Both the University of Syracuse and the University of Colorado disagree with you.
The below study shows that though endurance levels are close "women exhibited significantly greater endurance on the isometric test than men".
Gender differences in skeletal muscle fatigability are related to contraction type and EMG spectral compression -- Clark et al. 94 (6): 2263 -- Journal of Applied Physiology
The below study found that women outlasted men by an average of 75 per cent for certain exercises. It also suggests that, "given that women are weaker than men, the difference may be due to some interaction between muscle strength and blood flow within the muscle."
Health & Medical News - Women beat men on muscle endurance - 26/09/2000
Okay, I read the article, headache though it was. Once upon a time I knew a little about sports-med so I didn't have to look up too many terms. :roll:
They tested the subjects to find out what load (weight) each subject could handle with 50% of maximum muscular contraction.
That means a stronger subject would be loaded with more weight. Which means, in general, that the men are going to be loaded with more weight than the women, since this exercise was mainly about lower back strength.
The women showed substatially greater endurance with the isometric (non-moving) exercise. Results were about the same with isotonic (moving) exercises.
Bear in mind that each subject was loaded with different weights depending on how strong they had demonstrated themselves to be in the muscle groups used in the test.
Short version:
1. This test was very limited, involving mainly lower torso muscles.
2. This test loaded each subject with differing amounts of weight, according to how strong they had demonstrated themselves to be.
3. This test demonstrated only that when loaded with
proportional, rather than
absolute weight loads, that women out performed men only in non-moving endurance tests, not moving-endurance tests, and that only within the limited context of lower-back endurance.
Ergo...
this test does not prove much of anything.
At least, not as far as arguing whether in
practical field-condition operations that an average female soldier could hump a standard weight of weapons, ammo and gear and maintain the ability to move with that gear for as long a period of time as a male soldier wearing the same weight loadout.
This laboratory test may have some intresting results for medical and biological studies, but because a standard weight load was not used for all participants, it isn't a practical guide for field operations.
A practical test would be to take two soldiers, one male one female, who have had approximately the same amount of training/conditioning. Have two IDENTICAL sets of gear set up: backpack of X weight, M4 rifle, X amount of ammo, body armor, helmet, commo, etc etc.... the point being both sets of gear are EXACTLY the SAME and weigh the same. Load 'em up and take 'em out on maneuvers, and see who falls out first.
Now I hate to tell you, but the advantage that males have in upper-body and core-torso strength is going to make a huge difference in this pragmatic field exercise, and the majority of female soldiers are not going to be able to keep up with the male soldiers. There may be
exceptional female individuals who can, but they will be few in number.
This does not mean that female soldiers can't operate combat vehicles or do any of hundreds of other jobs... it just means that very very few female soldiers will be able to qualify for close-combat infantry, recon, ranger or certain other units if a universal standard is required.
