"How do I get in touch with the office of Myth Busters for this one?

You seen it on All In The Family, The Honeymooners, and even on Bill Nye the science guy, and performed in grammer school science classes. This practice of lifting a chair 3 steps back from the wall was passed off as medical fact that a womans spleen was stronger than a mans because she is designed to have children.

This was a trick created by a woman. If a man & woman are the same height, the mans feet are longer, this creates a greater space between the wall and the body compared to the woman, so when he backs up 3 steps, he is on his tippy toes, compared to the woman who is flat footed. When he places his head to the wall, the man has already fallen over but the wall is keeping him on his feet, he can not get back on his feet EVEN WITHOUT THE CHAIR, so the chair is an illusion. This is about the man losing his balance, not strength, because his 3 steps back put all of his body weight on the tips of his toes and again, the woman is flat footed, where all her body weight is evenly distributed throughout her feet. NOTICE THE MANS HEELS ARE NEVER ON THE FLOOR WHERE THE WOMANS ARE. The chair only plays a factor when men that have smaller feet, may not have completely fallen over when he leans his head on the wall, he will lie at an even balance, but when he picks up the chair, the weight of the chair tips him over and he no longer standing, he fell over and his head against the wall is keeping him up, but no one knows that, so he has the illusion of standing on his feet when all of his body has toppled over forward and the wall is keeping him from falling over foward.
In 99% of the cases, if a man removes his shoes, then backs up 3 steps, the extra 3 inches that this will bring him closer to the wall will allow his feet to be more flat footed, where he is not toppled over, and will be able lift the chair and be able to maintain his balance to stand upright. This is an illusion balance trick that was created most likely by a woman that kept it to herself and died with the secret. I give you my life for the statement, this has nothing to do with a womans spleen being stronger because she is designed to have babies.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul_J:
This practice of lifting a chair 3 steps back from the wall was passed off as medical fact that a womans spleen was stronger than a mans because she is designed to have children...

Do you have any idea what a "spleen" is ?

I've always heard that this parlour trick has to do with the center of gravity of the subjects, women's typically being lower.

Yes I know what a spleen is, I have a deformed one. This is the way it was described on Bill Nye. It has nothing to do with hips either. Again, the mans weight is on his toes and he has the illusion of standing when he fell over. The wall is keeping him up. Put shoes on back up 3 of your feet size, straighten legs, bend over, let your head touch the wall. NO chair...forget the chair.... Now try to stand up again without using hands....arms or shoulders.... You can't. Knowing this the creator of this added a chair to turn it into a lifting contest. The guys can't get back on their feet with no chair. When their head hits the wall, if the wall had wheels, if you were able to pull the wall away from the man, most men would fall down because he already fell over. The wall is keeping him up.

Again, the basis for this myth is the location of the center of gravity. the woman's center of gravity is (typically) closer to her pelvis than the man's. when the man leans forward, his center of gravity moves forward with him, while the woman's, being closer to the hinge point, does not. you can check this by getting a man and a woman of exactly the same height and weight, and moving them each back by the SAME distance until one can lift the chair and one cannot.

however, I have no idea where the "spleen" gobbeldygook came from, so that would classify as a busted myth.

your next trick: stand with your heels against a wall, bend forward, and touch your toes.

You get a man and woman of the same weight and height... still does not matter, the difference is in the show size, in proportion, the womans feet will be smaller than the mans, this allowing her to be closer to the wall. The trick is with distance, not lifting, pelvic region, or their ability to have babies.

It amazes me that no one saw this? I did this many times with many men... NO CHAIR! They can not straighten up again without the chair.. that in itself should tell you something, that it has nothing to do with lifting.
If it were possible to move the wall back if it had wheels, that guy would fall over. Even if you place or force your heels to the floor, (I seen men do) the wall is still holding him up.

Typo...meant to say shoe size.
God forbid we-rite some of the science texts on this one... lets not do that.

Piltdown man was in the science books for how long?

quote:

Originally posted by Paul_J:


You get a man and woman of the same weight and height... still does not matter, the difference is in the show size, in proportion, the womans feet will be smaller than the mans, this allowing her to be closer to the wall. The trick is with distance, not lifting, pelvic region, or their ability to have babies.

It amazes me that no one saw this? I did this many times with many men... NO CHAIR! They can not straighten up again without the chair.. that in itself should tell you something, that it has nothing to do with lifting.
If it were possible to move the wall back if it had wheels, that guy would fall over. Even if you place or force your heels to the floor, (I seen men do) the wall is still holding him up.

it doesn't matter how many cute little emoticons you use. women's feet are not proportionately smaller than mens. it is the balance that makes the difference in this parlor trick - for that's what it is, and you learn the mechanics of it by studying manuals on parlor tricks.

like I said: perform the trick with a man and woman of the same height and body weight, and with their feet the same distance from the wall, and you will find that the man exceeds his balance sooner than the woman.

Is that what your extensive research leads you to believe?
Did you try this without the chair?
I know you didn't because you wouldn't be here trying to stick up for a myth passed off as science.
How dense are you?
If a guy can't stand upright without a chair in his arms.. answer... it has nothing to do with a chair? It's distance.

Everyone knows women have smaller feet than men.. it one of the biggest questions on the net as well.

http://qna.indiatimes.com/inde...n&question_id=176553

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/107601

http://www.chacha.com/question...can-womens-shoe-size

People like you put Galileo in jail.

I don't call people dumb for falling for a trick.. I only call people dumb when facts are pointed out to them and stick up for myths.

"Why do women have smaller feet?"


"Asked by Nick Pettefair of Swindon, United Kingdom

On average, human females are smaller in stature, have smaller bones, smaller skulls, and have smaller joints than human males.

Women have narrower shoulders, (but wider pelvises) and tinier elbows, wrists, hands, ankles, and knees (giving women a greater tendency to be knock-kneed). If this were not enough, women also have smaller brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and less muscle mass (but a higher percentage of body fat). Women’s legs constitute only 51 per cent of their overall height compared with 56 per cent for men.

Consistent with all of the above, women’s feet are smaller than men’s. Given the other anatomical gender differences, it would be surprising if it were otherwise.

The human skeleton is balanced for maximum efficiency. It takes something major to alter the body’s engineering needs. The weight from breasts, even very large breasts, is not nearly enough of a factor. All other things being equal, a woman with very large breasts is no more likely to have a problem keeping her balance than a woman of identical height with very small breasts and with identical sized feet.

And the old saying, "women’s feet are smaller to let them stand closer to the kitchen sink", just doesn’t measure up either.

Stephen Juan, Ph.D. is an anthropologist at the University of Sydney. Email your Odd Body questions to s.juan@edfac.usyd.edu.au"



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...body_women_footsize/

Why do women have smaller feet?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...body_women_footsize/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_...en_have_smaller_feet

"larger hands and feet than women"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man

"...dimorphism in foot length proportionate to stature"

"The preponderance of existing results suggests that, relative to stature, women have
smaller feet than men."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ant...otSizeDimorphism.pdf

Table I. Summary of some published findings on foot length as a proportion of stature for men and women.
Citation Population n
Male foot length
as a % of stature
Female foot length
as a % of stature
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Apache 83 14.93 14.58
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Aztec 84 15.38 14.98
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Cora 61 15.21 15.08
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Maricopa 70 15.19 15.20
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Mohave 71 15.15 14.62
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Navaho 79 14.66 14.66
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Otomi 75 15.45 13.73
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Papago 80 15.07 14.83
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Pima 83 14.99 14.83
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Pueblos 183 14.88 14.68
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Tarahumare 32 14.82 14.41
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Tarasco 80 15.18 14.85
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Southern Ute 70 15.12 15.16
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Yuma 34 15.01 14.85
Hrdlicˇka 1928 African–Americans 26 15.89 16.11
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Caucasian–Americans 455 14.97 14.42
Hrdlicˇka 1925
(after Quetelet, 1835?)
Belgians ? 15.8 15.0
Hrdlicˇka 1925 (after Martin 1958?) Lithuanian ? 14.6 14.4
Hrdlicˇka 1925 (after Martin 1958?) Letts (Latvian) ? 14.6 14.8
Hrdlicˇka 1925 (after Martin 1958?) Badenese (German) ? 16.0 15.5
Davis 1990
(after Todd & Lindala 1928)
African–Americans 135 14.7 14.6
Davis 1990
(after Todd & Lindala 1928)
Caucasian–Americans 136 14.3 13.5
Davis 1990
(after Davenport & Steggerda 1929)
African–Jamaicans 100 15.4 15.2
Davis 1990 (after Steggerda 1932) Dutch 130 15.3 14.9
Robbins 1986 US age 14 and up 527 right 15.128
left 15.199
right 14.726
left 14.750
Anderson et al. 1956 US 18-year-olds 20 14.9 15.1
Davis 1990 African–American
18–26-year-olds
110 right 15.58
left 15.61
right 15.30
left 15.31
Davis 1990 Caucasian–American
18–26-year-olds
130 right 15.27
left 15.24
right 14.58
left 14.61
Giles and Vallandigham 1991 US soldiers 8012 15.346 14.926
Wunderlich and Cavanagh 2001 US soldiers 784 15.36 15.01
Barker and Scheuer 1998 Predominantly
Caucasian (London)
105 right footprint:
15.222
right footprint:
14.853
left footprint:
15.189
left footprint:
14.806
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ant...otSizeDimorphism.pdf

For the love of God... contact the show... i broke a myth here!

quote:

Originally posted by Paul_J:
For the love of God... contact the show... i broke a myth here!

sorry, I can't demonstrate my hypothesis, because my wife is not exactly the same height and weight as I am, and I don't have a major supply of volunteers to work with.

but still: the fact remains that the the woman can get proportionately further from the wall, than the man can.

and in case you haven't noticed, the staff doesn't hang out here much. everyone you talk to in here are also viewers.

quote:

hypothesis

quote:

hypothesis

I'm not talking hypothesis my friend, I pointed enough facts with links my friend, and you have NOT shown in any way shape or form that a woman with relative to stature to a man is further from the wall. I have shown facts opposite with that to prove my point.
Stop making a fool of yourself..

I have clearly broken a myth here... and like Galileo, there is always going to be people sticking up for the myth, that is you.


"The preponderance of existing results suggests that, relative to stature, women have
smaller feet than men."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ant...otSizeDimorphism.pdf

Table I. Summary of some published findings on foot length as a proportion of stature for men and women.
Citation Population n
Male foot length
as a % of stature
Female foot length
as a % of stature
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Apache 83 14.93 14.58
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Aztec 84 15.38 14.98
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Cora 61 15.21 15.08
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Maricopa 70 15.19 15.20
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Mohave 71 15.15 14.62
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Navaho 79 14.66 14.66
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Otomi 75 15.45 13.73
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Papago 80 15.07 14.83
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Pima 83 14.99 14.83
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Pueblos 183 14.88 14.68
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Tarahumare 32 14.82 14.41
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Tarasco 80 15.18 14.85
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Southern Ute 70 15.12 15.16
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Yuma 34 15.01 14.85
Hrdlicˇka 1928 African–Americans 26 15.89 16.11
Hrdlicˇka 1935 Caucasian–Americans 455 14.97 14.42
Hrdlicˇka 1925
(after Quetelet, 1835?)
Belgians ? 15.8 15.0
Hrdlicˇka 1925 (after Martin 1958?) Lithuanian ? 14.6 14.4
Hrdlicˇka 1925 (after Martin 1958?) Letts (Latvian) ? 14.6 14.8
Hrdlicˇka 1925 (after Martin 1958?) Badenese (German) ? 16.0 15.5
Davis 1990
(after Todd & Lindala 1928)
African–Americans 135 14.7 14.6
Davis 1990
(after Todd & Lindala 1928)
Caucasian–Americans 136 14.3 13.5
Davis 1990
(after Davenport & Steggerda 1929)
African–Jamaicans 100 15.4 15.2
Davis 1990 (after Steggerda 1932) Dutch 130 15.3 14.9
Robbins 1986 US age 14 and up 527 right 15.128
left 15.199
right 14.726
left 14.750
Anderson et al. 1956 US 18-year-olds 20 14.9 15.1
Davis 1990 African–American
18–26-year-olds
110 right 15.58
left 15.61
right 15.30
left 15.31
Davis 1990 Caucasian–American
18–26-year-olds
130 right 15.27
left 15.24
right 14.58
left 14.61
Giles and Vallandigham 1991 US soldiers 8012 15.346 14.926
Wunderlich and Cavanagh 2001 US soldiers 784 15.36 15.01
Barker and Scheuer 1998 Predominantly
Caucasian (London)
105 right footprint:
15.222
right footprint:
14.853
left footprint:
15.189
left footprint:
14.806
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ant...otSizeDimorphism.pdf

Please don't come back with some out of the blue freak of nature where a 5 year old girl has bigger feet than a 6 foot man... We are talking for all practical purposes... because I have found men lift this chair with their shoes on...but that is rare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKtuCTPK8oE

I have shown facts opposite with what you said that to prove my point.

I have provided demonstrable research and credible links. Like DANIEL M. T. FESSLER1, KEVIN J. HALEY1 & ROSHNI D. LAL2
1Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture and Department of Anthropology, UCLA,
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553, That have stated womens feet are smaller than a mans.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ant...otSizeDimorphism.pdf

I have used many volunteers, as you said you didn't. Unlike you I speak from experienced research. Believing in something for a long time does not make it right.

Need more?
"Abstract
Background: The preponderance of existing results suggests that, relative to stature, women have smaller feet than men. "

"Analyses explored sex differences in the ratio between foot length and stature, and tested for nonlinearity. Results: Although varying in degree across populations, proportionate to stature, female foot length is consistently smaller than male foot length. Conclusion: Given the biomechanical challenges posed by pregnancy, smaller female proportionate foot length is somewhat surprising, as foot length affects dorsoventral stability. It is possible that the observed pattern reflects intersexual selection for small female foot size, a cue of youth and nulliparity:
http://www.informaworld.com/sm...l~content=a713723507

I am NOT your friend, for starters. and YOU are claiming because one factor fits your hypothesis, that your chosen factor is THE relevant factor. the common term we use for this in the lines of work I am in is "tunnel vision."

you are correct that the spleen has nothing to do with it.

my experiment: barefoot, I could just perform the trick without a chair. wearing my 25# tool belt, I could move 2 inches further back before my balance was too far forward to perform the trick, also without the chair.

OMG
WhY are you using a tool belt? As I said in my first, I can lift the chair 3 steps of my bare feet back, head against wall, knees straight.

I and many other men did this with our shoes on and could NOT get upright again EVEN without the chair in our hand. So commom sense should tell you that when you backed up 3 feet and put your head on the wall and could not get up, what does lifting a chair have to do with it? The exrta inches in the shoes brings most men far enough from the wall, where are no longer standing, they are being held up by the wall and don't know it. They already fell over. The wall is holding him up. The chair is there to convert what really happened (distance to the wall) to lifting something. The chair is an illusion. That guy can't stand up straight again with nothing in his hand because he fell over the moment his head touched the wall.

Put your boots on.... nikes...
put your foot on the wall thats 1..one more behind it 2...one more behind 3..being there bring both feet together.
Bend over down to your hips straighten knees legs... before you lean your head on the wall, look at how far you are from the wall, bend over... when your head hits the wall you may hear a bang. Why, because you fell on it, at this point you have fallen over.... with no chair...forget the chair, try to lift yourself up now without using your arms hands or shoulders? You can't, so what does the chair have to do with it. You can't do it without the chair because you are not standing, you are leaning up on a wall that is holding your body up.
That in itself should tell you that standing up straight on your feet has nothing to do with you lifting anything, because you can't do it without lifting nothing. They placed you far enough from the wall to get straight up again... they have you fall over to put your head on the wall. That's the trick right there, but the chair diverts the attention away from the mans distance to the wall. And converts this to a strength contest.
I'm not going over it again....Please who ever is there from the show...I believe they will try this in their own home, and when they are convinced of this, it will be on the show.
MYTH BUSTED!