Women and men are DIFFERENT.

no difference between a male that runs 5:00 for the mile and a female that runs 5:00 for the mile. If both are running the same volume and are both at the same stage of their career they should be trained the same way. Therefore it is not a difference between sexes in how to train the same caliber athlete, but only a difference in the maximum potential of male and female athletes.

Haha, I've already debated this with someone on here! It's a combo of irrespective and regardless, and is perfectly fine for casual writing.

no difference wrote:

no difference between a male that runs 5:00 for the mile and a female that runs 5:00 for the mile. If both are running the same volume and are both at the same stage of their career they should be trained the same way. Therefore it is not a difference between sexes in how to train the same caliber athlete, but only a difference in the maximum potential of male and female athletes.

There is a difference between a male 5:00 miler and a female 5:00 miler.

yes. women are totally different than men when it comes to anything, especially physiology and psychology. dont believe me on the psychology part? then just look at or ask any couple that have had a divorce or are currently attending counceling.

-the430miler

In the eyes of a good coach, no there is not a difference. If you want to be a smart-alick then yes there are differences obviously, but not in the way you train them.

no difference wrote:

In the eyes of a good coach, no there is not a difference. If you want to be a smart-alick then yes there are differences obviously, but not in the way you train them.

I wasn't being a smart-alick.

If you know anything about training males and females then you WOULD know that there are particular aspects that makes training the two sexes differently. VO2 max, stride efficiency, bone mass, structure, endocrine systems, lean body mass, are very different from each other.

As they age...past junior high school and high school, the differences are even greater.

So, if you somehow think they are the same, then you obviously haven't really thought it out or have any actual experience with the topic.

jaguar1 wrote:

Haha, I've already debated this with someone on here! It's a combo of irrespective and regardless, and is perfectly fine for casual writing.

Not to be a jerk, but you're wrong. It is not okay to use the wrong word simply because you're too lazy to learn the difference.

legally blond wrote:

no difference wrote:

In the eyes of a good coach, no there is not a difference. If you want to be a smart-alick then yes there are differences obviously, but not in the way you train them.

I wasn't being a smart-alick.

If you know anything about training males and females then you WOULD know that there are particular aspects that makes training the two sexes differently. VO2 max, stride efficiency, bone mass, structure, endocrine systems, lean body mass, are very different from each other.

As they age...past junior high school and high school, the differences are even greater.

So, if you somehow think they are the same, then you obviously haven't really thought it out or have any actual experience with the topic.

So how would you train them differently and why exactly?

You make some interesting points but then don't expound on them.

You treat posters on this thread like they are idiots. Kinda off-putting ya know?

"VO2 max, stride efficiency, bone mass, structure, endocrine systems, lean body mass"-

I would care to wager that a male and a female that both run a 17:00 5k have as much a difference in VO2Max, stride efficiency, and lean body mass as do two males or two females.

In fact I bet in this case the woman has a better stride efficiency and a better lean body mass to fat ratio.

I agree with you that males and females differ in these categories but it should not change the way you train each gender.

As to what I was saying before, if I had a male and a female that both run 17:00 for a 5k and are both the same training age, and have done the same amount of work in the past I would give them both the same workouts.

The difference between the two comes mainly from the maximum potential of each gender.

I would definately train a 14:00 5k male different than a 16:00 5k female. But that is common sense. I believe the real question of this post was whether the training philosophy should be different between genders, and my answer is no.

Every individual has specific needs, but the general philosphy of training should not change due to just gender orientation.

I realize there are differing opinions on this matter. But for 12 years I ran for nationally renowned coaches and they trained their male and female teams the same. The only differences coming in mileage (time spent running was the same though). Now as a coach myself I have had tremendous success with both genders by applying the same principles. To me, I will take results over the word of a letsrun message board poster anyday.

Really, it isn't about opinions, it is about science. You answered some of the puzzle when you stated that you ran for a nationally renowned coach (I did also by the way) and the females trained "the same" except for the numbers of miles run or time on their feet. Well, it isn't "the same" if they were not running exact mileage.

If a male and female of the same relative age and training plans run the same time for a distance of 5k, we can assume these things: The female is far superior in raw ability than the male runner.

If males and females are training together and not producing the same racing times - then there is a good chance the females are overtraining.

As far as stride efficiency: if males and females have comparitive ability, the male is always going to score higher on stride efficiency based on leg strength, push off, and simple body structure dynamics. Take a comparable male and female (in terms of performance) and run them up a long hill - guess who will get there first.

This doesn't even get into the details of connective tissue differences, and the role of hormones in adaption and muscle recovery.

Sometimes you have to stop saying that x plus Y always gives your Z. Because we did it, or because I have found a way to justify this - then it is the truth and the best way. Well, look at the science - maybe it isn't.

samuel clemons wrote:

[quote]jaguar1 wrote:

Haha, I've already debated this with someone on here! It's a combo of irrespective and regardless, and is perfectly fine for casual writing.

Not to be a jerk, but you're wrong. It is not okay to use the wrong word simply because you're too lazy to learn the difference.

No, I'm not wrong. Search the word on

. It is perfectly fine to use in casual writing.

Blondy, what are the connective tissue differences between men/women, and how do they affect training plans for same?

I'm assuming you mean men have tougher connective tissues and thus respond more robustly to the types of training that place a heavy load on tendons/ligaments such as hill reps, speed work, etc. I'm probably wrong, but I'm sure you'll set me straight.

BTW you sound awfully like Malmo.

Legally blond doesn't sound like me at all.

mel wrote:

Blondy, what are the connective tissue differences between men/women, and how do they affect training plans for same?

I'm assuming you mean men have tougher connective tissues and thus respond more robustly to the types of training that place a heavy load on tendons/ligaments such as hill reps, speed work, etc. I'm probably wrong, but I'm sure you'll set me straight.

BTW you sound awfully like Malmo.

I want to thank you for waking me up, because the last person on this board I would want to sound like is malmo. Well there is one other person - but we will skip that. And I mean that seriously.

Women suffer more connective tissue injuries and diseases than men - with this in mind, it certaintly points to the fact that yes, tendon/ligamnet overload is more likely to result in injury - and we know there is a direct connection to recovery/stress and injury. For instance, women will have 4x more overuse knee unjuries than men.

So, even if aerobic capacity, etc is sufficient to train with males - they are going to be at a greater risk of injury in the training plan due to connective tissue differences - but metabolic/hormonal changes as well.

malmo wrote:

Legally blond doesn't sound like me at all.

thank you God.

Well, his/her posts have that same hubristic flavor.

mel wrote:

Well, his/her posts have that same hubristic flavor.

And yours is not?

malmo wrote:

mel wrote:

Well, his/her posts have that same hubristic flavor.

And yours is not?

No, my posts are rife with humilty, and self-effacement.:)

legally blond wrote:

That might work for high school, but not really a good plan past that.

Dr. Bong wrote:Why not? If you are trying to gear your training to the individualized needs of your athletes, you are going to have males and females mixed in some training groups. What difference does it make if they are high school, collegiate, or p-c?

legally blond wrote:Are you asking me to explain the difference between growth levels of high school males and females and growth levels of males ages 18-23? You couldn't seriously be asking that could you? HUGE DIFFERENCE!

No, I wasn't asking you to explain that because I thought I understood it. But now I'm not so sure. Growth rates of high school males and females are quite different, yet you suggest (and I agree) that equality of training is fine at that age. What post-hs growth differences are you referring to that would suggest non-equivalent training at that point?