UO women track athletes alleging they felt victimized by the program's data-driven approach to weight and body fat percentage

Here is a direct link to the article.

https://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/2021/10/women-athletes-allege-body-shaming-within-oregon-ducks-track-and-field-program.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=oregoniansports_sf

albertsaladbar wrote:

Maybe a little extreme but these athletes know what they signed up for and honestly I wish my university was this serious. You go to a competitive power 5 school to win titles, not to play paddy cake. If you’re not serious then leave, but for some athletes this is what all that hard work in high school was for, a professional college atmosphere.

there is a long road to drive between playing "paddy cake" and being told you can't travel with the team unless you are at 12% body fat.

Does anyone want to count the number of successful professional runners who expressed dismay and shock over the Mary Cain situation? This might lead one to believe that success in sport does not come down to garbage practices like DEXA and obsessing over weight. Rather than anonymous boys on here, perhaps you can see what these successful women have spoken about with Cain.

Angelo Pappas wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

College sports are not pro sports and should not be treated as such, even for athletes who could go pro. If the athletes want to train like pros that is on them. Things like weight, goals, performance should be individualized and set by the athlete. Good on these athletes for sticking up for themselves. The coaches should have treated it like a college sport and not like they're going to win the olympics.

Then go to a different school. There are hundreds of other options. Some people like this approach.

I dont think the article was about people being forced to run for Oregon. Its news because its a big program and their coach is making a big miscalculation.

Women especially, take longer to mature into form. His biggest mistake, which is surprising, is treating college women runners like seasoned pros. You cant compare 19 y/o girls to 30 year old pros. The article pointed this out well. This is problematic with men but much worse with women. Just about any HS coach knows this. Using DEXA scan on young girls and comparing them to seasoned athletes is weirdly misinformed.

golden duck wrote:

It is easy for this to go the other way. If you don’t monitor weight, a lot of women at that level will also under eat. Just ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem.

Are “athletes” not able to manage the basic responsibilities of being an adult? They need a team of people to do their homework, monitor their diet, etc?

Posters who are saying "this is fine, college athletics are serious!" are 100% off-base. College athletics ARE serious, but they are not the be-all, end-all. Runners, men and women, can be at healthy and optimal racing weights without invasive DEXA scans and requiring people to be at arbitrary body fat percentages. How can you not see that this is an issue, especially given the rampant disordered eating associated with this sport?

Also to the people who say women are fragile - you're simply a misogynist. Women athletes are incredibly tough, and on top of their athletic pursuits have to deal with crap like this constantly. I can't imagine how draining that is.

Calling out crap doesn't make someone fragile.

Sport and most everything always benefited from a data-driven approach. Running is a physical sport. If you are unwilling to adapt your physiology to one that is known to improve running, that is your choice, but doesn’t change the fact that you will be a lesser runner, and others hungrier for success than you will eat your lunch.

Data driven stuff is probably accurate in a general sense but there are so many other factors involved as well and an individual approach needs to be taken. If one were using purely data driven methods, probably a champion like Peter Snell would not even be considered for a spot on the national team.

This article is nothing but a one sided, slanderous and even racist attack. They only talk to one person that sides with the coaches? On a team with 100 people and 5 transfer out, the article makes it seem like the 5% is the majority but it's actually a miniscule tiny fraction and the vast majority have no issue at all.

Where is the limit as to what coaches can say? Can they say don't eat fried food? Or is that going to give eating disorders as well? Or if the team is at Olive Garden the night before the NCAA championships and the coach says no desserts, is that fat shaming?

This is the beginning of the end for Division 1 Wrestling...

Victim culture is more prominent than ever. The "victims" then pass off their victim complex to their children and the cycle continues. Lot of people looking to do anything for a payday and take the easy way out. This could get to a tipping point eventually.

progressive regressive wrote:

This article is nothing but a one sided, slanderous and even racist attack. They only talk to one person that sides with the coaches? On a team with 100 people and 5 transfer out, the article makes it seem like the 5% is the majority but it's actually a miniscule tiny fraction and the vast majority have no issue at all.

Where is the limit as to what coaches can say? Can they say don't eat fried food? Or is that going to give eating disorders as well? Or if the team is at Olive Garden the night before the NCAA championships and the coach says no desserts, is that fat shaming?

This isn't a slippery slope you all desperately want it to be. You're just mad that coaches can't just say whatever they want to athletes and fixate on weight for--lets face it--asthetic reasons.

Use some common sense. a DEXA scan tells you nothing about performance. If an athlete is running well, don't mess their head up with body fat percentage because ultimately it's performance that counts.

Also, "don't eat fried food"--like ever? "no dessert before the meet" really? Like how about athletes do what is right for them?

Yikes Yikes Yikes wrote:

That's not good. Hopefully this article ends the practice, but Johnson comes out looking pretty terrible.

“Track is nothing but numbers,” he says. “A good mathematician probably could be a good track coach.”

I'd argue the opposite. Pretty much anyone with a background in running could come up with a decent training plan, but what separates good coaches are their abilities to support and inspire athletes.

You should rewatch Moneyball. Underestimate data at your own peril.

Have you heard of the stereotypical criticism that Asians are smart but not as creative? Creativity is a euphemism for falling behind, meanwhile Asian kids are turning out to be both smart and creative.

Yikes Yikes Yikes wrote:

Posters who are saying "this is fine, college athletics are serious!" are 100% off-base. College athletics ARE serious, but they are not the be-all, end-all. Runners, men and women, can be at healthy and optimal racing weights without invasive DEXA scans and requiring people to be at arbitrary body fat percentages. How can you not see that this is an issue, especially given the rampant disordered eating associated with this sport?

Also to the people who say women are fragile - you're simply a misogynist. Women athletes are incredibly tough, and on top of their athletic pursuits have to deal with crap like this constantly. I can't imagine how draining that is.

Calling out crap doesn't make someone fragile.

You are WRONG. You'd rather the coach to purposely let the athletes run like s#!t instead of trying to help them, all because of the tiny chance that the athlete may not accept the constructive criticism in a productive way?

Talking about bodyweight is junk science. Coaching should focus on nutrition and recovery, body composition will take care of itself. It doesn't surprise me that coaches buy into junk science, most of them aren't very clever so they are easily swayed by persuasively-written sciencism.

Part of a winning program is cultivating a positive team environment and culture. The coach believes in the athletes, the athletes believe in themselves and each other. Mix in hard work, sound training...That’s how you win as a team.

When athletes are supported and believe in themselves and each other they show up on race day ready to rock. They have their A+ game.

You aren’t winning if you’re berating any athletes. Even if it’s only “sarcasm” directed at your B teamer. People can get really sensitive about weight and that can lead to eating disorders, anxiety. People win when they’re at the top of their mental game.

Time to read some motivational and team building books.

pissy wrote:

Yikes Yikes Yikes wrote:

That's not good. Hopefully this article ends the practice, but Johnson comes out looking pretty terrible.

“Track is nothing but numbers,” he says. “A good mathematician probably could be a good track coach.”

I'd argue the opposite. Pretty much anyone with a background in running could come up with a decent training plan, but what separates good coaches are their abilities to support and inspire athletes.

You should rewatch Moneyball. Underestimate data at your own peril.

Have you heard of the stereotypical criticism that Asians are smart but not as creative? Creativity is a euphemism for falling behind, meanwhile Asian kids are turning out to be both smart and creative.

Insert massive eyeroll. Of course running is data driven! It's numbers and measurements. I'm not arguing that runners should just go out and run as fast or as far as they want, and hope it works out.

I'm saying that a functional training plan, by someone who understands numbers, isn't that hard to put together. What separates coaches is their ability to do that and look after their athletes. How many runners at "meat grinder" schools get chewed up and spat out by an adherence to a training plan? Meanwhile coaches who understand their runners' personalities, training, and health needs can develop those runners -- even if it takes a longer period of time -- into fast competitors.

Also your comment about Asian students is dated, at best.

Over 60% of UO signees since Johnson arrived have transferred on women's side.

progressive regressive wrote:

You are WRONG. You'd rather the coach to purposely let the athletes run like s#!t instead of trying to help them, all because of the tiny chance that the athlete may not accept the constructive criticism in a productive way?

Let me guess - you're a 17 year old high school male who is pumped up on his percieved low body fat who is finally ready to break 17 in the 5k this season?

Shaming people into eating disorders and an unhealthy obsession about body composition (which is junk science) is not constructive criticism. It is damaging. Talking about diet and nutrition in a holistic sense is constructive, and healthy body composition will follow that.

I'm so sick of the boys on here trying to defend this blatantly terrible coaching strategy.

Y'all are fixated on whether or not it is abusive. The question should be; does this strategy work? Does it equate to success? In recent years, I'd honestly have to say no.