Maybe you should read this paper:
and submit an informed rebuttal to the Journal of Applied Physiology.
"Impossibility to prove" doesn't seem to be a barrier in most other domains. It isn't being offered as proven. Everyone can have an opinion, but this group of people just propose an "argument" based on a comparison of the top 50 marathon performances run by men and women. Apparently the argument was worthy enough for inclusion in a peer reviewed journal.
Isn't it obvious to everyone that this kind of mathematical analysis is based on a variety of assumptions, and there are always big margins for error? There is no need to attempt to discard or discredit something on the basis of "impossibility to prove" -- that should already be self evident.
[quote]smarter than a 5th grader wrote:
No, you're the idiot. What is hard to understand about figuring out what a woman's time equates to for the equivalent male?
A. Hole wrote:
What's hard about it is that it's impossible to do/prove. An opinion on "what a woman's time equates to for the equivalent male" is like an arse hole, everyone has one.
You're quoting "Impossibility to prove", I wrote "it's impossible to do/prove" and your post agrees.
Also, I have no desire to read or put in a rebuttal to the above paper, because as I said "it's impossible to do/prove" and just because you considered "the argument was worthy enough for inclusion in a peer reviewed journal." doesn't mean it isn't an exercise in futility, it is, because "it's impossible to do/prove".