Collapsing at the 6km XC finish? A new thing? Theatrics or real exhaustion?

Different topic, why aren't women running 8 or 10k? They are fully capable and the difference flies in the face of title Ix.

Women have evolved to run 6km all out. You can't expect them to do 8-10 km right away.

Most of them would die.

gwalkerruns wrote:

Different topic, why aren't women running 8 or 10k? They are fully capable and the difference flies in the face of title Ix.

tradition

and the midpack woman is much slower than the midpack man so the 'minutes racing' aren't as different as the distance difference suggests

Bieber Syndrome wrote:

Melard wrote:

That made no sense

Women run harder in every race, not just this particular race?

If women are tougher they should race the same distance.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any less nonsense. No one said they run harder "every race" or anything of the sort. Nor does that imply they should race further. The race distances are fine where they're at. They're long enough to spread out the competition - in fact the women's races are spread out even further than the men's despite the shorter distance.

Counterpointe wrote:

You can separate talent from toughness. It's like the example of the person who slacks off and still gets A's while another busts their tail and still gets B-'s. One person is giving much closer to 100% effort.

insightlessness wrote:

Yeah, "the women are tougher explanation" would make more sense if all the women were collapsing not just the people who finishing 1+ min back. Or are the middle of the pack women the toughest and the top women runners are as weak as men, genius?

So all the "tough" ones are midpack? None of that toughness translates into running faster to get them towards the front of the pack? This, even when those talented first tier finishers are slacking off and getting the "A" (win)?

Melard wrote:

Bieber Syndrome wrote:

Women run harder in every race, not just this particular race?

If women are tougher they should race the same distance.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any less nonsense. No one said they run harder "every race" or anything of the sort. Nor does that imply they should race further. The race distances are fine where they're at. They're long enough to spread out the competition - in fact the women's races are spread out even further than the men's despite the shorter distance.

Sure you did. You said they" got more out of themselves and they usually do".

Maybe their race was more spread out because they don't actually try as hard on average.

Try to read what you wrote and see if it's what you actually meant to say.

Your welcome.

Bieber Syndrome wrote:

Melard wrote:

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any less nonsense. No one said they run harder "every race" or anything of the sort. Nor does that imply they should race further. The race distances are fine where they're at. They're long enough to spread out the competition - in fact the women's races are spread out even further than the men's despite the shorter distance.

Sure you did. You said they" got more out of themselves and they usually do".

Maybe their race was more spread out because they don't actually try as hard on average.

Try to read what you wrote and see if it's what you actually meant to say.

Your welcome.

I didn't write that, idiot. Check the handles.

The person who did write it said "usually," though. You changed that to "every race." That's what we call a straw man fallacy. And it makes zero sense to then suggest that they need to race a further distance, or that they're less tough for not doing so.

Melard wrote:

Bieber Syndrome wrote:

Sure you did. You said they" got more out of themselves and they usually do".

Maybe their race was more spread out because they don't actually try as hard on average.

Try to read what you wrote and see if it's what you actually meant to say.

Your welcome.

I didn't write that, idiot. Check the handles.

The person who did write it said "usually," though. You changed that to "every race." That's what we call a straw man fallacy. And it makes zero sense to then suggest that they need to race a further distance, or that they're less tough for not doing so.

Forgive me for mistaking you defending a point with you actually writing the post..

I wrote every race with a ? I didn't change anything, I merely asked.

However your abusive fallacy does not defeat my straw man.

Try again.

The brain has a safety mechanism to protect the body through pain. However, we possess the ability to temporarily override that safety mechanism given the right psychological stimulus, such as seeing the finish line. Notice you can always finish faster when there's someone a few yards ahead of you.

Genetically women probably possess the block the safety mechanism for longer and to a greater extent than men, as otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand the pain of dropping a sprog. Thus you see more girls collapse at the finish line of a XC than you do boys.

Not Steve Magness wrote:

The brain has a safety mechanism to protect the body through pain. However, we possess the ability to temporarily override that safety mechanism given the right psychological stimulus, such as seeing the finish line. Notice you can always finish faster when there's someone a few yards ahead of you.

Genetically women probably possess the block the safety mechanism for longer and to a greater extent than men, as otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand the pain of dropping a sprog. Thus you see more girls collapse at the finish line of a XC than you do boys.

VERY good post.

The collapsing is actually because women are tougher and run through MORE PAIN than the men, like pushing through the intense pain of childbirth.

Afterward, of course they are more spent than a bunch of guys who jogged 8k and then did 2k at 5k pace.

Women run harder wrote:

The bottom line is that the women run hard all the way.

The men jogged along the first 8.4 km of the course. Of course they're not going to be as tired as the women. The spectators were probably not as tired either.

The same was the case with the D1 10,000 meters last spring.

For whatever reason, the women ran harder this weekend than the men, got more out of themselves, and they usually do.

So much truthiness.

I agree, women very likely have a better ability to over ride the governer in our brains that Noakes, Fitzgerald et. al. speak of. The reason they're a mess at the finish isn't that they are wimps, but because they are 'tougher' than men. And it's not like us men are unable to conjure up a little finish line drama - witness the finish of men's marathon in Barcelona Oly! Oh what carnage!! Games...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2SE_dd4p4

Do East Africans (that are actually raised in East Africa) tend to collapse like this as well? I wonder if it's more of a cultural thing that has to do with a soft upbringing.

I don't believe females have a better ability to override pain, but I doubt there is a way to properly test it, so who really knows. I'm not saying childbirth isn't extremely painful either.

Based on what I've seen, the higher someone's testosterone level is, the less likely they are to succumb to pain, at least relative to themselves. You see this in mixed martial arts fighting. Guys on testosterone can take a ton of abuse. Then they go off it and strikes/punches they used to be able to handle now knock them out.

By the end of a XC season, with all the training and racing and dieting down to race weight, one is almost certain to have less testosterone in their system than they would in the off-season. End of season is when they typically have their biggest effort, the most pain, while the testosterone is lowest, and possibly this is why you see them flip the switch off at the finish line?