• dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Better doesn’t always equal faster.

    Better can equal going further.

    Better can equal being more efficient.

    Efficient means using less calories to do the same thing.

    • Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sure. But you then need to show the data that supports those points

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Can you please show us what connects your data to being a success as an endurance hunter? Because “men hold more records running a specific distance faster than women do” is not in any way an indication of hunting success.

        Do you think Olympic target shooters make the best hunters when it comes to guns and bows?

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Another factor is, with endurance hunting, you will need to carry the carcass back to home base. So let’s take am antelope, which weighs 125 kg. You need the hunters to bring that all back to base, AFTER the multi kilometer hunt is over.

          However, as far as portaging, women are very adept at that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-carrying

          Olympic shooters would make the absolute worst hunters, have you actually seen them shoot? It’s a test of hand eye coordination to hit a paper target.

        • Murvel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I never said anything about exactly what makes a good hunter. I was making a counterpoint to the quote of the article