this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
321 points (87.6% liked)

science

14858 readers
388 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 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 1 points 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