Mago

My stats class indicated that there is more variation of strength from woman to woman and man to man, then there is man to man. i wish i had the numbers, but my prof. done gave me an A in that class, and its summer right now.

IFPA published a report by Wayne L. Westcott that noted that counted in body weight percentage, men and women gained strength at the same pace with identical (percentage) weight training.

The same article points out that in 8 weeks, previously untrained women gained 100% increase (they doubled their strength as measured through specific exercises like super pullovers, leg curls, etc) in muscle strength. Men, according to my manual, experience only 60 to 75% increase in muscle sstrength. So across studies, there is indication of greater percentage strength gain in women than men

There are other indicators, and millions of studies arguing one way or the next, but IMHO I recognize greater fine motor skills. In the European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, another study noted that men had a larger type-A and type-B (A is slow-twitch and B is fast-twitch) but women packed more fibers per cross section, though less developed.

so, there are substantial indications that women are proportionately stronger than men are, but men have larger muscle fibers and higher androgen doses that lean them toward the high end of muscle strength. Percentagewise, though, women have faster gains in strength over time than men, and bear more muscle fibers, although smaller.

My suspicion is that women are more than likely, if presented with identical low-fat, complex carb diets with high protein, they would increase faster with more overall gains in power, strength, and stamina.

Mago
Weight training for raqs dancers?

da Sage

Hmmm...

So you're saying that women increase their strength more quickly than men, but that doesn't say anything about the final strength attained. Apples and oranges, to my mind.

Mago

I'm not saying that women gains strength more quickly, the studies say that. My conclusion is based on that data, that women, given proper training and nutrition, will be measurably stronger than men, documentable through measuring through the precentage increase of weight they move. Not apples and oranges. This length of time also minimizes androgen-spiked power gains from initial serum testosterone increases and measures overall gains instead of documenting each surge in strength in the study.

A backdoor view into this can also be seen in men developing secondary skeletal abnormalities with chronic heart disease which are not present in women with chronic heart disease. this study abstract can be found here.

So if you want a definitive study - its not there yet - but the trend is indicating that the conclusion is valid.

Edit:

This study speaks more toward what you are looking for. The short version is that with similar weights held isometrically, arterial pressure, heart rate, and perceived exertion was the same at the beginning and end, but women reported a lower rate of fatigue and the rectified electromyogram (measures electrical activity in muscles) showed higher values at the end when the weight was held to failure than women. in other words women didn't get tired as fast even though there were similar values at the start of the contraction.

So here's another thread in the trend that displays women's strength advantage over men...

Brea

I certainly hope this proves true, as I've always felt it must be. Moon - when I was young I looked a lot like you, and without the many years of weight training and fighting I might have stayed the same. Now that I'm a dancer I wish that I did have more of that willowy look, but I think I'm probably stuck with 'pack mule'.

If it isn't...well then I remain a freak of nature. I should turn myself in to Ripley's Believe it or Not.

__________________
www.breamorgiane.com

Yasmine Bint Al Nubia

I get where Mago is going with this.
Part of the issue is how we have been conditioned to view strength(he even said as much in his first post). Newer and newer studies are investigating this primary differences on how men and women differ. In this case, the differences may lie in how each gender USE strength. Male studies are well tested and documented...now it's time to investigate women.
Fast twitch muscle fibers primarily use anaerobic energy sources(glycoen and anaerobic enzymes to break it down) and are good for short burst of speed and/or strength. Think of a power lifter. Slow twitch muscle fibers primarily use aerobic energy sources9glucose and oxygen) and are best used for longer endurance activities. In a sense these muscle types use energy more efficiently and slowly. Think of along distance runner..or better yet a woman in childbirth. It requires a TREMENDOUS amount of strength and endurance to undergo labor. Yet we never think of it in those terms, do we?
I think those studies and others like them are finally developing a model that is multi-faceted in its intent and subsequent practices.
Yasmine

__________________
www.visionsofthenile.com

Mago

Yes. Yes. and, in case I missed it, yes.

Also, one of the newer things a buddy sent me (he's a trainer in Vegas) involved how some of the performers and dancers he works structure their workouts. Most of them are heavy lifters and using lots of cardio after the lift to catabolize, along with the more cardio-driven dancing they do. All in all, it balances the muscularity with the more lithe look. I hesitate to introduce any of this, as I know some raqs dancers seem scandalized with comparisons to erotic performers....

da Sage

The study doesn't say anything about an end-point, or any sort of body-matching for strength comparison. I don't feel that it lends any significant support to your conclusion.

The study you quoted in the edit is working with women and men who are already strength-matched. I agree that women typically have more endurance than men, but IMO that's not the same as strength.

Isometric hold endurance is different from strength to lift/move a weight.

But this study does support my idea that women are physically designed to gather and carry smaller foodstuffs over long distances (and also carry children). Men are physically designed to take down an elk, and carry it home.

(and yes, that's "women as a group; exceptions exist" and "men as a group; exceptions exist" "abilities overlap between the two groups, but I'm talking about the AVERAGE member of each group, or members compared according to corresponding places on the male/female bell curves, or members compared with frame size matchups")

Mago

I can respect your point, even if I don't necessarily share it.

adiemus

Curious that these studies seem to suggest women and men have different muscle development rates. Sadly when it comes to pain, the recent studies demonstrate that while men and women detect pain at the same threshold, men and women differ in terms of their tolerance. Unfortunately, not in the direction that women would like! Females appear to be less tolerant to pain, report more pain, and develop chronic pain problems during the years that oestrogen is the dominant hormone... I suggest that perhaps this is to help women take more care of their bodies, to risk injury less readily, and so be able to protect the young of the species! Will post some refs later if anyone's wanting them. This might, however, be why some women prefer not to be involved with heavy weight and cardio - feeling 'the burn' may be less tolerable for women.

__________________
He wahine, he taonga- Every woman is a treasure(Maori proverb)

Mago

I think there is a misperception. Physical firing of pain signals is similar in men and women, but the reported pain (the interpretation of the stimulus) is what gets measured, and that is something else, because we filter everything in life (including our body functions) based on cultural filters. For example. Tell two kids to not cry like little girls, and regardless, the implication is taught that boys don't cry and girls can cry at everything.

This article on MedicineNet shows that the report of pain indicates less threshold, but that this conclusion is thorny on its own. The two factors which seem to be assumed but not stated is that these are industrialized western culture folk, and that everyone is hormonally balanced... if any of you ladies wax, please confirm this - the article states that women don't wax close to their periods due to higher pain perception. If this is true, then there is more to account for in the variables than simple notification of discomfort - which this article certainly presents.

And, for perspective, tolerance of pain translated to about a 1 to 1.5 degrees C lower tolerance than man. Not exactly a whole lot of variance.