"Why (Most) Women Shouldn't Run"

I think he is pretty much right on the money. Running is very hard on the body, especially as we age. For women, in most cases, this is even more true. There are alot of other ways to exercise that put much less stress on the body, that's pretty obvious isn't it? Most of us run because we love it, but can you honestly say you think it is always healthy?

I need pics to understand this concept.

Oprah Winfrey ran a marathon and didn't die.

Running probably isn't good for most males either. Natural selection, as you say it is.

1500 foot strikes per mile (assuming you're running 180 strides per minute), calculates out to an 8:20 mile.

I have no idea what he meant by average person, but my guess is, it includes everything from elites to the slowest rec runners.

And for what the study says, it says that if you have a large 'q' angle, you are more likely to develop injuries.

A list of a few of the reasons put forth in the past why women shouldn't run: women were considered (by men) to be too pure and delicate, women would harm if not destroy their reproductive systems if they ran. In the Olympics women were finally allowed (by men) to run 800m but no farther lest they "exhaust" themselves.

Now it's the Q angle. Q angle this: take a look at any photo of Uta Pippig or Joan Samuelson, or Jenny Crain or Margaret Groos. Elite, fit and fast. They are/were wider through the hips than the usual elite middle/long distance woman runner. Didn't seem to hurt 'em none.

Most men who have huge guts shouldn't run either lest they injure themselves or have heart attacks. For that matter most overweight men shouldn't even shovel snow lest they drop dead of a heart attack.

Some people are clearly not built to run. Some are men, some are women. Any theory that starts out "most women should or should not" is often a advanced by a man that "most women" will ignore.

I'm not sure what is considered a more "female" body since women's bodies differ so much. All I said was that I don't have the body of a 12-year-old boy. So I'm not some average plodder if that's what you are thinking. My injury had nothing to do with my shape anyway. It was a result of a combination of factors that can cause anyone to get injured: overtraining, poor nutrition, low body weight, running on nothing but concrete, wearing worn out shoes for too long, etc.

Oprah Winfrey isn't even an athlete. Lance Armstrong ran a marathon too and didn't he get a stress fracture?

'Ya know, this guy is speaking outside his realm. He's just another 'muscle head'. With his reasoning, former world-beaters like Patti Dillon or Priscilla Welch should have never taken up running.

I have a female friend, 48, who happens to have unusually large ("breeder") hips, although she is otherwise normal to lean in build. This year she ran her first ever marathon, and with good coaching she progressed from 8 miles to 26 for her longest run, with scarcely a niggle. Although she will never be a world-beater, her high "Q" angle in no way led her to a double-knee trans[plant, having her uterus fall out, or any other such "womanly" problems. he did improve her soccer game considerably, with the extra stamina she acquired.

I see the "angle" of this article as at least mildly disparaging to all those women runners, with their "male bodies", while all you "real" women are best served at your local fitness center, where Mr. Boyle is more than ready to lighten your pocketbook while catering to your "Q" angle.

"You GO (womanly proportioned) girl!"

I agree with the article. Most of the women I work with are short and very round. Its easy for me to say, "Damn, how can you live like that, just go out and run" but for the majority, their skeletal structure isn't strong enough to support the impact their body fat would cause.

The college women I coached proved this to me. We could never recruit a decent female distance runner. (No school of education for one). So we got average runners (22:00 5k runners). My inclination was since what was holding most of them back was the extra weight, I would just have them concentrate on gradually increasing their mileage and place the emphasis on that-easy running of 50-60 a week was the goal. What I discovered was they kept getting injured, primarily due to the fact their bodies probably weren't designed to handle that. I thought they would eventually adapt but it became one injury after another.

The difference with males is untrained overweight male probably (I suspect) can overcome that obstacle, stronger bones, more muscle.

That's not to say that any woman can't benefit from an easy fitness program of jogging/walking/weight training, which is certainly better than no excercise. But probably a larger majority of females than males are unlikely to handle a competitive distance running training program designed to develop them further as a competitor.

Darn, an I thought coaching women would be a piece of cake since most of them weren't training much to begin with. Just do more and I thought they would all improve rapidly.

science man wrote:

I need pics to understand this concept.

slaps wrote:

Darn, an I thought coaching women would be a piece of cake since most of them weren't training much to begin with. Just do more and I thought they would all improve rapidly.

With that kind of approach to coaching, are you sure that the problem was not with you instead of with them?

Naturally anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, but I have to throw mine in. In high school, I ran against a girl from another school who looked like just a slighly more solid version of a fatty. She was short and wide with big hips. And she absolutely crushed myself and all the little, skinny girls on my team and hers. And then we found out that she had already run 10 miles that morning. I don't know what happened to her, but it would have been a shame if she had decided not to try running because she wasn't "built like a runner".

Obviously if she was able to run non-stop 10 miles the day of a race she is an exception.

My experience was with women who went through high school never running more than 4 or 5 miles. A 10 mile run was something mentally they could not comprehend. Even the ones who were'nt fat.

I love that Q angle.

Oprah Winfrey didn't run a marathon, she walked and at best jogged.

The point of the original article was that some women are not going to be great runners and no matter how much training they do isn't going to change that. Of course the same applies to some men.

jaguar1 wrote:

'Ya know, this guy is speaking outside his realm. He's just another 'muscle head'. With his reasoning, former world-beaters like Patti Dillon or Priscilla Welch should have never taken up running.

i agree with you. he takes the parts of science that he agrees with and discards the rest. he reminds me of how minimalists abuse science to back their beliefs.

If you really read this closely, the author isn't slamming women who aren't specifically built for running. The author is just stating a fact: every sport has a 'perfect' build that enhances longevity. I happen to be 5'3" and about 100 pounds pretty naturally, and have been running for over 30 years, with injuries here and there, but nothing compared to if my body type were different.