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

Anyone who is so narrow-minded as to think that performance can be reduced to a single number like body fat (or even two or three numbers) doesn't deserve to be a coach, and certainly shouldn't be a college coach. Anyone with any knowledge of exercise physiology and related research knows that there are more unknowns than knowns. But one of the biggest knowns is that an athlete will only get better if she/he can absorb the punishment of training, build a stronger body, and do it again. And again. And again. Targeting a specific body-fat percentage is not only contrary to that, because it fails to look at overall health and performance, it's a short-term, small-minded view of the athlete that you'd expect from someone who only expects to see that athlete for three or four years, tops, and wants to maximize their results (if lucky) for three or four years, tops.

Prospective collegiate athletes, if you're listening, cross Oregon off your list. Other schools would love to have you, and you'll be better and healthier for it.

bigmig19 wrote:

Angelo Pappas wrote:

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

Its news because its a big program and their coach is making a big miscalculation.

That's just an opinion. Other people have different opinions. Your opinion certainly doesn't matter. You have zero credibility. He's the coach of a major d1 program. Other people on his level can have differing opinions, but he's paid to make these decisions as he sees fit.

Anyone who thinks body weight has zero impact on running doesn't deserve to be a coach, and certainly shouldn't be a college coach.

Oh my goodness. No. One. Is. Arguing. That. It. Has. *Zero*. Impact.

Let me ask you this:

Do you think three DEXA scans a year is appropriate?

Do you think it's appropriate to tell a female athlete to drop 3% body fat when she hasn't had a period in a year and a half?

Do you think it's appropriate to tell an athlete she can't travel if she doesn't drop to 12% body fat?

Do you think it's good coaching to have your athletes fixate this much on weight?

Do think it's an insightful coach that pulls a athlete off the track to ask if she's on birth control because she looks like her hips are wider, right. before. the. workout???

I've said it before on this website, men just genuinely don't understand female puberty or female bodies. Of course weight has an impact, but it's not the end all or be all, and dropping weight doesn't mean you'll be faster. You might be weaker.

I'm not going to name names because it's so ridiculous but check out the US Olympic distance team--all the athletes. You'll actually see a range of different body types. Some athletes could be skinnier--but would that mean they'd be faster?

Hejendo76 wrote:

The men's team won indoor nationals and got 2nd at outdoor and had 3 other olympians not named Cole Hocker.

The sprinters are fairly irrelevant here, and I'm more so talking about the women anyway.

sameupnorth wrote:

So everything in that article is the exact philosophy the Powell’s have at Washington and they approach all of this the same exact way and did at Oregon also. It will be unfortunate if they come out of this clean and don’t change how they do business.

Maurica Powell said some sus stuff on Lindsey Hein's podcast about this.

Body Composition absolutely plays a role in performance, and not an insignificant role either.

At every level you will find similarities in body composition in top performers. The higher the level, the more homogenous the body compositions become. And Oregon is THE HIGHEST LEVEL of division 1 college athletics.

I am guessing most recruits choose Oregon in part because of their investment in sports science and data collection. They love that stuff, until it shows an area for personal improvement......that information causes anxiety.

Mileage plays a role in performance, can we not monitor, coach, advise that? How about pace? How about race strategy? How about running technique? None of them ALONE predict performance, should we not address them? Can we time practice reps? Or does knowing there will be a stop watch at practice cause anxiety?

How about grades? Shall we not get grade reports? And if grades are below standard, shall we not comment, coach, mentor, teach? I'm guessing the 2.0 student gets anxiety every time a mid term report occurs. That meeting with the academic advisor or coach must be harmful to their mental health because they are not prepared to hear facts as they pertain to themselves.

Division 1 athletes want 4+ year scholarships, with cost of attendance, 5 uniform variations, a state of the art locker room, and travel to the best meets. But they don't want to be accountable for the factors they have the greatest control over? (oh, and they want their scholarships to be guaranteed, you can't reduce or remove a scholarship for poor athletic performance.....but also don't try to improve their performance habits because that increases stress.)

They want the dexa scan if it can help detect bone density issues and avoid life long bone healthy issues, but not for the body composition? Just knowing body comp will be measured causes anxiety? Maybe THAT should be investigated.

They want the nutritionist, but only if the nutritionist doesn't say something that is true, but simultaneously offends the student-athlete.

A coach can coach, but only if they say nice things.

God help the next generation of coaches.

red flag wrote:

Agreed. That quote (and the article obviously) should be a massive red flag for any HSer considering Oregon. ESPECIALLY girls. Does it work for some? Obviously. But at what cost/risk?

At any cost! Look, if a college or pro coach has to destroy 100 people to turn 10 into champions that is the price to pay. Athletes are our modern gladiators and should be sacrificed for our enjoyment in the same manner.

Nadia Comaneci wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If it's unacceptable for collegiate runners I don't see why it would be acceptable for professional ones. A professional runner should not be expected to risk her health and career to achieve a coach’s goal of having an Olympic medal winner.

What?

Since when are professional sports healthy?

Gymnastics, swimming, tennis, football... you name it, they all abuse young bodies.

The issue is whether a coach should push an athlete to diet because he believes she will be more competitive at a given weight and the answer is no. For Mary Cain, it resulted in 5 stress fractures and the end of her competitive career.

The runner should have a healthy diet, train hard and her weight will be what it is. I haven't heard of male distance runners dieting and the ones I've known had huge appetites.

In the spirit of honesty, Mary Cain alleges that is what happened. However, she seems to want to have it both ways. At some point if she does not want to attempt to comeback that is a choice she is responsible for. It seems at the moment she is more interested in milking the pennies out of this story than the running itself. Victimization has become a cash cow.

malmo wrote:

Longtime UO womens coach Tom Heinonen was the king of body shaming. I though when he retired things would change. Nope, they just elevated the problem to the extreme.

Maybe these idiots should realize that college athletes is an enhancement too the college experience, not the end all.

Maybe. This would be true of D3 schools. But when you're giving people money to run and paying coaches based on results, well, money changes everything. The pressure to hit body composition standards is a lot worse in some other sports -- football doesn't even hide it, and the fans can be more brutal than anything on letsrun.

Indeed you've written that you're at race weight when the veins in your belly are visible. So when a D1 coach sees a runner in late season showing symptoms of Dunlap's disease, what should he do?

This summarizes most of my thoughts as well. Not specific to this situation at Oregon, but watching what is and has been going on across the country. It's trendy and heroic to complain, accuse, refuse personal accountability and play the victim. Everything causes "stress and anxiety" and athlete expectations are to be given and provided everything without being expected to perform. I think that is the definition of entitlement. While this is a culture thing across the board, it seems the victim culture is especially prevalent in women's distance, more so than other sports and in men's sports.

What’s pretty damning here is the author, Ken Goe, has gotten a lot of crap on these boards for being a Salazar apologist. He’s made a living promoting the Ducks and Nike coaches and athletes. The fact he’s being critical of Johnson says a lot. This will snowball.

malmo wrote:

Longtime UO womens coach Tom Heinonen was the king of body shaming. I though when he retired things would change. Nope, they just elevated the problem to the extreme.

Maybe these idiots should realize that college athletes is an enhancement too the college experience, not the end all.

You are the foolish one. These women tell their coach they want to be pro athletes, they want to break records and win gold medals. They tell their coach they want his help to reach their full potential and be the best ever. the coach promises he'll do everything he can for them.

Maybe the individual does have pro potential but their weight is holding them back. If you are the coach, do you shut up and let that athlete fall short of the goals that she set and that you promised you'd help her attain? Or do you keep your promise and have the weight conversation?

nina_sjl wrote:

https://twitter.com/KenGoe/status/1452654590596313101

Was this the article Kara was referring to?

Today I read yet another article about a coach weighing and body shamming women. Saying that the numbers tell him how to coach and I am SO SICK OF THIS NARRATIVE. There is NO ONE WAY to look as an athlete. Bodies are different, humans are different. I am so sick of the focus on how something looks instead of what we can do to aide our bodies with love and nourishment to perform at its best. I know so many women with PTSD and lifelong eating disorders due to coaches comments. When is enough enough?!

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The issue is whether a coach should push an athlete to diet because he believes she will be more competitive at a given weight and the answer is no. For Mary Cain, it resulted in 5 stress fractures and the end of her competitive career.

The runner should have a healthy diet, train hard and her weight will be what it is. I haven't heard of male distance runners dieting and the ones I've known had huge appetites.

Cain got injured because she was overweight, not because she was too skinny.

iowakidscanrun wrote:

What’s pretty damning here is the author, Ken Goe, has gotten a lot of crap on these boards for being a Salazar apologist. He’s made a living promoting the Ducks and Nike coaches and athletes. The fact he’s being critical of Johnson says a lot. This will snowball.

This was the big thing for me. For Goe to write this is a huge deal. And all the apologists in this thread seem to ignore the body fat percent to travel and lose body fat even though you don’t get your period directives. Those comments cannot be subject to reasonable dispute due to a difference of opinions. Even if you think the scans make sense and some attention should be given to body composition matters, those comment above should never be made.

Wait, you think the guys around here would object to this?

Haven’t you heard “gaunt is beautiful”? Haven’t you heard that you should look like a skeleton with a condom pulled over your head? The consensus around here is you need to be thin. 160-lb male runners are called huge which is hilarious in real life.

To me the real issue is I don’t know if we have data supporting the idea that already very fit people get faster by losing even more weight which may be in the form of muscle. I’m one of those 160-lb guys but I’m lean as hell, with abs and veins all over the place. I’ve tried to get lighter through diet and I don’t get faster.

So if we were certain it worked, then sure, I’d support the tough love approach you wrote in jest. But I’m not even clear it makes sense. Do we even know?

I believe using the science and technology to perform better is great, but the delivery and way they utilize that information is faulty. Instead of making where the personal is out of the question. Make it educational and positive and leave it up to the athlete to decide how they want to use that information. Teach that while it may help their performance it can only be achieve in a healthy lifestyle and balance. But that lifestyle should never include an extreme sacrifice. Work hard sleep long and fuel strong. Women are tough as nails but can be fragile if you treat them like they’re just lab rats. Can you push them to be great in a positive way, hell yeah! A female athlete will ride or die for you til the wheels fall off but you have to nurture that relationship that doesn’t mean you can’t push them at all. And you can’t group all of female athletes together you have to meet them where they’re at. One might want to rip the heads off of every runner she faces, the other might just be happy to be there and just wants to run and enjoy her time and doesn’t even know what it takes to make a national meet she is naive to that aspect. As a coach, you recruit what you believe will help your Program and understand that we only get it 50% right and then you learn and continue to recruit and develop. Don’t stress yourself out because a kid doesn’t want to be as good as they could be just meet them where they’re at and leave it at that