Nature 355, 25, 1992; and Correspondence
> Nature 356, 21, 1992)

Yeah, I worked in her lab in college one semester and remember that
particular bit of nonsense. Their analysis was as flawed then as the
current one is now.

is interesting, but one cannot draw these
> conclusions based on generalization by extrapolation. Tatem et al.
> used a domain of 104 years to extrapolate to a domain of 252 years. It
> is not logical to say that the first 104 years will have data with
> exactly the same regression as the next 148 years. Using similar
> reasoning in 1992, Whipp and Ward suggested that women would run the
> marathon faster than men by 1998. This has still not happened.

Nor will it EVER.
You can determine this based on first principles alone, issues of
BF%age, LBM and efficiency.

It has been suggested that women might be superior at ultraendurance
events (ultramarathons) based on their abiliity to better use fat but
their lesser LBM makes this unlikely.

About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing hypothermia).

Lyle

DRS
November 25th 04, 04:19 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message


[...]

> About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
> distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
> rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing
> hypothermia).

Who've got the records in long distance swimming? Suzie Moroney is one.

--

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

John HUDSON
November 25th 04, 09:46 PM
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:35:32 GMT, DZ
> wrote:

>Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>> Elzinator wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> "freddy" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
>>>>>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
>>>>>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
>>>>>the fastest sprinters in the world.
>>>>
>>>> "They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis) a
>>>> far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
>>>> less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600 years,
>>>> the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for both
>>>> time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
>>>> (Nature 2004 432:147)
>>>
>>> And some insight from our future Texas scientists/biologists:
>>> Nature 432, 147 (11 November 2004)
>>> Biology students find holes in gap study
>>>
>>> Sir We are students aged 1618 in a Texas high school. Our biology
>>> teacher Vidya Rajan asked us to comment on the paper by A. J. Tatem
>>> and colleagues (Nature 431, 525; 2004); we believe the projection on
>>> which it is based is riddled with flaws.
>>
>> It's pretty ugly when a group of Texas high school students can rip your
>> 'research' to shreds like this. I hope the morons who wrote the
>> original piece went home and cried.
>
>They seemed delighted their "light-hearted" piece generated all the
>correspondence and are anxious to find out what will happen in
>reality. Good exercise for kids too. I'm sure they were aware of
>limitations of linear extrapolation and anticipated the attention they
>will get.
>
>DZ
>
>>> The idea of women running faster than men although not novel (see B.
>>> J. Whipp and S. A. Ward Nature 355, 25, 1992; and Correspondence
>>> Nature 356, 21, 1992)
>>
>> Yeah, I worked in her lab in college one semester and remember that
>> particular bit of nonsense. Their analysis was as flawed then as the
>> current one is now.
>>
>> is interesting, but one cannot draw these
>>> conclusions based on generalization by extrapolation. Tatem et al.
>>> used a domain of 104 years to extrapolate to a domain of 252 years. It
>>> is not logical to say that the first 104 years will have data with
>>> exactly the same regression as the next 148 years. Using similar
>>> reasoning in 1992, Whipp and Ward suggested that women would run the
>>> marathon faster than men by 1998. This has still not happened.
>>
>> Nor will it EVER.
>> You can determine this based on first principles alone, issues of
>> BF%age, LBM and efficiency.
>>
>> It has been suggested that women might be superior at ultraendurance
>> events (ultramarathons) based on their abiliity to better use fat but
>> their lesser LBM makes this unlikely.
>>
>> About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
>> distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
>> rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing hypothermia).

Swimming the English Channel quite clearly disproves that theory!

http://soloswims.com/CSA-E-F.htm

Keith Hobman
November 25th 04, 10:03 PM
In article >, John HUDSON wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:35:32 GMT, DZ
> > wrote:
>
> >Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >> Elzinator wrote:
> >>> DZ wrote:
> >>>> "freddy" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
> >>>>>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
> >>>>>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
> >>>>>the fastest sprinters in the world.
> >>>>
> >>>> "They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis) a
> >>>> far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
> >>>> less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600 years,
> >>>> the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for both
> >>>> time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
> >>>> (Nature 2004 432:147)
> >>>
> >>> And some insight from our future Texas scientists/biologists:
> >>> Nature 432, 147 (11 November 2004)
> >>> Biology students find holes in gap study
> >>>
> >>> Sir We are students aged 1618 in a Texas high school. Our biology
> >>> teacher Vidya Rajan asked us to comment on the paper by A. J. Tatem
> >>> and colleagues (Nature 431, 525; 2004); we believe the projection on
> >>> which it is based is riddled with flaws.
> >>
> >> It's pretty ugly when a group of Texas high school students can rip your
> >> 'research' to shreds like this. I hope the morons who wrote the
> >> original piece went home and cried.
> >
> >They seemed delighted their "light-hearted" piece generated all the
> >correspondence and are anxious to find out what will happen in
> >reality. Good exercise for kids too. I'm sure they were aware of
> >limitations of linear extrapolation and anticipated the attention they
> >will get.
> >
> >DZ
> >
> >>> The idea of women running faster than men although not novel (see B.
> >>> J. Whipp and S. A. Ward Nature 355, 25, 1992; and Correspondence
> >>> Nature 356, 21, 1992)
> >>
> >> Yeah, I worked in her lab in college one semester and remember that
> >> particular bit of nonsense. Their analysis was as flawed then as the
> >> current one is now.
> >>
> >> is interesting, but one cannot draw these
> >>> conclusions based on generalization by extrapolation. Tatem et al.
> >>> used a domain of 104 years to extrapolate to a domain of 252 years. It
> >>> is not logical to say that the first 104 years will have data with
> >>> exactly the same regression as the next 148 years. Using similar
> >>> reasoning in 1992, Whipp and Ward suggested that women would run the
> >>> marathon faster than men by 1998. This has still not happened.
> >>
> >> Nor will it EVER.
> >> You can determine this based on first principles alone, issues of
> >> BF%age, LBM and efficiency.
> >>
> >> It has been suggested that women might be superior at ultraendurance
> >> events (ultramarathons) based on their abiliity to better use fat but
> >> their lesser LBM makes this unlikely.
> >>
> >> About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
> >> distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
> >> rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing hypothermia).
>
> Swimming the English Channel quite clearly disproves that theory!
>
> http://soloswims.com/CSA-E-F.htm

Doesn't disprove it at all. The second fastest time is a women and for 17
years she held the record. So obviously from a genetic standpoint the
ladies can compete quite well in these types of events.

Lyle McDonald
November 25th 04, 11:15 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:
> In article >, John HUDSON wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:35:32 GMT, DZ
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald > wrote:

>>>>About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
>>>>distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
>>>>rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing hypothermia).
>>
>>Swimming the English Channel quite clearly disproves that theory!
>>
>>http://soloswims.com/CSA-E-F.htm
>
>
> Doesn't disprove it at all. The second fastest time is a women and for 17
> years she held the record. So obviously from a genetic standpoint the
> ladies can compete quite well in these types of events.

anyhow, I used the word 'might' for a reason.

I didn't say a woman could or would but that's the sport where they
might have the best shot.

So go **** yourself, Hudson.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
November 25th 04, 11:16 PM
DZ wrote:

> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>>Elzinator wrote:
>>
>>>DZ wrote:
>>>
>>>>"freddy" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
>>>>>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
>>>>>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
>>>>>the fastest sprinters in the world.
>>>>
>>>>"They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis) a
>>>>far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
>>>>less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600 years,
>>>>the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for both
>>>>time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
>>>>(Nature 2004 432:147)
>>>
>>>
>>> And some insight from our future Texas scientists/biologists:
>>>Nature 432, 147 (11 November 2004)
>>>Biology students find holes in gap study
>>>
>>>Sir We are students aged 1618 in a Texas high school. Our biology
>>>teacher Vidya Rajan asked us to comment on the paper by A. J. Tatem
>>>and colleagues (Nature 431, 525; 2004); we believe the projection on
>>>which it is based is riddled with flaws.
>>
>>It's pretty ugly when a group of Texas high school students can rip your
>>'research' to shreds like this. I hope the morons who wrote the
>>original piece went home and cried.
>
>
> They seemed delighted their "light-hearted" piece generated all the
> correspondence and are anxious to find out what will happen in
> reality. Good exercise for kids too. I'm sure they were aware of
> limitations of linear extrapolation and anticipated the attention they
> will get.

Yeah, right, what a total copout.

Oh, just a lighthearted piece, we were kidding.

Bull****, they thought they were right and some high school students
tore them a new one.

Ward/Whipp probably thought they were right too when they made teh same
idiotic analysis 12 years ago

Lyle

John HUDSON
November 25th 04, 11:43 PM
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:03:47 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, John HUDSON wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:35:32 GMT, DZ
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>> >> Elzinator wrote:
>> >>> DZ wrote:
>> >>>> "freddy" wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Athens might have produced a memorable Olympics, but its place in
>> >>>>>history will be nothing compared to the games of 2156. Scientists
>> >>>>>predict that this is the year in which women will overtake men as
>> >>>>>the fastest sprinters in the world.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis) a
>> >>>> far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of
>> >>>> less than zero seconds will be recorded. In the intervening 600 years,
>> >>>> the authors may wish to address the obvious challenges raised for both
>> >>>> time-keeping and the teaching of basic statistics." - Kenneth Rice
>> >>>> (Nature 2004 432:147)
>> >>>
>> >>> And some insight from our future Texas scientists/biologists:
>> >>> Nature 432, 147 (11 November 2004)
>> >>> Biology students find holes in gap study
>> >>>
>> >>> Sir We are students aged 1618 in a Texas high school. Our biology
>> >>> teacher Vidya Rajan asked us to comment on the paper by A. J. Tatem
>> >>> and colleagues (Nature 431, 525; 2004); we believe the projection on
>> >>> which it is based is riddled with flaws.
>> >>
>> >> It's pretty ugly when a group of Texas high school students can rip your
>> >> 'research' to shreds like this. I hope the morons who wrote the
>> >> original piece went home and cried.
>> >
>> >They seemed delighted their "light-hearted" piece generated all the
>> >correspondence and are anxious to find out what will happen in
>> >reality. Good exercise for kids too. I'm sure they were aware of
>> >limitations of linear extrapolation and anticipated the attention they
>> >will get.
>> >
>> >DZ
>> >
>> >>> The idea of women running faster than men although not novel (see B.
>> >>> J. Whipp and S. A. Ward Nature 355, 25, 1992; and Correspondence
>> >>> Nature 356, 21, 1992)
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, I worked in her lab in college one semester and remember that
>> >> particular bit of nonsense. Their analysis was as flawed then as the
>> >> current one is now.
>> >>
>> >> is interesting, but one cannot draw these
>> >>> conclusions based on generalization by extrapolation. Tatem et al.
>> >>> used a domain of 104 years to extrapolate to a domain of 252 years. It
>> >>> is not logical to say that the first 104 years will have data with
>> >>> exactly the same regression as the next 148 years. Using similar
>> >>> reasoning in 1992, Whipp and Ward suggested that women would run the
>> >>> marathon faster than men by 1998. This has still not happened.
>> >>
>> >> Nor will it EVER.
>> >> You can determine this based on first principles alone, issues of
>> >> BF%age, LBM and efficiency.
>> >>
>> >> It has been suggested that women might be superior at ultraendurance
>> >> events (ultramarathons) based on their abiliity to better use fat but
>> >> their lesser LBM makes this unlikely.
>> >>
>> >> About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
>> >> distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
>> >> rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing hypothermia).
>>
>> Swimming the English Channel quite clearly disproves that theory!
>>
>> http://soloswims.com/CSA-E-F.htm
>
>Doesn't disprove it at all. The second fastest time is a women and for 17
>years she held the record. So obviously from a genetic standpoint the
>ladies can compete quite well in these types of events.

No Keith, the few women exceptions simply demonstrate the proving of
the rule! ;o)

John HUDSON
November 25th 04, 11:52 PM
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:15:14 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Keith Hobman wrote:
>> In article >, John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:35:32 GMT, DZ
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>>>>>About the only sport where elite women might top elite men is long
>>>>>distance/cold water swimming where higher BF%age will end up as a boon
>>>>>rather than a hindrance (by improving buoyancy and preventing hypothermia).
>>>
>>>Swimming the English Channel quite clearly disproves that theory!
>>>
>>>http://soloswims.com/CSA-E-F.htm
>>
>>
>> Doesn't disprove it at all. The second fastest time is a women and for 17
>> years she held the record. So obviously from a genetic standpoint the
>> ladies can compete quite well in these types of events.
>
>anyhow, I used the word 'might' for a reason.
>
>I didn't say a woman could or would but that's the sport where they
>might have the best shot.

Which was the "theory" you were putting forward for consideration.

>
>So go **** yourself, Hudson.

It's not my fault you are wrong (again) you excitable Dago tart, and
you're vulgar suggestion is a physical impossibility, even if I am a
very big boy!! ;o)

However, you CAN go and pull your puny maggot again, and again, and
again ............

>
>Lyle

John