Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

jackcarver

no avatar Level 104 Comments: Funny Junkie
Offline
Send mail to jackcarver Block jackcarver Invite jackcarver to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:1/28/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 15 total,  18 ,  3
Comment Thumbs: 154 total,  259 ,  105
Content Level Progress: 32.2% (19/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 104 Comments: Funny Junkie → Level 105 Comments: Funny Junkie
Subscribers:0
Content Views:854
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:83
FJ Points:147

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

latest user's comments

#70 - Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly a…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#68 - So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, s…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#64 - Well I guess this is pointless I've referenced studies anectdo…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #67 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You've stated over and over again that citations conveniently exist. I have stated over and over common reasoning that analyzes known statistics and derives a conclusion. Learn to debate and come back, please.
#68 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, sorry mate you haven't got a leg to stand on. "Common reasoning" is that supposed to hold more weight than a peer reviewed article? Common reasoning should tell you that higher testosterone and a higher conversion of calories to muscle mass would lead to a man being stronger. I don't think you have a bit of common sense in you or an understanding of how to debate yourself, still have no evidence supporting your claim in any shape or form and until such a time as you do, you're just talking out of your ass.
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#61 - What do you mean by out of shape? do you mean someone so inact…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #62 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sounds to me like you're using your anecdotal experience as an excuse to intentionally misinterpret scientific studies. You keep skirting around the point and refuse to refute my basic point, which is founded on reasoning.

Extremely fat people and extremely scrawny people have very similar muscle masses, in fact, this deeply enforces my point. Sexual dimorphism deals in averages. Not individuals. An individual woman is potentially capable of being stronger than an individual man. This is fact supported by every fundamental law of statistics, genetic variation and applied medical science.
#64 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Well I guess this is pointless I've referenced studies anectdotal evidence, and you're just going to tell me I don't understand my source material while presenting no evidence of your own, misuse buzzwords and have a critical misunderstanding of even some of the most basic statistical principles. You do realize that the individual man and woman are very likely to conform to the average strength difference found in the study? In any case as far as I can tell you have no evidence you have no study, you have no numbers, hell you couldn't even give me an anecdotal example, this is a waste of time.
User avatar #67 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You've stated over and over again that citations conveniently exist. I have stated over and over common reasoning that analyzes known statistics and derives a conclusion. Learn to debate and come back, please.
#68 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, sorry mate you haven't got a leg to stand on. "Common reasoning" is that supposed to hold more weight than a peer reviewed article? Common reasoning should tell you that higher testosterone and a higher conversion of calories to muscle mass would lead to a man being stronger. I don't think you have a bit of common sense in you or an understanding of how to debate yourself, still have no evidence supporting your claim in any shape or form and until such a time as you do, you're just talking out of your ass.
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#57 - There is though - that 40-60% difference in upper body strengt…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #59 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
People who are out of shape have very little usable muscle compared to people who are in ideal physical condition. You are citing studies you simply do not understand and backing it up with an emotional appeal.
#61 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by out of shape? do you mean someone so inactive their muscles have started to atrophy? or do you mean someone exceedingly obese like my friend? I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what the study means the average man has more upper body strength (and lower body strength but that difference is less extreme). SO please define for me what out of shape is because I think you mean that word in a way that is so extreme that the person wouldn't be able to lift themselves out of bed.
User avatar #62 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sounds to me like you're using your anecdotal experience as an excuse to intentionally misinterpret scientific studies. You keep skirting around the point and refuse to refute my basic point, which is founded on reasoning.

Extremely fat people and extremely scrawny people have very similar muscle masses, in fact, this deeply enforces my point. Sexual dimorphism deals in averages. Not individuals. An individual woman is potentially capable of being stronger than an individual man. This is fact supported by every fundamental law of statistics, genetic variation and applied medical science.
#64 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Well I guess this is pointless I've referenced studies anectdotal evidence, and you're just going to tell me I don't understand my source material while presenting no evidence of your own, misuse buzzwords and have a critical misunderstanding of even some of the most basic statistical principles. You do realize that the individual man and woman are very likely to conform to the average strength difference found in the study? In any case as far as I can tell you have no evidence you have no study, you have no numbers, hell you couldn't even give me an anecdotal example, this is a waste of time.
User avatar #67 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You've stated over and over again that citations conveniently exist. I have stated over and over common reasoning that analyzes known statistics and derives a conclusion. Learn to debate and come back, please.
#68 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, sorry mate you haven't got a leg to stand on. "Common reasoning" is that supposed to hold more weight than a peer reviewed article? Common reasoning should tell you that higher testosterone and a higher conversion of calories to muscle mass would lead to a man being stronger. I don't think you have a bit of common sense in you or an understanding of how to debate yourself, still have no evidence supporting your claim in any shape or form and until such a time as you do, you're just talking out of your ass.
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#52 - That aside, unless the fitness training you mentioned in your …  [+] (11 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #54 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Statistics do not work that way. There is no logical reason someone who is out of shape is stronger than an athlete, regardless of sex.
#57 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
There is though - that 40-60% difference in upper body strength I keep mentioning, meaning they'd have to exercise enough to increase their muscle mass from anywhere between 40-60% to even be roughly equal to a man who does not work out, this is due to the fact that men put on muscle much easier, because more of their caloric intake is converted into muscle mass. Men also produce testosterone which promotes the growth of muscle tissue, which means that without doing ANYTHING a man can be stronger than a woman who runs everyday, or does a body weight routine or one who does light weight training. This is backed up by numerous peer reviewed studies and is an example of the sexual dimorphism present in all species, I don't understand why you can't grasp this, I gave you numbers, from scholarly journals that are peer reviewed, I gave you a qualitative example that I witnessed myself, is there no way I can convince you? are you just the ken ham to my bill nye in this debate about sexual dimorphism?
User avatar #59 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
People who are out of shape have very little usable muscle compared to people who are in ideal physical condition. You are citing studies you simply do not understand and backing it up with an emotional appeal.
#61 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by out of shape? do you mean someone so inactive their muscles have started to atrophy? or do you mean someone exceedingly obese like my friend? I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what the study means the average man has more upper body strength (and lower body strength but that difference is less extreme). SO please define for me what out of shape is because I think you mean that word in a way that is so extreme that the person wouldn't be able to lift themselves out of bed.
User avatar #62 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sounds to me like you're using your anecdotal experience as an excuse to intentionally misinterpret scientific studies. You keep skirting around the point and refuse to refute my basic point, which is founded on reasoning.

Extremely fat people and extremely scrawny people have very similar muscle masses, in fact, this deeply enforces my point. Sexual dimorphism deals in averages. Not individuals. An individual woman is potentially capable of being stronger than an individual man. This is fact supported by every fundamental law of statistics, genetic variation and applied medical science.
#64 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Well I guess this is pointless I've referenced studies anectdotal evidence, and you're just going to tell me I don't understand my source material while presenting no evidence of your own, misuse buzzwords and have a critical misunderstanding of even some of the most basic statistical principles. You do realize that the individual man and woman are very likely to conform to the average strength difference found in the study? In any case as far as I can tell you have no evidence you have no study, you have no numbers, hell you couldn't even give me an anecdotal example, this is a waste of time.
User avatar #67 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You've stated over and over again that citations conveniently exist. I have stated over and over common reasoning that analyzes known statistics and derives a conclusion. Learn to debate and come back, please.
#68 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, sorry mate you haven't got a leg to stand on. "Common reasoning" is that supposed to hold more weight than a peer reviewed article? Common reasoning should tell you that higher testosterone and a higher conversion of calories to muscle mass would lead to a man being stronger. I don't think you have a bit of common sense in you or an understanding of how to debate yourself, still have no evidence supporting your claim in any shape or form and until such a time as you do, you're just talking out of your ass.
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#49 - Raw ability has SO MUCH to do with one's potential many of the…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #50 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sure, athletes. A microscopic fraction of our population.

Even if men and women had the same average physical ability, athletes would still likely be more capable on average.
#52 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
That aside, unless the fitness training you mentioned in your original post includes a good deal of body building, even a man who doesn't exercise is still likely to be as strong if not stronger.
User avatar #54 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Statistics do not work that way. There is no logical reason someone who is out of shape is stronger than an athlete, regardless of sex.
#57 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
There is though - that 40-60% difference in upper body strength I keep mentioning, meaning they'd have to exercise enough to increase their muscle mass from anywhere between 40-60% to even be roughly equal to a man who does not work out, this is due to the fact that men put on muscle much easier, because more of their caloric intake is converted into muscle mass. Men also produce testosterone which promotes the growth of muscle tissue, which means that without doing ANYTHING a man can be stronger than a woman who runs everyday, or does a body weight routine or one who does light weight training. This is backed up by numerous peer reviewed studies and is an example of the sexual dimorphism present in all species, I don't understand why you can't grasp this, I gave you numbers, from scholarly journals that are peer reviewed, I gave you a qualitative example that I witnessed myself, is there no way I can convince you? are you just the ken ham to my bill nye in this debate about sexual dimorphism?
User avatar #59 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
People who are out of shape have very little usable muscle compared to people who are in ideal physical condition. You are citing studies you simply do not understand and backing it up with an emotional appeal.
#61 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by out of shape? do you mean someone so inactive their muscles have started to atrophy? or do you mean someone exceedingly obese like my friend? I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what the study means the average man has more upper body strength (and lower body strength but that difference is less extreme). SO please define for me what out of shape is because I think you mean that word in a way that is so extreme that the person wouldn't be able to lift themselves out of bed.
User avatar #62 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sounds to me like you're using your anecdotal experience as an excuse to intentionally misinterpret scientific studies. You keep skirting around the point and refuse to refute my basic point, which is founded on reasoning.

Extremely fat people and extremely scrawny people have very similar muscle masses, in fact, this deeply enforces my point. Sexual dimorphism deals in averages. Not individuals. An individual woman is potentially capable of being stronger than an individual man. This is fact supported by every fundamental law of statistics, genetic variation and applied medical science.
#64 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Well I guess this is pointless I've referenced studies anectdotal evidence, and you're just going to tell me I don't understand my source material while presenting no evidence of your own, misuse buzzwords and have a critical misunderstanding of even some of the most basic statistical principles. You do realize that the individual man and woman are very likely to conform to the average strength difference found in the study? In any case as far as I can tell you have no evidence you have no study, you have no numbers, hell you couldn't even give me an anecdotal example, this is a waste of time.
User avatar #67 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You've stated over and over again that citations conveniently exist. I have stated over and over common reasoning that analyzes known statistics and derives a conclusion. Learn to debate and come back, please.
#68 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, sorry mate you haven't got a leg to stand on. "Common reasoning" is that supposed to hold more weight than a peer reviewed article? Common reasoning should tell you that higher testosterone and a higher conversion of calories to muscle mass would lead to a man being stronger. I don't think you have a bit of common sense in you or an understanding of how to debate yourself, still have no evidence supporting your claim in any shape or form and until such a time as you do, you're just talking out of your ass.
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#46 - I think you're misinterpreting what i said, let me rephrase th…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #48 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
"Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have 40-60% the upper body strength of males."

...that is literally what I just said.

"as for untrained males being weaker I have a friend who went to the gym for the first time because of his resolutions for new years, who lifted well above the chicks who we're regulars at the gym, and this guy is so overweight it's funny."

Simple: you don't (entirely) need strength to lift, just momentum, which fat people have more of. People who are rapidly losing weight frequently record a substantially diminished ability to weight train, despite overall improvements to health. Physics is funny like that.
#44 - additionally men convert more food into muscle or energy reser…  [+] (15 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #47 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
This is a prerequisite for the upper body strength statistic, not an additional factor.

I'm not even sure why we're arguing about this. Raw physical ability has so, so, so incredibly little to do with one's potential aptitude in modern society. Even traditionally male tasks are mostly done in sex agnostic methods, like hunting.
#49 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Raw ability has SO MUCH to do with one's potential many of the top athletes have ridiculous raw ability that allows them to compete, Olympic weight lifters for example can engage way more of their fast twitch muscle fibers than you or I can, and michael phelps has a ridiculous amount of raw ability that makes him the competitor he is.
User avatar #50 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sure, athletes. A microscopic fraction of our population.

Even if men and women had the same average physical ability, athletes would still likely be more capable on average.
#52 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
That aside, unless the fitness training you mentioned in your original post includes a good deal of body building, even a man who doesn't exercise is still likely to be as strong if not stronger.
User avatar #54 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Statistics do not work that way. There is no logical reason someone who is out of shape is stronger than an athlete, regardless of sex.
#57 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
There is though - that 40-60% difference in upper body strength I keep mentioning, meaning they'd have to exercise enough to increase their muscle mass from anywhere between 40-60% to even be roughly equal to a man who does not work out, this is due to the fact that men put on muscle much easier, because more of their caloric intake is converted into muscle mass. Men also produce testosterone which promotes the growth of muscle tissue, which means that without doing ANYTHING a man can be stronger than a woman who runs everyday, or does a body weight routine or one who does light weight training. This is backed up by numerous peer reviewed studies and is an example of the sexual dimorphism present in all species, I don't understand why you can't grasp this, I gave you numbers, from scholarly journals that are peer reviewed, I gave you a qualitative example that I witnessed myself, is there no way I can convince you? are you just the ken ham to my bill nye in this debate about sexual dimorphism?
User avatar #59 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
People who are out of shape have very little usable muscle compared to people who are in ideal physical condition. You are citing studies you simply do not understand and backing it up with an emotional appeal.
#61 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by out of shape? do you mean someone so inactive their muscles have started to atrophy? or do you mean someone exceedingly obese like my friend? I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what the study means the average man has more upper body strength (and lower body strength but that difference is less extreme). SO please define for me what out of shape is because I think you mean that word in a way that is so extreme that the person wouldn't be able to lift themselves out of bed.
User avatar #62 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Sounds to me like you're using your anecdotal experience as an excuse to intentionally misinterpret scientific studies. You keep skirting around the point and refuse to refute my basic point, which is founded on reasoning.

Extremely fat people and extremely scrawny people have very similar muscle masses, in fact, this deeply enforces my point. Sexual dimorphism deals in averages. Not individuals. An individual woman is potentially capable of being stronger than an individual man. This is fact supported by every fundamental law of statistics, genetic variation and applied medical science.
#64 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Well I guess this is pointless I've referenced studies anectdotal evidence, and you're just going to tell me I don't understand my source material while presenting no evidence of your own, misuse buzzwords and have a critical misunderstanding of even some of the most basic statistical principles. You do realize that the individual man and woman are very likely to conform to the average strength difference found in the study? In any case as far as I can tell you have no evidence you have no study, you have no numbers, hell you couldn't even give me an anecdotal example, this is a waste of time.
User avatar #67 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You've stated over and over again that citations conveniently exist. I have stated over and over common reasoning that analyzes known statistics and derives a conclusion. Learn to debate and come back, please.
#68 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
So you still have no evidence, no statistics to support you, sorry mate you haven't got a leg to stand on. "Common reasoning" is that supposed to hold more weight than a peer reviewed article? Common reasoning should tell you that higher testosterone and a higher conversion of calories to muscle mass would lead to a man being stronger. I don't think you have a bit of common sense in you or an understanding of how to debate yourself, still have no evidence supporting your claim in any shape or form and until such a time as you do, you're just talking out of your ass.
User avatar #69 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You have not provided evidence. You have stated that you have evidence, and expect me to take it at face value when your statistic was likely pulled out of your ass, anyway.

A person who never works out is weaker than a person who is at peak physical condition if neither person is handicapped or ill. This is a fact. This fact takes sexual dimorphism into account. You have no proof against it, and are just babling on about irrelevant bullshit that ignores my point entirely. You have also called me several names like an idiot.

Anyone with even an ounce of scientific literacy will tell you that if you take everything at face value, you are detrimental to the scientific method.
#70 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
Literally the first reply I posted had a link to a scholarly article if you'd bother to click it, as for the statistic I must confess I would post the link but NSCA link has since died so I suppose you do have to take that at face value, the same way I have to take everything you've been saying, at least I had one article to back me up, which is more than you had. You call me out for not having source which I suppose I am lacking but I have got one article and anecdotal evidence you haven't even got that, or one bit of reviewed literature to back up your claims. This argument is over.
User avatar #71 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
You are making the mistake that my contention negates the article. My argument perfectly suits it; that is my entire point.
#42 - It would take a lot of training for a woman to surpass a basel…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Just needed saying 0
User avatar #43 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
Average strength is based on peak physical condition. If a guy is out of shape, he's using a very small percentage of his potential raw power, so a well trained girl could easily surpass him.
#46 - jackcarver (02/13/2014) [-]
I think you're misinterpreting what i said, let me rephrase that
Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have 40-60% the upper body strength of males.
as for untrained males being weaker I have a friend who went to the gym for the first time because of his resolutions for new years, who lifted well above the chicks who we're regulars at the gym, and this guy is so overweight it's funny.
User avatar #48 - Shiny (02/13/2014) [-]
"Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have 40-60% the upper body strength of males."

...that is literally what I just said.

"as for untrained males being weaker I have a friend who went to the gym for the first time because of his resolutions for new years, who lifted well above the chicks who we're regulars at the gym, and this guy is so overweight it's funny."

Simple: you don't (entirely) need strength to lift, just momentum, which fat people have more of. People who are rapidly losing weight frequently record a substantially diminished ability to weight train, despite overall improvements to health. Physics is funny like that.
[ 82 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 560 / Total items point value: 850

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)