I’ve always been curious about how some (most in my experience) women who are considered at peak fitness levels are still weaker than men who are in average shape. It’s been described as “body chemistry” but I’ve never truly understood why. There are absolutely some exceptions, but even when looking at fitness charts, men are expected to be stronger than women in every category. Why?
In: Biology
The keyword to answer the question is sexual dimorphism, the differences in appearance (and consecuently muscle distribution) between males and females of a species.
It is a result of our evolutionary trajectory. As a mammal species, our female ancestors ALWAYS sought to breed and please the strongest male available (usually the alpha, leader of the group) to ensure her, and her offspring would be taken care of.
So in consecuence, if a male was not strong enough to secure his place as an alpha within a group (males often switched groups), he would never reproduce, and his (“weak”) genes would never be passed on.
Females did not have this problem, as alpha males would quickly impregnate ANY female within reproductive age, so most females, even the ones with genes that coded for lower body strenght would get to reproduce, competition was not nearly as hard as it was for males seeking to become alphas.
Therefore as time passed, newer generations in our species showed increased muscle mass (especially upper body strenght) and high desire to achieve dominance in males, while females kept being progressively more tame, more suited to nurturing and had considerably less upper body strenght.
Some people will inevitably feel offended by what I wrote above, and I can understand it from people who do not have a firm grasp of evolutionary biology. But I hope that once you delve deeper into the subject, you will understand why there is nothing wrong with it, and understanding our roots can actually help us move forward.
Latest Answers