Biotech: Help me justify good looking females with high strength values

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Gollum

I tend to agree. But, actually, isn’t that kind of explosive strength quite well simulated by extra effort?

Gollum +1. I agree. The only way to achieve greater explosive strength is bioengineering for different systems.

[Gollum]

I’ve got a little question, Alonsua: in which game world are you playing? Modern days or future?

I say that, because bioengineering improves very fast and solutions that we will discover soon or later may completely go over what we can imagine nowadays. If I got things well, GURPS authors had to change TL descriptions between the third and the fourth edition because biotechnologies improved much faster than expected and, actually, much faster than other technologies.

So, if you are playing in a near (or even far) future, you could just assess that very strong women without bulging muscles are possible because there are biotechnologies that we don’t know at all today. Bingo! Problem solved.

Now, if you play in our modern real world, nowadays, the question remains, of course.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Gollum

I’ve got a little question, Alonsua: in which game world are you playing? Modern days or future?

I say that, because bioengineering improves very fast and solutions that we will discover soon or later may completely go over what we can imagine nowadays. If I got things well, GURPS authors had to change TL descriptions between the third and the fourth edition because biotechnologies improved much faster than expected and, actually, much faster than other technologies.

So, if you are playing in a near (or even far) future, you could just assess that very strong women without bulging muscles are possible because there are biotechnologies that we don’t know at all today. Bingo! Problem solved.

Now, if you play in our modern real world, nowadays, the question remains, of course.

Yes it is actually a modern world. I even use "=today()" so it is real time based. However there are differences between our world and the setting, such as some TL9 and in very unique cases TL10 too (proteus virus).

[mlangsdorf]

As I said in your other thread, you can "simply" change the ratio of fast-twitch muscles to slow-twitch muscles to improve instant muscle performance without increasing mass.

Most non-human primates apparently use a 2:1 ratio of fast-twitch to slow twitch (compared to 1:1 for humans), and are roughly 50% stronger, pound per pound, than a human. You could go even higher - say 3:1, with longer muscle fibers and better attachment points to the bones - for a better ST:mass ratio. If you assume the 3:1 ratio makes someone 70% stronger by mass, then you can hit ST 13 at a reasonable 124 lbs (versus ~10 for a normal human) and ST 14 at 155 lbs (versus not quite 11 for a normal human). No extra muscle mass required.

The fatigue problems are going to be substantial, and fine motor control might be lacking. More genetic engineering might be able to address one or both issues.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

As I said in your other thread, you can "simply" change the ratio of fast-twitch muscles to slow-twitch muscles to improve instant muscle performance without increasing mass.

Most non-human primates apparently use a 2:1 ratio of fast-twitch to slow twitch (compared to 1:1 for humans), and are roughly 50% stronger, pound per pound, than a human. You could go even higher - say 3:1, with longer muscle fibers and better attachment points to the bones - for a better ST:mass ratio. If you assume the 3:1 ratio makes someone 70% stronger by mass, then you can hit ST 13 at a reasonable 124 lbs (versus ~10 for a normal human) and ST 14 at 155 lbs (versus not quite 11 for a normal human). No extra muscle mass required.

But you aren't going to boost HP that way, which seems to be one of Alonsua's goals.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But you aren't going to boost HP that way, which seems to be one of Alonsua's goals.

Exactly. HP is the most important thing at the moment.

[AlexanderHowl]

HP isn't just mass though, it is the ability to tolerate damage. If characters possess the ability to tolerate more damage, they may have higher HP. For example, characters could be genetically engineered to ignore shock, to prevent inflammation in damaged tissue, and to stop bleeding (all of which are why First Aid allows for HP recovery). A fifty percent reduction in all three could realistically justify a doubling in HP (though it would have the Massless, +0%, modifier), as characters would effectively be suffering half the effects of damage (a hundred percent reduction could realistically justify a double in HP and Unkillable 1, as characters will just keep coming until they are blown to smithereens).

[JazzJedi]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

As I said in your other thread, you can "simply" change the ratio of fast-twitch muscles to slow-twitch muscles to improve instant muscle performance without increasing mass.

Most non-human primates apparently use a 2:1 ratio of fast-twitch to slow twitch (compared to 1:1 for humans), and are roughly 50% stronger, pound per pound, than a human. You could go even higher - say 3:1, with longer muscle fibers and better attachment points to the bones - for a better ST:mass ratio. If you assume the 3:1 ratio makes someone 70% stronger by mass, then you can hit ST 13 at a reasonable 124 lbs (versus ~10 for a normal human) and ST 14 at 155 lbs (versus not quite 11 for a normal human). No extra muscle mass required.

The fatigue problems are going to be substantial, and fine motor control might be lacking. More genetic engineering might be able to address one or both issues.

Another thing to modify would be bone density and tendon strength. If bones and tendons could be strengthened by genegineering, this could easily justify +1 ST. Also, it is also known that where tendons attach themselves to bones is subtly different in people, but that these small differences can create very noticeable differences is certain kinds of strength (primarily arm strength) because it changes the leverage of the limb. At TL9+ it is likely possible to optimize the design of tendons and limb without really affecting the way they look (in general) to justify to +1 or even +2 ST.

[Anthony]

Your other option is social engineering. The big challenge with good looking strong women is that, assuming you're using the same kind of muscle and bone, a woman with a ST of X will have the same arm and shoulder size as a man with a ST of X, and our standards of beauty for women don't include obvious muscles.

[AlexanderHowl]

I do object to the idea that a strong woman is automatically unattractive. Of course bodybuilders are unattractive, their subculture celebrates their freakish appearance, but women who gain strength from weightlifting can actually be quite attractive. They tend to have well developed chests, meaning that they can fill out outfits quite well, and tend to have shapely arms and legs. If they have symmetric features, they can be more attractive than women who do not do weightlifting, which is why many swimsuit models include weightlifting in their preparations for photo shoots.