+4 STR?

+4 STR?

If anything that study is a complete indictment of the idea that nutrition matters for muscle growth.

(((Scientific advances)))

Rowers... Strength Endurance, not maximal strength as it concerns tabletop rpgs....
So its irrelevant.

>submit
>close

> prehistoric women had stronger arms than modern day women rowers.

Makes sense, btw why does every comment have a knee-jerk reaction? Did nobody read the article and see that it was talking about female rowers and not men?

>Did nobody read
If you have to start a question with this on the internet, the answer should be clear.

So they're extrapolating based on the fact that women would have to do a lot of fairly intensive agricultural work?

Wouldn't their strength plateau at roughly the amount of strength required to grind grain, just with superior endurance?

Would that stack up to the explosive strength that modern professional athletes are capable of?

Probably not, I'd imagine.

What's more important in a fight? The ability to throw a punch or to take a punch?

Should fighters be better off with more health than stronger attacks?

>modern women are shit
Where's the news?

If you can't take a hit a fight might end before you realise it has begun.
If you're good you might never get hit.

It depends on how combat is fought. If we're talking about literally throwing punches, then both are important and focusing on one to the detriment of the other is bad idea. The more sophisticated weaponry becomes however, the less likely your physical toughness matters. A bullet is ultimately still a bullet and after you're riddled with a few, you're down and out no matter how much stamina and endurance strength you've got.

>Should fighters be better off with more health than stronger attacks?
Yes. Unless you're Mike Tyson you're not leaving the ring untouched most of the time. And that applies to all martial arts and fights in general, unly genetic freak fighting savants can knock-out/kill an opponent in non-ambush confrontations without getting touched and most likely hurt somehow themselves.

Weren't we only talking two years ago about how humans from even a few hundred years ago could seriously fuck us in terms of raw strength?
As it turns out with strength being less and less needed to make a living, us humans get squishier and squishier, who'd have guessed?

Humans adapt to their environment. More at 11.

>grinding grain
Did they not plough, thresh, or chop?
Shits hard with primitive tools

But prehistoric men still had stronger arms than the prehistoric women. I don't see where's all the whining.

>primitive women who had to work are stronger than women who sit around all day.

Yeah no shit

1) rowing uses mostly the legs
2) woman rowers are pathetic compared to men
3) "academics" obsessed with "[demographic]'s X" as opposed to just "X" are a disgrace to the academy

>Modern people are physically weak
Movie at 11.

It's easier to just read the headline and make a memetastic reply espouting your ideology than actually reading the text.
I mean, this entire thread is just for people to shitpost around the -4 STR meme, which eternally seems to have threads up. I guess some people just really like talking about the physical difference between the sexes, for some reason.

But you're still here.

>Perfect opportunity to post some Veeky Forums
>There is none

We're living in the timeline where /pol/ won, so clearly emotions are more important than facts. Remember, there is nothing as effeminate and out of control as a /pol/lack.

Kek
>prehistoric women were stronger than modern women!
>but this trait was bred out
>therefore WOMYN STRONK! today
If anything this implies that being strong is not attractive in a woman and women will become weaker and smaller over the long term.

This guy's correct too, powerlifting isn't really related to the long endurance musculature.