Yeah, I had this argument with a guy a while back. He was wondering why there weren't just co-ed league with women wherever they fit in, maybe there'd be NFL 1, NFL2, NFl3, etc... and I tried to explain he'd need NFL 10 to get women in, and NO ONE even cares about the 2nd tier football leagues we have already.GORDON wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:23 pm Here's a YT video of a dude who pretty conclusively proves that women are no where near the athletes that men are, and points out the idiots who will cancel you for saying so. He even has Serena Williams admitting she wouldn't be able to beat 200th ranked male player, and also a female talkshow host who was pushing a man for an apology because he said Serena WIlliams wouldn't be able to beat a 200th ranked male tennis player.
There appears to be at least 1 sport where this doesn't appear to be 100% the case. Sprinting/size sports OBVIOUSLY matter for male/female. But if you run far enough (200 miles), women can run more efficiently than men.
Men are, on average, faster than women when it comes to sprinting and marathoning. This is largely because of their generally bigger hearts, which can deliver more fresh oxygen to the body, and to bigger stores of the sex hormone testosterone, which can make muscles bulkier and stronger.
Men are also able to store more glycogen in their muscles than women, which is like a quick-release fuel for speed. That fast-acting fuel can be used efficiently as energy early on in a race, before people must begin to tap into their fat stores.
But muscles and testosterone can only get the men so far. At some point, the fact that they have less estrogen on board than women becomes apparent. As ultra race distances get longer, estrogen becomes like a performance enhancer for women in a few different ways.