Why are women so bad at running?

until you can run faster than 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe on April 13, 2003 during the London Marathon, gfy man. women run hard too

It seems as though men respond better to PEDs than women do.

Xoman wrote:

Swimming 400m: Biedermann 3:40 vs Ledecky 3:56 6.8%

Running 1500: El Guerreoj 3:26 vs Dibaba 3:50 10.4% (Mile: 11.5%)

Swimming 800m: Yang 7:32 vs Ledecky 8:04 6.6%

Running 3000m: Komen 7:20 vs Junxia 8:06 9.5%

Swimming 1500m: Yang 14:31 vs Ledecky 15:20 5.3%

Running 5k: Bekele 12:37 vs Dibaba 14:11 11.0%

Differences in swimming are MUCH lower than in running. What is the physiological explanation for it? It seems that VO2MAX is more important in running, although I can't explain why, I'm not a doctor.

Is running more about muscular strength than swimming? Or is it the testosterone levels? I'm very curious why women can do very well in swimming vs men but are so bad in running.

A lot of swimming is having the buoyancy that allows you float effortlessly in water. Women have more body fat and thus are more buoyant. Wearing a wet suit also makes you more buoyant and more able to float effortlessly.

Humans are awful at swimming in general. Men are just slightly less awful because their physical advantages don't matter as much in water.

Any Which Way But Loose wrote:

It seems as though men respond better to PEDs than women do.

False and opposite of the truth

swammmm wrote:

Humans are awful at swimming in general. Men are just slightly less awful because their physical advantages don't matter as much in water.

That's true, the difference between cheetah and humans is MUCH less than between humans and proper fish like tuna or sailfish.

But WHY do the physical advantages that men have, like more muscle power and VO2MAX not matter as much in the water as during running? Isn't the aerobic system the limiter in both events? Ledecky was tested and her values were "not extraordinary". Pretty much all distance runners have extreme VO2MAXes when compared to others.

I also don't believe the fat argument. Phelps has 5% bodyfat, that's lower than most Olympic distance runners. If fat would make him faster, he would try to get it up. It is true however that Ledecky has quite a bit of fat, MUCH more than any Olympic distance runner I know. She would not be a good runner. But I doubt that's why she is fast, Gwen Jorgensen has lower fat and still swam fast times in triathlon.

Phelps and other top male swimmers can overcome lack of fat by their other physical advantages - long arms/reach, greater strength, stronger leg muscles. Female swimmers at the top all seem to have a decent amount of fat. The greater buoyancy makes them more adept at floating and consequently can move in the water with less effort.

Sally Vix wrote:

Phelps and other top male swimmers can overcome lack of fat by their other physical advantages - long arms/reach, greater strength, stronger leg muscles. Female swimmers at the top all seem to have a decent amount of fat. The greater buoyancy makes them more adept at floating and consequently can move in the water with less effort.

That makes sense. If we look at the physiological advantages of men - larger hearts, bigger muscle mass, more hemoglobin, and less body fat to carry - the body fat matters in running (=helps men, marathoners ~5% body fat, females more), whereas in swimming it might even help the women.

I don't think women are bad runners anymore, they are actually quite good especially when compared with events like shot put or javelin throw (15-16% diff) or even weightlifting (>50% diff).

It's just that they are phenomenal swimmers, it is very rare to have a sport were differences between men and women are only 5-6%.

Why are men worse at swimming than running?

not sure if this the right answer but in swimming power goes as the square of velocity whereas in running it's closer to linear. So being incrementally more powerful in the water gains you less speed, relatively speaking, than it would running. That same argument, however, would predict that men's and women's cycling performances should be more similar than running performances are (cycling also has a larger exponent) but I don't believe that's the case so who knows.

Women and men have equal ability as I have been told over the past 5 years. The answer must be that women have historically been held back more in running than in swimming. The times will all be the same in 10 years.

Stop holding them wrote:

Women and men have equal ability as I have been told over the past 5 years. The answer must be that women have historically been held back more in running than in swimming. The times will all be the same in 10 years.

Whoever is telling you that is wrong. They do not have the same physiological processes. Men and women are not identical.

Women aren't 'so bad' at running. Women are just slower than men. A 4:12 mile or 2:15 marathon is nothing to scoff at.

lordalmighty wrote:

Women aren't 'so bad' at running. Women are just slower than men. A 4:12 mile or 2:15 marathon is nothing to scoff at.

Way to not read the first post dude.

I think the word you're looking for is technique.

swimming is much more technique dependent than running and both men and women can learn the technique of swimming to the same extent whereas in running the physical characteristics such as testosterone and hemoglobin levels are more important simply because the technique is not so relevant as it is in swimming.

cheers.

More relevant question, why do some men feel they have to denigrate women?

Swimming is a technique

Simple laws of physics.

When it comes to running, power output is proportional to speed. Therefore, if top women have 90% VO2 max of top men, their velocity is 90%

With swimming, the main force to overcome comes with the viscosity of water. Force is proportional to velocity, power is proportional to velocity squared. 90% of power correspondingly translates to approx. 95% velocity.

In cycling, the difference in times would be even less substantial, since the drag force is proportional to square of velocity. Hence, the power comes as a cube of velocity, meaning 90% of power is approx. 97% velocity.

Etc.

cotton shirt wrote:

I think the word you're looking for is technique.

swimming is much more technique dependent than running and both men and women can learn the technique of swimming to the same extent whereas in running the physical characteristics such as testosterone and hemoglobin levels are more important simply because the technique is not so relevant as it is in swimming.

cheers.

+1. This is "duh" response and it doesn't take a LRC rocket scientist to figure it out. You people overthink things way too much.