Women Should Train Differently Then Men
Replies
-
BraveNewdGirl wrote: »That doesn't excuse your initial statement in any way. Seriously, moderate yourself.
i would suggest a strong dose of get over yourself….0 -
I don't need an apology. And so- thank you for white knighting women- but we dont' need it.
I understood very well what he was saying. And practically speaking- we ARE physically inferior unfortunately. That doesn't make men inherently better- it just means we will always be the weaker sex on a "all variables being equal" kind of test.
I know there are men that I am unequivocally stronger than- but those guys don't train. Any man that did my training program would far surpass me in a matter of months.
It's a fair point- perhaps not well worded- but he isn't WRONG.
He chose a bit of sarcasm to "correct". Where he is right or wrong, I don't care.
My point is that simply defining physical superiority/inferiority by the potential to be strong is the same mindset that, thoughout history, taught that women by their very genetics were inferior. If you choose you define physical superiority/inferiority that way, that's your prerogative.
But women's bodies do all kinds of things men's can't.
You can take that as white knighting. IDGAF. I don't know you.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Wait, are you saying that when it comes to recovery, men are inferior to women?!?!?!
is that ironic punctuation or what, i can't tell
i think jemhh is referring to bret contreras' observations after having trained tons of women for years and years (as well as probably reading done while doing his doctorate). i have no idea though, this is an appeal to authority.
personally, my (female) recovery is terrible.0 -
Some dudebro that lives on the MFP forums thinks I need to get over myself because I don't believe that sexist statements should earn a pat on the back. Noted.
i would suggest a strong dose of get over yourself….
0 -
How many individual (non-team) sports involve women competing against men?Derprioception wrote: »But seriously, if we work this out logically:
Logically factual statements.
Some A are stronger than some B.
Some B are stronger than some A.
Some A are stronger than some A.
Some B are stronger than some B.
Using words like all or majority are assumptive as there's no concrete way to verify. To use them as assertions of fact is illogical. Unless my logic has gaps. I'm open to a logical refutation.
In how many sports are the womens' records better than the mens' records?
Obviously some women are stronger than some men. But the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. So in that context "men are stronger than women" is a valid statement, in the same way as "men are taller than women."
I'm not sure why anyone would think this is justification to think that men and women should be treated differently.
I don't know why some people need to inject value judgments into any observation of differences between any two people or groups of people.0 -
is that ironic punctuation or what, i can't tell
i think jemhh is referring to bret contreras' observations after having trained tons of women for years and years (as well as probably reading done while doing his doctorate). i have no idea though, this is an appeal to authority.
personally, my (female) recovery is terrible.
Yea, because no one has ever miss spoke in their entire life...
It must be nice to live in perfectville...
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Wait, are you saying that when it comes to recovery, men are inferior to women?!?!?!
Oh I would never say that men are inferior. I'd just say that women are superior
0 -
I don't think you understand my response.
Your response was "I think your point was that we're genetically inferior."
My response was to correct the word "genetically" for "physically" because it's the wrong terminology for the actual statement.
When speaking of genetics, you're speaking of inherent traits amongst ancestors. I said physical because you were obviously referring to the gender differences.
My correction was to make the SENTENCE terminologically correct, NOT to say that males are superior over females. Hope that clears that up.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It really doesn't. I knew the point you were making. You, however, are missing what I was talking about in the first place.
My point is that you're defining physical inferiority in an extremely narrow way - which is to say, you seem to say that men are physically superior because they have the greater potential for strength. But there are many things a woman can do, physically, that a man can't.
I understand what you were *trying* to say. But since you found it appropriate to correct sarcasm (who seriously says women are genetically inferior), I afforded you no benefits of the doubt. Because, quite frankly, narrowly defining superiority/inferiority is how history got to a place where it considered women to be genetic defect of men.
0 -
Yea, because no one has ever miss spoke in their entire life...
It must be nice to live in perfectville...
i don't actually know what he was trying to say with "?!?!?!?"0 -
This content has been removed.
-
itsfuntobenormal wrote: »
It really doesn't. I knew the point you were making. You, however, are missing what I was talking about in the first place.
My point is that you're defining physical inferiority in an extremely narrow way - which is to say, you seem to say that men are physically superior because they have the greater potential for strength. But there are many things a woman can do, physically, that a man can't.
I understand what you were *trying* to say. But since you found it appropriate to correct sarcasm (who seriously says women are genetically inferior), I afforded you no benefits of the doubt. Because, quite frankly, narrowly defining superiority/inferiority is how history got to a place where it considered women to be genetic defect of men.
Are we not in a thread about a strength training program? Of course his comments related to physical superiority related to strength. You and a couple of others are the ones discussing other methods of physical prowess, not ninerbuff.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Are we not in a thread about a strength training program? Of course his comments related to physical superiority related to strength. You and a couple of others are the ones discussing other methods of physical prowess, not ninerbuff.
I am sorry, I have no idea what your point is.
Are we in a thread about strength training? Has the OP ever said she actually wants to GET STRONG? Or just lose fat? Maybe she did at some point and I missed it.
His comments corrected very obvious sarcasm. In the process, he made a poorly worded statement, that unfortunately related to the very issue my sarcasm was about.
Niner is a moderator. He can delete unrelated comments or lock this thread entirely if he sees fit. But because he is a moderator, the standard he's held to should be a bit different.
0 -
I was pretending to be offended. Because I'm silly. It wasn't obvious that I was being ridiculous?
i don't actually know what he was trying to say with "?!?!?!?"0 -
That's ridiculous. The difference between women and men is that women are inately stronger in their lower bodies.0
-
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is humanity, so it will likely get one anyway.Derprioception wrote: »
Obviously there are differences between the two but to make a blanket statement like "men are [whatever] than women" and vice versa is to open the discussion up to blanket interpretations, so the offense of some is valid because there aren't always specifics that make meaning clear.
The thing is, if the same assertions were made based on race or culture, using the same criteria you mentioned, it would likely blow up into a much bigger deal. Would their offense be so quickly or easily cast aside? Some people feel as strongly about issues of gender and sex.
Either way, we're using some pretty broad words here. Valid, logical, and factual aren't necessarily the same. The discussion can rabbit trail all day long.
Maybe every observation of difference doesn't deserve a value judgment, but this is mfp, so it will likely get one anyway.
eta: And to be fair, inferior and superior are value judgments... Unintended though they may be.
1- FTFY.
B- This is why we can't have nice things.
(4- I admit the hypocrisy of the above being value judgments. Just in case Jof comes along.)0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I was pretending to be offended. Because I'm silly. It wasn't obvious that I was being ridiculous?
ok, yeah, that was my initial thought. but WHO KNOWS on mfp0 -
Read above posts. My initial post wasn't to demean females. It was to substitute the word "genetically" with "physically" so the SENTENCE was correct. And I even gave an example of it after correcting the incorrectly worded statement.
Relax.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Hahaha! That'll teach you to correct someone's vocab!
0 -
well ok but there are real sex (not gender) differences, which is why forensic anthropologists can work out which bags of bones were or weren't dudes. in living women one issue re thighs is we have more alpha 2 receptors there, which makes that fat hard to get rid of. (that's why i like the idea of firming up the muscles under that fat)
(also lol at my example, which is the best i can come up with right now - sorry. super tired today!)
Well ok but Instead of throwing gender into it you could simply say, "if you tend to store fat around your thighs..." There is no need to gender-fy the recommendation. I'm a woman. Never had trouble with butt or thighs. And I'm sure there are men who want to work on butt and thighs. Most people have an idea where they store their fat. There is no need for the over generalization.
Also, some women, myself included, have been working hard to undo fitness myths surrounding how women should work out "differently" than men. The fact is that both genders could benefit from whole body, multi-joint, complex functional training with Individual programming to address personal needs. I would never recommend something to any of my clients because the are of a certain gender. the idea that women do one set of lifts and men do another is, as a generalization, just not useful and could potentially get someone's back up- like it did mine.0 -
Everyone stores fat by consuming more than they burn.....unless you know someone that stores fat in a deficit ...???
Are you being purposely obtuse or did you really not understand that I was talking about where different bodies store fat?. It's a fact that people store fat differently - as in different places on their bodies, different distributions etc. Pretty basic.
0 -
Yeah sorry I should have kept Poe's Law in mind.
ok, yeah, that was my initial thought. but WHO KNOWS on mfp
0 -
hypatiaswan wrote: »
Skitt's Law: the likelihood of an error in a post correcting another user is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster.0 -
hypatiaswan wrote: »
Well ok but Instead of throwing gender into it you could simply say, "if you tend to store fat around your thighs..." There is no need to gender-fy the recommendation. I'm a woman. Never had trouble with butt or thighs. And I'm sure there are men who want to work on butt and thighs. Most people have an idea where they store their fat. There is no need for the over generalization.
Also, some women, myself included, have been working hard to undo fitness myths surrounding how women should work out "differently" than men. The fact is that both genders could benefit from whole body, multi-joint, complex functional training with Individual programming to address personal needs. I would never recommend something to any of my clients because the are of a certain gender. the idea that women do one set of lifts and men do another is, as a generalization, just not useful and could potentially get someone's back up- like it did mine.
well ok, first let me say again, women should train the way they want to and i 100% agree would benefit from a balanced training program. as i have said here repeatedly.
i think it's a disservice though to pretend women have the same physiology. *your* thighs don't keep fat there, ok, but really a LOT of women's do, for physiological reasons. and although they may train the same - but again, they may not wish to train the same, they may wish to work towards a more conventional look and really it's their business if they do - it makes a difference in terms of the calories they're going to be wanting to consume to obtain goal x (whether it's muscle growth or fat loss). i think it's kind of silly to pretend that's not the case.0 -
0
-
Poor niner seems to be having a hard time making this clear to all the wounded female feelings out there: He did not THINK, SAY, or ever intend to IMPLY that women are inferior to men, physically or otherwise. He only thought that the other person used the word "genetically" wrong, and tried to clarify, as in, "hey, I think you meant to say this." Not, "you meant to state this fact, which I agree with," or "You think this but the truth is this." It's like if someone typed, "The earth is bigger then the sun," and someone else said, "You mean the earth is bigger THAN the sun." That second person is not affirming the actual statement, only correcting a word-error!
(Though I'm sure after this, he'll double-check what he types lest it be misconstrued as such.)0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Wait, are you saying that when it comes to recovery, men are inferior to women?!?!?!
That is kind of true, actually, but it is also kind of not true. Men possess higher levels of testosterone and hgh which increase satellite cell formation and protein synthesis but women have less muscle tissue to repair. Usually this winds up in the woman's favor in terms of recovery time except for in the case of really small men with very little muscle tissue.0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Poor niner seems to be having a hard time making this clear to all the wounded female feelings out there: He did not THINK, SAY, or ever intend to IMPLY that women are inferior to men, physically or otherwise. He only thought that the other person used the word "genetically" wrong, and tried to clarify, as in, "hey, I think you meant to say this." Not, "you meant to state this fact, which I agree with," or "You think this but the truth is this." It's like if someone typed, "The earth is bigger then the sun," and someone else said, "You mean the earth is bigger THAN the sun." That second person is not affirming the actual statement, only correcting a word-error!
(Though I'm sure after this, he'll double-check what he types lest it be misconstrued as such.)
But isn't correcting peoples' English against the CG(All Hail™)?0 -
women athletes are also more prone to ACL tears during ovulation because (some think) of relaxin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12860548
and some have had a look at their menstrual cycles and decided to optimize their workouts around them.
there are some creaturely things about us and it's got nothing to do with anything political0 -
i'm not going to comment on the training program in terms of day by day breakdown...i think that stuff is highly personal, so whatever fits your life and works for your needs is for you. i did want to comment on the benefits of strength training for women, though.
some years ago i ruptured my Achilles (probably due to excessive running and bad genes) which led me to search for a professional trainer who would work with me while i was on crutches recovering from surgery. I was terrified that my limited ability to do cardio would cause me to slam on the 40lbs i had worked so hard to lose (by running). Long story short, I started lifting with a seasoned trainer who himself used to compete as a natural bodybuilder...so he was knowledgeable, and very focused on form and proper technique. i would train and lift with him 3x a week and then do my own thing (cardio) on other days...let me tell you i never looked or felt so amazing in my whole life... the fat MELTED off areas i had never been able to bust my entire life...seriously sculpted arms, abs, and the booty! it was truly amazing. though i was not at my lowest weight, i was definitely at my tiniest size of all time, and in my late 30s (big accomplishment for an old lady). i've been a major yo-yo all my life, but when i'm good, i can be disciplined for years, going to the gym everyday, working really hard, always pushing, and despite that, i was never able to achieve the results i achieved by lifting properly with my trainer...and to be honest, we didn't even work that hard...i mean, he kept me honest with my technique, and didn't let me rest for 45mins straight, but that's nothing compared to the two hours+ i used to spend in the gym without him...with only mild results.
so, YES, ladies, STRENGTH TRAIN, whatever way you can, bc it FREAKING WORKS! the op is right, you will never get big in the way most ladies fear...it simply isn't possible without extreme and deliberate measures. weights make for all the right curves, definitely bust the dreaded lower body issues, and i think are especially beneficial for women as we get older.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions