"Studies of elite runner performance in particular don’t show a correlation with fat percentage."
That is what he claimed. You are going down a different path. His statement is idiotic. Just as many elite marathoners at 30% body fat as 8% body fat. Sure thing.
Just because that small percentage of the total says it is toxic does not mean it was. That word is a buzz word and student-athletes know it. I would guess that a fairly high percentage of the ones that complained also did not perform that well.
It doesn't mean the environment isn't toxic just bc its a small sample size either.
And in fact, if the group interviewed didn't perform well, you do realize that fact supports the accusation of toxicity right? Low performance is strongly linked to toxic environments over and over.
If people support the idea of body composition bring important to performance that's fine, but what stands out here is that all three people in power were using notably outdated and bad tactics that are not used and have been DISCREDITED in other institutions and sports to get to their end point. Then they lied about the importance, how they used it, and insisted it was a sound method, which is not a great look.
That article has nothing to do with elite runners. Try again if you don't think there is a direct correlation between performance and body fat. This isn't controversial.
Don't confuse correlation with causation. What's a better way to get to an ideal bf% range for a given individual, decide that it's a relevant goal and underfuel (aka starve) yourself there or fuel with nutrition appropriately for your training level and approach at a healthy rate? If health and performance is the goal then the other metrics should simply be side-effects. It's like everyone has forgotten about Allie Kieffer.
It’s weird why this is too hard for the “starve yourself to reach your potential” crowd to understand
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
We have higher quality athletes and more depth in ALL sports across ALL levels.
You have better shoes, better tracks, and better coaching. CU has destroyed at least one sports team caving to the whims of the woke mob. Glad to see they have learned their lesson. Allowing a disgruntled subpar former athlete to dictate how a program is run would be like allowing Uncle Rico to coach a football team.
Low performance is also linked to lack of talent, lack of work ethic. I would say there is a much larger correlation. Toxicity is the word of the day that the toxic students themselves use against coaches. The small sample size shows a higher percentage were happy at an elite running program. If I were a coach there is no way I would have more than 13-15 female distance runners. Every year is is the crappy athletes that were given an opportunity and failed that complain and get people fired. Why any coach would let more than 15 women distance runners into a program is beyond me. Like for gender equity which is in itself a farce. A huge percentage of the complainers around the country each year fit a very similar profile - low performing walk on or low dollar white female distance runners that have mental health/confidence issues that are oh so happy to be propelled to hero status. No thanks. Speaking of toxic - they are toxic. Limit those numbers and you have a happier healthier program.
No I don't realize that at all. The most successful athletes are on average happier than the least successful athletes. Do you think Birnbaum is happier than the 6 minute miler on his team who only gets to run in random JV meets?
Low performance is also linked to lack of talent, lack of work ethic. I would say there is a much larger correlation. Toxicity is the word of the day that the toxic students themselves use against coaches. The small sample size shows a higher percentage were happy at an elite running program. If I were a coach there is no way I would have more than 13-15 female distance runners. Every year is is the crappy athletes that were given an opportunity and failed that complain and get people fired. Why any coach would let more than 15 women distance runners into a program is beyond me. Like for gender equity which is in itself a farce. A huge percentage of the complainers around the country each year fit a very similar profile - low performing walk on or low dollar white female distance runners that have mental health/confidence issues that are oh so happy to be propelled to hero status. No thanks. Speaking of toxic - they are toxic. Limit those numbers and you have a happier healthier program.
Don't confuse correlation with causation. What's a better way to get to an ideal bf% range for a given individual, decide that it's a relevant goal and underfuel (aka starve) yourself there or fuel with nutrition appropriately for your training level and approach at a healthy rate? If health and performance is the goal then the other metrics should simply be side-effects. It's like everyone has forgotten about Allie Kieffer.
It’s weird why this is too hard for the “starve yourself to reach your potential” crowd to understand
Two reasons: 1) the “toughing out (abuse) is good” fallacy; 2) the “looking like some ideal runner is key” fallacy.
One look at Bekele and Kipchoge; or Cheptegei, Ingebrigsten, Katir, Fisher, Cheruiyot etc. should be obvious to anyone there’s a range of “optimal” body types, not one best type, and lower BF% isn’t necessarily better.
A better model to think about BF% vs performance correlation based on scientific data is an inverted U: a minimum amount of BF is essential for any performance, and then there is a range where BF% doesn’t matter, followed by a range where more is worse. With smart training, the body automatically picks a point in that doesn’t-matter range. There’s little evidence that an individual runner would benefit by trying to force a different BF% point.
Low performance is also linked to lack of talent, lack of work ethic. I would say there is a much larger correlation. Toxicity is the word of the day that the toxic students themselves use against coaches. The small sample size shows a higher percentage were happy at an elite running program. If I were a coach there is no way I would have more than 13-15 female distance runners. Every year is is the crappy athletes that were given an opportunity and failed that complain and get people fired. Why any coach would let more than 15 women distance runners into a program is beyond me. Like for gender equity which is in itself a farce. A huge percentage of the complainers around the country each year fit a very similar profile - low performing walk on or low dollar white female distance runners that have mental health/confidence issues that are oh so happy to be propelled to hero status. No thanks. Speaking of toxic - they are toxic. Limit those numbers and you have a happier healthier program.
Besides the fact that this was an investigation and not some research study, so really there are a lot of things that can be at play..the sample showed approximately 50% reported a bad culture, which in every single situation is not a "higher percentage." They also had the qualitative data of the consistency of comments from the athletes reporting a negative environment.
It's your opinion that low performance is linked to talent and work ethic. By all means, prove that. With the research or evidence at least from this investigation.
The people in the investigation literally linked "poor performance" to the toxic environment as defined by red-s, eating disorders, and poor relationships with the coaches. If you are saying performance improves with those things, you have another issue and I can't engage.
Is this the twilight zone? Poor performance has nothing to do with talent or training? Then what is it?
Buffalo Soldier (and apparently you?) are trying to make an argument that the *problem* wasn't a toxic environment, or outdated and controversial body composition testing procedures that indeed are known to cause harm and contribute to the definition of a toxic environment, but instead were related to these women not having talent or not training--IDK what you are trying to accuse them of-training properly? Enough?
The thing is: that's not what the investigation was about was it now? A question of their talent or training habits. So while it's a fun thought experiment to think about how those things might interact--THEY WEREN'T in question or investigated.
So in answer to your somewhat silly question: We don't know how talent or training came into play here--so stop trying to say they did--because you have no idea, and all you are trying to do is undermine the credibility of the women and the investigation.
Notice how these problems always involve the women. Men never complain about this stuff. Women bring drama and headaches.
You are basically stating it takes real coaching talent to coach female track & field athletes well. Yesterday there were female T&F athletes. Today there are female T&F athletes. Tomorrow there will be female T&F athletes. I addressed specifics in previous posts on this thread.
Body composition monitoring is a way Wetmore uses to pressure athletes to see a doctor to get thyroid meds. Or do you think Emma and Jenny are "naturally skinny"??? This guy was sending athletes to Dr Brown more than 15 years ago.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.