LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

If someone "finds" something, how can that be a generalization based on sex? If someone assumes or believes something, that could be the case. But if a statement is based on experience I don't see how thatc an be a generalization.

Peter thinks that shorter recoveries increase the amount of lactic acid you'll have in your blood. He doesn't see that as a good thing.

He isn't totally rigid about 7:00 pace. I doubt that he'd say 7:05 would be useless for recruiting fast twitch fibers but 7:00 is good. He didn't draw a line where you only burned fat, so I'm not sure what he'd say about 7:30 pace. He'd be just fine with 6:30, or 6:00 or anything like that until it became anaerobic running.

I've never seen credible reseach to confirm women runners are "naturally" better at distance events than men. Tinman

I coach men and women and I have never 'found' these things to be the case. So one of us is 'finding' something that may have already been ingrained as a behavioural pattern. Gee, I wonder which one of us that would be?

HRE wrote:

If someone "finds" something, how can that be a generalization based on sex? If someone assumes or believes something, that could be the case. But if a statement is based on experience I don't see how thatc an be a generalization.

You find what you find, someone else finds what they find.

Are you assuming that what you find is the correct finding and what Nobby or Kim finds is incorrect? And if so, why?

My findings are correct, and anyone who finds differences of this kind are incorrect. Always remember the true nature of ALL women and ALL men: strong, loving, intelligent, zestful, cooperative, assertive, confident and tender. If you can't see everyone that way then it is due to the sexist conditioning (and other hurts) placed upon you. If you had never received this conditioning, then you could easily see everyone's inherent nature all the time. If any person never received any type of conditioning, then they would always act on these inherent qualities all the time.

I'm glad we cleared that up. I notice that open mindedness didn't make your list.

OK then.

Sorry man...I agree with Nobby on this one. I have coached female soccer, basketball and girls in cross country. Also in my learn to run clinic...women USUALLY require a different approach than men.

There are exceptions...but it's an astute observation of Nobby, take it for what it's worth.

Well frankly it isn't worth much. Praising the heck out of someone just because they are a girl with nice socks? Attributing expertise in coaching of one sex over another? Attributing behavioural traits in running / workouts to each sex? No thanks. I'll go somewhere else and so will my child.

please describe the different approach that women require from men and why

I agree with others here- when coaching women and men, you have to make differences- in most cases. Take an example- you have a teenage boy (17 y) and teenage girl (also 17) and both are kind of plumb, mostly because of their terrible diet. You can say (in most cases) to the guy- "hey you gotta start eating like an athlete and stop stuffing yourself like a pig, look at other runners- they are lean and healthy looking"... (ok, kind of exaggerated), however, if you say that to that girl, you are setting her, yourself and whoever else for trouble; first you insult her, second she might start obsessing about her appearance, third she might develop anorexia or other kinds of eating desorders, forth... well, you got the idea.

I don't think a good coach should say that in the first place. How about teaching them about good nutrition instead of saying "hey fat pig, stop eating so much." As far as eating disorders go, those are not exclusive to females and usually stem from a combination of issues, not just one comment from an ignorant coach.

Allright, that's why I said it was exaggerated. Even at much more diplomatic tone, if you make a hint that losing some weight would be beneficial, it's much more risky for the girl than for the guy. Of course, even that guy might develop ED, but is 10 times less likely.

Ok then.

>>Please describe<<

I'm not sure how to nail an answer on this, succinctly.

I will tell you in my second 'learn to run clinic' I purposely made sure I had mostly female volunteers, to help with the different paces. Not that I am heavy handed or unprofessional about things, but I think the message can change it's value when delivered by a male. I don't think there was even a sensitivity issue - I got along very well with 99.9%

I also know talking about competition with experienced coaches, it was always a surprising trait that many women, not all, but many women are less likely to take the boots to another in a workout and sometimes a race. Where with males, they will do it on the track, in conversation, even drinking a wobbly pop etc.

There is also an assumptive attitude, which envelopes a relationship between opposite sex. Not a negative thing - just reality.

In some ways, I feel motivating women (personally) I have to stop and consider what I am about to say more so than with males.

Now saying this, I have never coached high level nor am I qualified to coach high level adults. It's all 'learn to run' clinic coordination or coaching younger teens and children....

...also I found that there are males that are not typical males and can be highly sensitive - not the high strung male ego you are perhaps thinking but ...well...like dealing with a female.

AND I have coached a couple of girls in XC that were so far more competitive than any of the boys that year that they were the talk of the parent group, "look at her go, you go gurl"

Where if they were males with that competitiveness, it would have been "typical males ha ha ha...look at them go at each other".

Tony DiCicco, the longtime women's US Olympic soccer coach, wrote a book about coaching female athletes (Catch Them Being Good: Everything You Need to Know to Successfully Coach Girls) and there is a quote in it attributed to soccer superstar Mia Hamm who gave DiCicco this advice early in both of their careers, "Coach us like men, but treat us like women." Not sure if that's too ambiguous for this debate, but I try to think of that quote before every one of my cross country & track practices.

Ok, I'm sorry, but men and women aren't "the same." If they were exactly the same, there wouldn't be two genders.

You do coach women differently than men. Ask any coach- would a coach call a female runner "fatass" to motivate her? Certainly not, nor should the coach. Especially since eating disorders are how much more common in females than males? You can't say a statistical fact is sexist.

Libby, you're ignoring the dozens and dozens of psychology books written on pyschological differences between men and women. It doens't make one gender inherently better than the other, it just means they're different. Thats ok, differences aren't bad.

Is an apple "better" than an orange? Is an orange "better" than an apple? No, neither one is better, though some people might prefer eating apples to oranges, just like some people might prefer coaching men to women or vice versa.

It's not a bad thing that a woman is different from a man. It doesn't make a woman "worth" less because because she is different.