It must be the jaw. Definitely these guys are on HGH and some other drugs.
It must be the jaw. Definitely these guys are on HGH and some other drugs.
Dude, more women "run" races than men but they are just jogging them. The amount of guys that train competitively is SO much more than women. You really can't see the objective and subjective proof of that?
oh please spare us wrote:
2o2o2o2o2o2 wrote:Comparing age-graded results are like comparing completely unrelated events by Mercier scores.
So you'd agree that making a theoretical, and inappropriately "linear", comparison between men and women, cross country vs. marathon, is ridiculous?
The Mercier calculator uses real data and ranks it so you can compare a normal population (men) to a non-normal population (women). So it's comparing 1st to 1st best, 20th to 20th best, 100 to 100th best, and so on. The Mercier calculator is updated every ~4-5 years, and guess what? The depth isn't changing, and the comparisons are still closely the same. "Theory" doesn't match what exists in the real-world. Obviously, it wouldn't be accurate to compare the steeplechase to the marathon (nor cross country to marathon!). Moreover, Master's women tend to perform better and maintain their fitness better than Master's men in the marathon.
This talk of "lack of depth" is garbage. More women ran road races last year than men (6.9 million of 13 million).
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=24652
ah, micro dosing, the need to be recognized, the time to train, the need to create your legacy, the clock is running out, so many things go into this.
it is so complicated.
she wants to succeed, and she does.
great for her.
you look into the mirror and decide who you are.
every morning.
Some type of illegal drug.test her ass
egun wrote:
ah, micro dosing, the need to be recognized, the time to train, the need to create your legacy, the clock is running out, so many things go into this.
it is so complicated.
she wants to succeed, and she does.
great for her.
you look into the mirror and decide who you are.
every morning.
Yes, it is called winning at any cost. Comes a time when you have to decide...Take the pills or not?
why would a 50year old lady do drugs? Doesn't she have an outstanding career as a lawyer??
people are envious!
ggg wrote:
why would a 50year old lady do drugs? Doesn't she have an outstanding career as a lawyer??
people are envious!
Do you know what are the professions with most psychopaths? Law and dentistry.
I have met so many lawyers that are sleazy and don't follow any ethics.
There was a lawyer in my area that was caught stealing; other driving while drunk; another high on drugs, etc.
http://www.thehiddenevil.com/psychopathy.asp"This outward appearance," says Dr. Cleckley, is essentially a mask, which, "may include business or professional careers that continue in a sense successful, and which are truly successful when measured by financial reward or by the casual observer's opinion of real accomplishment."
"Many psychopaths never go to prison or any other facility," agreed Dr. Hare. "They appear to function reasonably well--as lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, academics, mercenaries, police officers, cult leaders, military personnel, business people, writers, artists, entertainers, and so fourth--without breaking the law." He continued, "Their intelligence, family background, social skills, and circumstances permit them to construct a facade of normalcy."
"Corrupt and callous politicians, social or career fast climbers, authoritarian leaders, abusing and aggressive persons, etc., are among them" wrote Dr. Renato Sabbatini in his article, The Psychopath's Brain. "A common characteristic," says Dr. Sabbatini, "is that they engage systematically in deception and manipulation of others for personal gain. In fact, many successful and adapted non-violent sociopaths can be found in our society."
There's no real sex difference in participation anymore but there is still a big difference in depth of quality performances (e.g. number of runners within say 10 or 20% or gender-specific world record). I've demonstrated this several times and considered all (I hope) the possible reasons why one might distrust this result. For instance, the patterns can't be explained by "unfair" women's world records. It's an incredibly robust pattern.
You can download some of my papers here - scroll down to the 2006 ones:
http://www.gvsu.edu/psychology/robert-deaner-16.htm
A review (still not published) paper is here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1842663
And I have another paper on this that will be published any day. Here are the title and abstract:
More Men Run Relatively Fast in U.S. Road Races, 1981-2006: A Stable Sex Difference in Non-elite Runners
Abstract: Recent studies indicate that more men than women run fast relative to sex-specific world records and that this sex difference has been historically stable in elite U.S. runners. These findings have been hypothesized to reflect an evolved male predisposition for enduring competitiveness in “show-off” domains. The current study tests this hypothesis in non-elite runners by analyzing 342 road races that occurred from 1981-2006, most in or near Buffalo, NY. Both absolutely and as a percentage of same-sex finishers, more men ran relatively fast in most races. During the 1980s, as female participation surged, the difference in the absolute number of relatively fast men and women decreased. However, this difference was stable for races that occurred after 1993. Since then, in any given race, about three to four times as many men as women ran relatively fast. The stable sex difference in relative performance shown here for non-elites constitutes new support for the hypothesis of an evolved male predisposition for enduring competitiveness.
Is is possible this difference in "competitiveness" is moreso physiological/anatomical, rather than environmental/social/psychological? There are fewer women at the very top with a much larger spread (more skewed to the right) for what's considered elite, as compared to the men. This has held true for the past 30 years. There's no way you could linearly compare the populations (x % difference between world records) when the populations are vastly difference. That's why a "rank-order" method, as used by the Mercier Calculator, is the only effective way to compare genders. To use a linear comparison is "theoretical" and doesn't represent what exists in the real world.
Not that he/she has tried to claim such, but this "oldster" is not me, Steve Boyd. "Oldster" has been my username on a Canadian board for many years. It's not that I have any issue with this poster's comments; but, as this is a master's thread, and I know some of the principals in the discussion, I want it to be clear that this is a different "oldster".
Carry on...
To anyone accusing her using EPO or PEDS: Since she's a lawyer, I'd be very careful of the slander you are posting on this website.
Did you seriously come into this thread refuting a lack of depth in women's running, then come back and definitively say there's a lack of depth in women's running as compared to men?
Seeing a trend in a population, then finding a formula to make lesser performances 'better' is not a great way to go about life. Why don't we just use your calculator's inverse to make slower men's performances better?
BTW, my Seward Calculator grades my 5k at 12:37 since I'm the only person with my exact background and physical traits that have run my 5k PR.
I don't think this post was aimed at me. I did not make any such accusations:) However, the anglo-saxon "I am gonna sue you" is annoying.
I just want to know about her training. I'm 52, I notice a difference but I do think some of it is motivation. There are times when I feel that if I dedicated myself I could run the times I ran in my 20's-30's.
"Is is possible this difference in "competitiveness" is moreso physiological/anatomical, rather than environmental/social/psychological?"
***This is the million dollar question - what causes the difference, (1) motivation to train, (2) durability to train, or (3) physiological response to training? All could play a role, and I have considered all of them in my papers. So far the motivation to train hypothesis is the only one that has support. For instance, my recent paper (Deaner, Masters, Ogles, & LaCaille, 2011) shows that when men and women perform similar training, they show similar performances relative to gender specific world records. There were about 694 men and 150 women who reported their training and performance in that study; the data were gathered in the late 1980s and early 1990s at marathons in the U.S. Roughly speaking, running 60 miles per week on a regular basis in adults is associated with an average 5K PR of about 16:15 for men (~25% over male WR) and 18:25 for women (~25% over female WR). (Obviously individual results will vary depending on talent and many other factors!) This hypothesis still requires much more testing and I'm currently working on a much better data set (about 8,000 German runners who responded to questionnaires within last 5 years.) I haven't finished the analyses, but so far the patterns look very similar. If you know of data (not speculations!) that support the other hypotheses, please share them. I've been looking at this issue for 8 years now but I still want to learn more.
"This has held true for the past 30 years."
***I'm glad you agree there is a sex difference in depth! Many deny this.
"There's no way you could linearly compare the populations (x % difference between world records) when the populations are vastly difference."
***Why can't we compare? That's what science is all about: Let's quantify the difference and then test hypotheses to figure what causes it. Simply saying that yeah, there is some kind of a differnce but that it's merely due the fact that the populations are "vastly different" is not an explanation.
"That's why a "rank-order" method, as used by the Mercier Calculator, is the only effective way to compare genders."
***The method that is appropriate really depends on the question. I'm interested in finding out why more males run close to sex-specific standards so Mercier calculators are certainly not appropriate.
"To use a linear comparison is "theoretical" and doesn't represent what exists in the real world.
***Mercier calculators are theoretical! They assume that there are the same number of men and women who are truly competitive in the event in question. Many lines of evidence suggests this is false: men are, generally speaking, somewhat more competitive than women and this difference becomes very large when it involves physical competition.
Last point: I'm not belittling the accomplishments of any competitive female runner, such as Linda Somers-Smith. My point is only that there, are generally speaking, more men like this.
Thanks for the discussion.
Nutty P
Harry Seward wrote:
Did you seriously come into this thread refuting a lack of depth in women's running, then come back and definitively say there's a lack of depth in women's running as compared to men?
That's your misinterpretation, not mine. You could have "less depth" and still have a linear distribution, but that's not what exists. I'm saying there's far more homogeneity amongst elite men vs. women, and wondering if this is physiological/anatomical. The Nutty professor is saying there's a difference in competitiveness-- that could be due to something like hormones, and hormones could impact anatomical development too. You will never see an elite man with feminine characteristics, but you could certainly see an elite woman with masculine characteristics.
And you need to take a statistics course. There is no way you should compare the populations linearly.
An expert wrote:
I don't think this post was aimed at me. I did not make any such accusations:) However, the anglo-saxon "I am gonna sue you" is annoying.
"I am gonna sue you" is incorrect. Not me, I have no dog in this fight. But Linda may sue people who post such accusations about her. I think "annoying" is the least of their worries.
Nutty Professor wrote:
[quote]"This has held true for the past 30 years."
***I'm glad you agree there is a sex difference in depth! Many deny this.
There's a sex difference, but not in depth.
***Why can't we compare? That's what science is all about: Let's quantify the difference and then test hypotheses to figure what causes it. Simply saying that yeah, there is some kind of a differnce but that it's merely due the fact that the populations are "vastly different" is not an explanation.
Can't compare linearly. The assumption of a normal distribution for each population isn't met.
***Mercier calculators are theoretical! They assume that there are the same number of men and women who are truly competitive in the event in question.
No it's not. It's based on real data.
Beware wrote:
"I am gonna sue you" is incorrect. Not me, I have no dog in this fight. But Linda may sue people who post such accusations about her. I think "annoying" is the least of their worries.
'Libel' is the term you are using, top athletes can be called into question as Linda has been here, and her legal position would probably hold more water if she passed a series of random drug tests.
"I'm saying there's far more homogeneity amongst elite men vs. women"
So you agree with this, that, on average, elite men at every level (pro, college, high school) are more closely spaced together, but you don't think this indicates a difference in depth?
What else would it indicate?
Think of it this way:
Imagine you had the results of 2 championship cross- country races where the exact distances were unknown except that the courses were between 3 and 4 miles. And you didn't know how many people were entered in each race.
But you found that in Race A, the top 15 finishers were spread out by about 1 minute. But in Race B, the top 15 finishers were spread out by 3 minutes. Wouldn't the best explanation be that there were more serious runners in Race A?
This difference in spread is what we observe with sex differences. Again and again.
Final question:
Would evidence could possibly convince you of a sex difference in depth? (By depth I mean the number of high-quality performers, i.e. some combination of talent, training).