Why is any discussion about weight and running seemingly off limits now?

heavy man wrote:

I have gotten a bit chubby in my middle age and this has obviously made me me worse runner (as has significantly reduced training volume), so when it's targeted at me the advice "lose weight to get faster" is eminently fair and possibly helpful to hear (though, duh).

When targeted at younger, very lean, highly competitive, perhaps slightly neurotic athletes who are already very careful about what they eat, you may instead be encouraging people to go too far in ways that could be detrimental to their health (and performance).

In person, you can target your message to the whoever you're talking to. On the internet, you're talking to everyone. I think that's what makes this a bit tricky.

The Opposite wrote:

lexel wrote:

You need to read more on this. Its about a probability to get it, reducing the risk of it.

Any kind of sport that has a weight factor in it (e.g. running), will be at higher risk (of RED-S) than other sports.

I understand that. But BMI is established to be an absolutely terrible measure of healthy weight with public health researchers trying to move past it (and failing) for decades (ease trumping accuracy), especially given how it varies so markedly with body proportion. For example, female athletes with long legs and short torso get far far far lower BMI scores than shorter legs, longer torso for the same body fat %. At best it could be use as a screening tool to signal for further testing, excluding people from participating based on a low BMI is frankly nonsense.

Why is wrote:

Man Moth wrote:

Because social media makes every topic a binary.

You're either body positive or Hitler.

You're either pro-trans or Hitler.

You either want to defund the police or you're Hitler.

And so on...

Why is wrote:

Well women got the brunt of crappy coaches who gave them hell for weight. Also screwing around with weight really affects hormones in women more than men.

The Opposite wrote:

lexel wrote:

You need to read more on this. Its about a probability to get it, reducing the risk of it.

Any kind of sport that has a weight factor in it (e.g. running), will be at higher risk (of RED-S) than other sports.

I understand that. But BMI is established to be an absolutely terrible measure of healthy weight with public health researchers trying to move past it (and failing) for decades (ease trumping accuracy), especially given how it varies so markedly with body proportion. For example, female athletes with long legs and short torso get far far far lower BMI scores than shorter legs, longer torso for the same body fat %. At best it could be use as a screening tool to signal for further testing, excluding people from participating based on a low BMI is frankly nonsense.

big caboose wrote:

Dozens of women have been ruined by it but millions of women have been ruined by being too heavy. You are being penny wise and pound foolish.

Why is wrote:

Why is any discussion about weight and running off limits now? It seems we can both acknowledge that we have to be sensitive with those who have a history of disordered eating and not tell lies about food having no effect on running? We can both eat foods that help us achieve our goals and not be obsessed with the number on the scale. The eat anything seems like a lie, especially when it comes from someone who is smaller than the majority of the population.