Why are women on average slower runners than men?

Some crazy runner guy wrote:

Some people would argue that in extreme long distance events like swimming say 8-12 hour etc. women are even better than men.

I have heard this is true for ultrarunning, too. How on earth can they be slower at relatively "short" distances and then faster than men at the ultra-distances? Shouldn't the long list of physical advantages possessed by men help them beat women at ultras, too? confused.

This is a really good question and you've received mostly crap answers. "Testosterone" isn't an answer although it may be part of an answer. "Stronger" muscle isn't an answer although it might be part of one. My speculations are for distance running and not sprints.

1. reducing swing weight of lower limbs will lower the amount of energy necessary to run since a smaller mass will be accelerating. Lower bone density, less tendon/ligament mass, less fat mass, and less muscle mass would all contribute to swing weight. Since we need at least some muscle to swing the leg there is obviously a trade-off between too little and too much muscle and this will of course depend. If testosterone builds muscle mass/bone mass etc (along with GH and other hormones) then more will not always be better. Other than fat mass, this would suggest women should run faster.

2. The body itself will accelerate up/down and back/forth and the less mass in the trunk/upper limbs/head the less energy needed for this waisted energy.

3. gearing. males have longer bones as they grow for a longer period of time. Without giving it any though beyond what I'm vesuviating here, longer bones should make longer output levers which should increase kinematic (velocity advantage). Maybe this increases power. Longer bones also mean longer muscles which will increase relative shortening velocity and thus power. On the other hand longer limbs could reduce power by decreasing the mechanical advantage but maybe this is offset by the added muscle and increased relative velocity. Of course taller males are not particularly good at distance running but maybe this isn't because of long limbs but because of heat retention so the negative correlation between limb length and running ability is spurious and not causal (and the actual causal pattern is positive).

4. Hip angle and valgus knee in females (due to the wide hips). I have no idea how this effects running speed/efficiency but if their weren't biomechanical maladaptations to this I suspect we'd all have wider hips (driven by selection for bigger heads).

5. added body mass due to excess fat tissue has at least one other affect other than increased cost to acceleration and that is a decreased ability to shed heat.

6. Someone has probably developed a mechanical model with all this and found the optima.

I would speculate that the percent body fat explains a sizeable portion of the difference. Elite lady runners have noticeably little body fat, which isn't true of nordic skiers and swimmers (cylers?). So clearly glide phases in skiing, and swimming (cycling?) make excess fat less costly (and maybe actually be favorable as they would increase flotation in swimming and downhill speed in skiing.

Many people answered "strength" but the answer is much more than strength. Certainly many women will have more leg muscle mass than elite runners so if it were just strength, they should be running faster.

middle professor wrote:

Many people answered "strength" but the answer is much more than strength. Certainly many women will have more leg muscle mass than elite runners so if it were just strength, they should be running faster.

Genuine hanks for your lengthy analysis, "prof," which touches on several factors that may be at play.

I am sorry I did not keep my copy of the study that I referenced in an earlier post. (I chucked it, along with much else, when I left coaching.) I can tell you it was an *extremely* thorough study, looking at dozens of factors that might potentially determine the differences between male and female athletes. Makes sense: the researchers included part of that country's national coaching staff, and they were highly motivated to figure out ways to secure OG medals for their athletes.

While you are correct--the answer is most definitely MORE than strength--I repeat that the single factor that has the most effect on differences in performance, between males and females, in ALL events of track and field (including distance races) is STRENGTH. When all other training bases are covered, that's where one should look for the biggest improvements in performance: balanced increases in the strength of the muscles involved in a particular event.

Notes:

a) I'm not sure how to respond to the very final sentence of your post. Let me just say that we're talking about specialist, national-/international-level competitors in the various events of track and field.

b) A companion study looked at the height of competitors in track and field races, averaging (over several years) the height of the top-ten Soviet women and the top-ten American women. From 800m to 10,000m, the average height of these ranked athletes decreased in a quite regular, stepwise fashion. (And the American/Soviet average heights were amazingly similar: within a centimeter, at each racing distance.)

I think you're likely right: the shorter athletes' larger skin-surface:body-mass ratio (improving heat dissipation) may be a substantial factor in their success in the longer races. Similarly, their shorter strides (requiring less raising of the COG in each step) may play a role.

The problem with "strength" as an answer is that it is a vague term which on these very forums is used with a variety of meanings. I often see it being used to mean "stamina," which probably is not what you mean, since women narrow or close the gap at longer distances.

I presume you don't mean that top-end running speed relates to how much a person can squat or deadlift. So what do you mean when you say "strength"?

dim sum wrote:

The problem with "strength" as an answer is that it is a vague term which on these very forums is used with a variety of meanings. I often see it being used to mean "stamina," which probably is not what you mean, since women narrow or close the gap at longer distances.

I presume you don't mean that top-end running speed relates to how much a person can squat or deadlift. So what do you mean when you say "strength"?

Valid question. The study I referenced (and, again, I'm sorry I don't have it anymore) was talking about muscular strength--definitely not the stamina "strength" that some people talk about--and I believe that they may have been talking about 1RM strength in the prime movers of each particular event.

I grant that this may be counterintuitive, but it's what they came up with.

They're wimpier

That's why men are better at literally everything in life

Modern liberal scientists agree that gender roles are social constructs. Just as race isn't a biological reality, the only reason men run faster than women is that the patriarchy teaches girls at a young age to think they aren't supposed to. The modern arpetheid of gender segregation should be abolished and Federal law should garuntee that women be awarded as many lanes in the Olympic final as men. If there are 10 lanes in the Ympic final, at least 4 lanes should be given to women, with the clear thread of a lawsuit against the IOC if it refuses to comply. THEN we shall have true gender equality in sports. DOWN WITH THE TEA PARTY!!!!

Progressivism wrote:

Modern liberal scientists agree that gender roles are social constructs. Just as race isn't a biological reality, the only reason men run faster than women is that the patriarchy teaches girls at a young age to think they aren't supposed to. The modern [apartheid] of gender segregation should be abolished and Federal law should [guarantee] that women be awarded as many lanes in the Olympic final as men. If there are 10 lanes in the [Olympic] final, at least 4 lanes should be given to women, with the clear [threat] of a lawsuit against the IOC if it refuses to comply. THEN we shall have true gender equality in sports. DOWN WITH THE TEA PARTY!!!!

I truly enjoy the nutso contributions to LRC threads.

All seriousness aside, I can remember a time (1970s) when people were speculating--no, not actually asserting--that perhaps women were shorter than men, on average, because they'd been socialized to accept the "smaller" role.

This is wrong. The percentage difference between men and women in WR is pretty constant from 100m to the marathon (~10-11%). The competition in the super-long races are very low therefore it is easier to find women who can win the races. It is not representative of the population.

Some crazy runner guy wrote:

All of these factors make men faster and stronger in most athletic events. However interestingly enough there is now some research that states the gap between men and women decreases as the length of the competition increases. This can be seen in the equivalent times of different race distances. i.e.

1:58 800m= decent male HS runner= world champs final female runner

4:00 1500m= decent male college frosh runner= world leading female runner

30:38 10,000m=Good male college runner= world leading female runner

2:19 marathon=pro marathon male runner=world leading female runner

Some people would argue that in extreme long distance events like swimming say 8-12 hour etc. women are even better than men.

rak wrote:

They're wimpier

That's why men are better at literally everything in life

We do always hold back a tiny bit. We don't want our uteruses to fall out.

Good point on the competitiveness at ultralong distances. But remember, the winner of an ultra race isn't the most aerobically fit. It's the one who can most efficiently utilize fuel while still moving forward. ultra runners come nowhere near their full aerobic capacity in their races because they'd run out of fuel. Basically it's who can burn the most fat at the fastest (relative) pace.

asdfasfds wrote:

Good point on the competitiveness at ultralong distances. But remember, the winner of an ultra race isn't the most aerobically fit. It's the one who can most efficiently utilize fuel while still moving forward.

That may be so, but men are faster nevertheless. And by some margin.

World records:

This does not prove that women are better at long distances. As others said, they remain around 10% slower. It says that it's easier to get within 10% of the best of the best in shorter distance races than it is in longer distance races.

Thanks to all for the information and entertainment in this and other threads. However, I find myself spending too much time on LRC, and I've got work to do.

So I (along with all my other monikers) am going to take some time off. See you in a month or three.

Higher testosterone

toro wrote:

The ironic thing is that faster women put out more.

Progressivism wrote:

Modern liberal scientists agree that gender roles are social constructs. Just as race isn't a biological reality, the only reason men run faster than women is that the patriarchy teaches girls at a young age to think they aren't supposed to.

I know you are joking, but the funniest thing is that there are people who assert this opinion (about all sorts of things) without realizing that it is terribly more "insulting" to women than the biological argument. It's not embarrassing to admit that one is worse than another because her DNA made it so, since this is something totally out of her control. But it is hella embarrassing to say women aren't as good as men at X because men have outsmarted women into thinking that they just can't be as good, because that requires admitting that women just aren't as smart as men. (in reality it's not all that different since intelligence is strongly genetic, but we all like to think of it as something that we do have control over and can change, so...)

Question: Are there any actions/activities that both sexes are capable of doing (i.e. not stuff like "childbirth") that women, on average, can do better than men?

Women have to run with their legs crossed to stop their uteri from falling out.

rsbones wrote:

Question: Are there any actions/activities that both sexes are capable of doing (i.e. not stuff like "childbirth") that women, on average, can do better than men?

Ironing.

Sorry, not even that