yes but stride and gait would be increased - thus covering more distance in shorter amount of time
My point is that greater energy is needed to give longer steps, so the advantage is nil. Further, men weight more, so the energy required to move a man forward is greater. My point about men's superiority is exactly that: it is incredible that men can outrun women in both short and long distance races despite the fact that they are so much heavier. That is crushing superiority.
real factor would be VO2 and type I muscle fiber recruitment - supply of oxygen to active cells would increase performance
Yes, I am not disputing those things. Men have more hemoglobin and larger lungs than women even when you adjust for their greater bodyweight, and men's muscles clear lactic acid much faster than women's muscles do. Then, there is testosterone which increases psychological forcefullness, the "will to win". However, men don't have an advantage over women when it comes to muscles for long-distance running: men have less slow-twitch, type one muscle fibers than women, so they actually have a disadvantage when it comes to this. However, men do have more fast-twitch, type II fibers which is an added advantage in short-distance running.
men have stronger bones and greater muscle mass - cant compare lions to lambs
Yes I can, because the bigger muscles and denser bones increase weight which is a disadvantage to running, so the greater ability of muscular contractions in generating energy is nullified by the greater weight. Men can generate more energy to move their bodies, but their bodies weight more so they have no advantage here.
still prefer women runners to male runner phys - those tight as black pants females run in - thumbs up
Redundant.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
