Ken Jakalski
Your posts have been valuable however engaging in a further discussion with Fogelson is futile. I refer to an earlier discussion on another thread. Fogelson mixed up a field of science with cartoon characters for the duration of a discussion.
anthropometrica not athropomorphic
Note the repetitive use of the word anthropomorphic by Fogelson.
[QUOTE]
And on top of that, there is the issue of anthropomorphic differences, which are perhaps the most obvious. Even with everything else being equal, this would be huge in sprinting
the studies which have showed physiological differences in individuals who do not even train, the anthropomorphic differences which are minimal influenced by anything other than genetics, and more that make me come to this conclusion.
I quote a common definition of the word on the internet
anthropomorphic.
“ Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena” or “attribution of human qualities to nonhumans.” Examples includes Roger Rabbit,Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse. LOL
Is fogelson an anthropomorphic cartoon character :?:rolleyes:
Now the field of science that is relevent to this discussion is- anthropometrica which relates to the measurement of human body.[/QUOTE]
No need to say anymore? Spend your time responding to Weyland , Taylor etc credible biomechanists and physiologists.