I did point to it, named it. Investigator bias is not a "boogey man," which you'd know if you had any understanding of the scientific method at all. You just don't want to hear it, because you like the result being claimed in the article and don't care much about the integrity of the evidence. I'm being downvoted, because this is Lemmy and I dared refuse to accept something a feminist claimed. Surprise, surprise.

Not the person you were responding to, but this article definitely has some big problems, the largest of which is they don't cite any sources. None. That's a significant problem for a 'scientific' article.

The first claim - Women hunted too - they present good evidence for, and a number of other studies have shown that many other societies had more integrated roles.

The second claim - Women are better at endurance than men - is shaky.

If you follow long-distance races, you might be thinking, wait—males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S.

Looking back at the placements, I agree women are definitely doing well, but they're not what I'd call dominating. Women's 1st place is placing ~5-10th overall. Impressive, for sure, but not dominating. They again, provide no sources, years of the race, or names of these women.

The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.

An enormous leap. This is a great theory to test and analyze, or link to others who have tested it, but not something to state as fact in a scientific article.

As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women “artificially faster,” as though women were not actually doing the running themselves.

Once again, I'm curious what races. I'm involved on the running scene, and have never heard of this rule before. Google results didn't show anything either. Once again, a distinct lack of sources.

Women are definitely capable of doing super endurance events, but they are not the equivalent of men on setting records for any race I’ve found. See below for a few ultra endurance races I know of.

One called “backyard ultra”. Basically you do a lap of 6.7km each hour until everyone else drops out. World records are all men by a long shot - https://backyardultra.com/world-rankings/

Fastpacking, a slower event than the backyard ultras, involve hiking/jogging through hiking trails while carrying what you need. Definitely slower pace, and I’d argue closer to what I’d imagine with a long, days-long hunt would be like for ancient tribes. FKT, or fastest known times, are often found at this website. Looking at all the times, men carry a significant lead in both supported (ie someone else carries your food/water/sleeping gear), and unsupported. As an example, look at the Appalachian Trail – https://fastestknowntime.com/route/appalachian-trail

Even the RAAM shows solo male records much faster than women: https://www.raamrace.org/records-awards

The thing the article failed to mention (and the thing I think is key) is that women excel at doing these things, typically, with less energy burnt both during and after the races. This is hinted at, implied, and signalled, but never outright stated.

Women on the whole are smaller, and tend to have better insulin responses (as mentioned in the article) which means their blood sugar stays consistent during exercise and after. Consistent blood sugar means less wasted energy. Larger heart and lungs, combined with higher type 2 muscle fibres compared to women’s type 1 (from the article) means, again, less wasted energy and more efficiencies. Less muscle damage, as mentioned in the article, means less to repair, which means more saved energy. In a hunter/gather society, this saved energy can be significant.

With modern access to food, that evolutionary advantage seems to vanish, and the article doesn’t even touch on it.

Click the links in the article to their actual research papers and you'll see what I'm talking about.