I thought it was D.J., not M.C.
I thought it was D.J., not M.C.
seriously???? wrote:
"Happiest teams" and "nice guy"??? Wrong and wrong - talk to many former Duke runners. Many of Duke's athletic teams are successful, happy, healthy, and well coached. The women's cross country/track team doesn't fit into that category.
Sally Meyerhoff was perhaps the most relentlessly positive person I've ever known and she was proud of her Duke affiliation. I know virtually nothing of the program, but I can't imagine Sally surviving in a negative environment. Then again, perhaps she was so upbeat that anything less than that didn't faze her.
I'm a female that ran in the 80's at a D1 school. Coaches weighed us in weekly. Some girls had eating disorders some disordered eating. Theory was the lighter you are the faster you run. It worked for some. Let's face it running in college is a job and the coach is your boss. Why is it ok for an actress to lose weight for a part, but not ok for a runner to lose weight for there running career? Both are career and performance related. Those with eating disorders have psychological problems that would come out if not in the runners life than in another way in their personal life. There are underlying issues that shouldn't be blamed on running. People are treated poorly by their employers all the time. Doesn't make it right, but that's life. Only the strong survive. That's why it's a huge commitment to run on scholarship in college and needs to be seriously considered. People get so excited that their kid go a scholarship but are these kids really ready for the pressures of both full time school and work?
been there done that wrote:I'm a female that ran in the 80's at a D1 school. Coaches weighed us in weekly. Some girls had eating disorders some disordered eating. Theory was the lighter you are the faster you run. It worked for some. Let's face it running in college is a job and the coach is your boss. Why is it ok for an actress to lose weight for a part, but not ok for a runner to lose weight for there running career? Both are career and performance related. Those with eating disorders have psychological problems that would come out if not in the runners life than in another way in their personal life. There are underlying issues that shouldn't be blamed on running. People are treated poorly by their employers all the time. Doesn't make it right, but that's life. Only the strong survive. That's why it's a huge commitment to run on scholarship in college and needs to be seriously considered. People get so excited that their kid go a scholarship but are these kids really ready for the pressures of both full time school and work?
Some really good points in there - thank you for yet another perspective. Your final sentence says a lot, and to answer the question, "Most of the time, NO." On the other hand, SHOULD the sport really be "work?"
I once perused the contents of a female friend’s appointment planner. Sure it was a breach of privacy, but I will share this for the good of mankind. Like any black book, it contained notes, birthdays, important dates and addresses. However, that was only about three percent of it.
The rest was a dietary diary, with each day containing a terse summary of her consumption: good, OK, bad, AWFUL—mostly the latter. Sometimes she would compose detailed eating plans that seemed a bit scant on nutrients: lunch-cup of soup, roll; dinner-piece of chicken, salad. She would skip breakfast but had a shake in there somewhere. Also included were a few caloric calculations, with totals peaking around 1150, which was probably lower than her BMR, and she hit the treadmill for 30-60 minutes daily to lose weight.
She might have been carrying a few extra pounds on her small gymnast frame, but I found her attractive and certainly not in need of the thigh liposuction she was keen on getting. She was a typical American girl with body image issues. This mindset plus stress, competitive distance running and the proliferation of high fructose corn syrup, BOOM—eating disorder.
been there done that wrote:
I'm a female that ran in the 80's at a D1 school. Coaches weighed us in weekly. Some girls had eating disorders some disordered eating. Theory was the lighter you are the faster you run. It worked for some. Let's face it running in college is a job and the coach is your boss. Why is it ok for an actress to lose weight for a part, but not ok for a runner to lose weight for there running career? Both are career and performance related. Those with eating disorders have psychological problems that would come out if not in the runners life than in another way in their personal life. There are underlying issues that shouldn't be blamed on running. People are treated poorly by their employers all the time. Doesn't make it right, but that's life. Only the strong survive. That's why it's a huge commitment to run on scholarship in college and needs to be seriously considered. People get so excited that their kid go a scholarship but are these kids really ready for the pressures of both full time school and work?
Actually it is not really ok for actresses and models to restrict their diets in a way that makes them all a size zero - when most of them are not naturally like that.
It is a free world and women can do so if they want, and people can market this unnatural ideal as well. But it does contribute to the constant barrage of messages that everyday women are too fat - even if they are just healthy.
We aren't honest about it. The industry pretends that all these starlets are normal and they all downplay the effort they make to look perfect. That is very different from how we treat say, olympians. We don't all pretend that it is easy to be one and that we all are failures if we are not olympians - society is honest about the hard work it takes.
been there done that wrote:
I'm a female that ran in the 80's at a D1 school. Coaches weighed us in weekly. Some girls had eating disorders some disordered eating. Theory was the lighter you are the faster you run. It worked for some. Let's face it running in college is a job and the coach is your boss. Why is it ok for an actress to lose weight for a part, but not ok for a runner to lose weight for there running career? Both are career and performance related. Those with eating disorders have psychological problems that would come out if not in the runners life than in another way in their personal life. There are underlying issues that shouldn't be blamed on running. People are treated poorly by their employers all the time. Doesn't make it right, but that's life. Only the strong survive. That's why it's a huge commitment to run on scholarship in college and needs to be seriously considered. People get so excited that their kid go a scholarship but are these kids really ready for the pressures of both full time school and work?
this mentality *might* be ok if thinner did equal faster, but it doesn't. Everyone's body is different. Some people will never look super-thin no matter how hard they try because of their bone structure, and where they tend to store fat. Having some COACH who is not a health professional weigh in their athletes and decide whether or not they need to lose weight is dysfunctional and mostly, harmful. How would a coach know what the best body weight for a female athlete is? Coaches are not doctors, physiologists or nutritionists and they should not attempt to be. It is NOT in their job description.
The few girls on DI teams who might actually benefit from a minor weight loss should be directed to see a sports nutritionist to improve their eating behaviors. This is the most appropriate/helpful way to go about this.
The whole "your coach is like an employer" is bull. Did the athletes sign a scholarship contract upfront with the understanding that some percentage of them would develop eating disorders? Did they agree to let an adult coach manipulate them? When an adult actress agrees to lose weight for a role, she enters into that contact with an understanding of what that means. When a teenage girl gets recruited by a coach who promises to be her "coach" or her "mentor," the situation is very different.
been there done that wrote:
People are treated poorly by their employers all the time. Doesn't make it right, but that's life. Only the strong survive.
When an employee is treated poorly by an employer, they have four options:
1) quit the job.
2) form a union.
3) call in OSHA or other regulatory agency.
4) sue.
What option do you recommend that a poorly treated runner take? The NCAA limits on transfers helps protect a___e coaches by making transfers really difficult. It is kinda hard to unionize a cross-country team for obvious reasons. Regulatory agencies haven't really bothered to spell out actually what is acceptable behavior for a cross-country team coach.
Pretty much the only option remaining to a bunch of teenagers is filing a suit, and even that option sucks. How many lawyers are going to take a case where the only witnesses are a bunch of teenagers and the monetary amount in dispute is so low?
As a practical matter, the only time that a suit will be filed is when there is a corpse. Short of killing them, a college coach can expect to do pretty much anything they want with the health of the team.
Your employer has no such latitude.
been there done that wrote:
Why is it ok for an actress to lose weight for a part, but not ok for a runner to lose weight for there running career? Both are career and performance related.
Terrible analogy. When an actress/actor loses weight for a role, it has nothing to do with "performance." It is for appearance, to look like a certain character. They also are not left on their own. They have personal trainers, nutritionists, etc. to get them there in a healthy way. Of course there are plenty of actresses with eating disorders and coke habits as well, but that does not make it "okay."
Runners do not need to lose weight to look like runners. Everyone's body is different. If you train and eat right, your body will adapt to its best weight and shape.
As a former runner at the school, there was a lot of issues. The girls on the team were great and for the most part good to each other (at least when I was there). I have many friends from the team that I still keep in contact with. The problem wasn't the girls, it was the attidue of the coaches. If you were running well, dealing with the mileage, then you were golden. If it didn't work for you and you got injured, then you clearly just weren't trying hard enough and didn't care. If you couldn't race workouts and then have enough left to race races, something was just wrong with you...not the coaching methodology.
And, when I was there, there was a time period when eating problems flourished, and I was told point-blank that it was not my place to worry about it when I voiced concern over a teammate. Can't say this environment helped me improve or flourish as a runner.
Been There Done That wrote:
The problem wasn't the girls, it was the attidue of the coaches. If you were running well, dealing with the mileage, then you were golden. If it didn't work for you and you got injured, then you clearly just weren't trying hard enough and didn't care. If you couldn't race workouts and then have enough left to race races, something was just wrong with you...not the coaching methodology.
I ran at a big D1 school and I consistently witnessed this attitude from the coaches. It seemed like, to them, there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with their training/workouts/advice, so if you didn't run well through it, you HAD to be the problem. Like most any program, the training worked well for some but poorly for others. Yet, instead of determining why it didn't work for the unsuccessful and adjusting (or at least addressing the problem in an open-minded manner, objectively seeking the root of the problem), the assumption was made that there was "something wrong" with you as an individual - whether it be your attitude, level of commitment, or eating/body physicality. Within this environment, insecurities flourish and people's minds get pretty messed up.
lsdkfj;slkdhf;sdklf wrote:
It is a free world and women can do so if they want, and people can market this unnatural ideal as well. But it does contribute to the constant barrage of messages that everyday women are too fat - even if they are just healthy.
Take a look around: Clearly the idea that women ought to be thin like models has not had much influence on American society. I remember back in the 80s there was a huge push against anorexia and how the promotion of thin models and actresses were giving women body image issues that were a real health problem. So people started telling women that "big is beautiful," and not to think about being thin. Well, look where that has gotten us - a country full of unhealthy fat women (and the men to go with them), and a health care nightmare a million times greater than anorexia ever was (or ever could have become: images of thin actresses was never going to overpower the food industries success at making people overeat).
Been There Done That wrote:As a former runner at the school, there was a lot of issues. The girls on the team were great and for the most part good to each other (at least when I was there). I have many friends from the team that I still keep in contact with. The problem wasn't the girls, it was the attidue of the coaches. If you were running well, dealing with the mileage, then you were golden. If it didn't work for you and you got injured, then you clearly just weren't trying hard enough and didn't care. If you couldn't race workouts and then have enough left to race races, something was just wrong with you...not the coaching methodology.
And, when I was there, there was a time period when eating problems flourished, and I was told point-blank that it was not my place to worry about it when I voiced concern over a teammate. Can't say this environment helped me improve or flourish as a runner.
Thanks - I appreciate the clarification! I'm sorry it was like that, and is apparently similar at many schools.
does anyone else think the writing quality is getting a little worse as the story goes on?
I feel like this sport attracts people with eating disorders.
You are really reaching here - of course there is an incredible obesity problem and it is costs billions of dollars in health care. That does not mean that its OK for us to encourage or accept eating disorders among young women. And the rise in obesity in this country has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "big is beautiful" campaign and everything to do with change in lifestyle behaviors such as sedentary occupations and an overabundance of cheap, processed, unhealthy food items at every turn.
rsbones wrote:
lsdkfj;slkdhf;sdklf wrote:It is a free world and women can do so if they want, and people can market this unnatural ideal as well. But it does contribute to the constant barrage of messages that everyday women are too fat - even if they are just healthy.
Take a look around: Clearly the idea that women ought to be thin like models has not had much influence on American society. I remember back in the 80s there was a huge push against anorexia and how the promotion of thin models and actresses were giving women body image issues that were a real health problem. So people started telling women that "big is beautiful," and not to think about being thin. Well, look where that has gotten us - a country full of unhealthy fat women (and the men to go with them), and a health care nightmare a million times greater than anorexia ever was (or ever could have become: images of thin actresses was never going to overpower the food industries success at making people overeat).
Don't you see, if enough runners become anorexic, it will cancel out the obesity and the USA will be healthy on average again!
lsdkfj;slkdhf;sdklf wrote:
Actually it is not really ok for actresses and models to restrict their diets in a way that makes them all a size zero - when most of them are not naturally like that.
When did she mention models? Hint: she didn't. She used the example of an actress losing weight for a role. I don't recall any major outcry against Natalie Portman for losing 20 pounds for a role in Black Swan. In fact, I'm pretty sure they gave her the Oscar. "been there done that" was making the point that Natalie Portman lost an unhealthy amount of weight for a movie and society applauded her for it, but when college runners do it society says they have a disease, even though if it improved performance it should be treated the same.
I don't necessarily agree with the point because from what I have observed, female runners who lose a bunch of weight run really well for a month of so but their bodies can't sustain it. Their job is sustained high performance, so excessively low weight doesn't help them to perform their job. But if it did, "been there done that" would definitely be making a crucial point.... you can disagree with someone without intentionally misconstruing their point.
kljaivw wrote:
lsdkfj;slkdhf;sdklf wrote:Actually it is not really ok for actresses and models to restrict their diets in a way that makes them all a size zero - when most of them are not naturally like that.
When did she mention models? Hint: she didn't. She used the example of an actress losing weight for a role. I don't recall any major outcry against Natalie Portman for losing 20 pounds for a role in Black Swan. In fact, I'm pretty sure they gave her the Oscar. "been there done that" was making the point that Natalie Portman lost an unhealthy amount of weight for a movie and society applauded her for it, but when college runners do it society says they have a disease, even though if it improved performance it should be treated the same.
I don't necessarily agree with the point because from what I have observed, female runners who lose a bunch of weight run really well for a month of so but their bodies can't sustain it. Their job is sustained high performance, so excessively low weight doesn't help them to perform their job. But if it did, "been there done that" would definitely be making a crucial point.... you can disagree with someone without intentionally misconstruing their point.
No, of course there wasn't an outcry against Natalie Portman for losing weight for a role WHERE SHE PLAYED AN ANOREXIC. Natalie Portman's job is to portray, to act. She is an adult who gets paid to play a role, who signed a contract to play a role and knew full well that this was demanded of whoever played that role. She probably had health professionals involved in helping her lose the weight. I doubt the director made subtle, inappropriate hints about Natalie's weight prior to and during filming in order to get her to drop weight.
My experience may be old... but I can tell you 100% RT NEVER treated me like that. He was a fantastic coach. I was also one of the slowest guys on the team.