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

The ability to stay healthy is definitely necessary to perform at your best. Many letsruners have the misconception that you have to sacrifice your health in order to perform at your best. However, this could not be further from the truth. As a female athlete, missing your period is not a sign that you are getting fitter, rather it indicates that you are not consuming enough calories and nutrients to furfill both your training and body functions. Many athetes engage in unhealthy diatary practices in order to get lean, but being in Relative-Energy Deficiency Syndrome(RED-S) is detrimental to improvement as a runner. When you are getting insufficient calories and nutrients, your ability to recover and absorb the training stimulus becomes comprised. Your immune and endocrine system also becomes comprised. Consequently, the athete often becomes sick and injured and thereby can not optimally partake in the training necessary to get faster.

That being said, many people would be faster if they can find a way to get lean while staying healthy. I am very curious as to the type of protocols the "nutritionists" at Oregon were prescribing to their track athletes to lower body fat percentage. It says that they were given cross training to improve body composition which in of itself is fine but I am wondering what type of diatary practices they were recommending to these athetes. I am also curious to see if they were recommending strength training for these athetes. Strength training would be tremendously beneficial in that it would reduce body fat percentage and improve strength to weight ratio while enabling the athete to stay healthy.

When I ran NCAA track in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was a new NCAA sport for women, and being less developed, a lot of women could run very good times by simply being light. On my team, this success lasted only a season or two before injuries set in, but since it worked in the short term, it became popular. Remember, a 35-36 minute 10k was very good back then.

I was hoping that since power and speed increasingly matter in today's sport that simply dieting and running a lot to achieve success would no longer work. I am amazed that some still try this method, but I guess the large amount of supplemental strength work that athletes do today (we did none) might still salvage this approach. Or maybe it is still the same in that you can get some short-term results and this dominates behavior.

My coach made some old-fashioned assumptions about men and women and coached the two sexes differently.

None of us questioned it. It seemed like a good idea to tread softly when it came to our female distance runners and eating.

He didn't hesitate to rip us -the guys- a new one about our beer habits.

The University today preaches sexual symmetry. What I have read here suggests that my old coach's approach might still make some sense.

It's not about weight or metrics or science at all.

It's about a culture of fear and intimidation that has no place in coaching.

DEXA scans are a symptom, not the cause.

I suppose a nurturing environment, equitable power structures, low accountability, emotional support, etc. for all might produce champions but I haven't seen any evidence of that - maybe BYU's women's xc team? Coaches are generally not socialists. If there are 100 athletes on the track team I'm not sure it's possible to keep all of them happy and content and achieving their potential. Little easier in the professional coaching ranks where the ratio is more like 10 to 2.

That said, I'm not sure there has ever been an athlete that didn't struggle getting through their pupation stage.

Most don't, some achieve something they never thought possible but many give up for a myriad of reasons. It's hard when an athlete has to acknowledge that the struggle just isn't worth the battle or they have plateaued or they're worried about their well being. It's easy to play the what if game; What if I went to Stanford? What if Coach provided more emotional support? What if Dexa scans weren't invented? What if I was born an ectomorph?

High level collegiate sports require a coach to get the most out of their athletes' talent and win championships. Weight matters in every sport, male or female.

Just like the marines, these Oregon athletes have volunteered and accepted the terms of service. Does that mean that they deserve to be treated like marines? No it doesn't, and it shouldn't, but attending a highly competitive track program will require a higher level of commitment that they might not be ready for, physically, emotionally, and/or mentally. I agree the washout rate would probably be lower if coaches paid more attention to these considerations. We'll have to ask championship level coaches why or how they do it. (Not too interested in how the bottom dwellers of the conference do it).

All my coaches in all the sports I played from youth leagues were pretty much like my drill sergeants when I was in the Army. As I progressed through college they were a little more passive aggressive but wouldn't hold back if they thought I was holding back. I was "fat shamed" quite a bit because my racing weight was 163lbs. I did everything I could to lose weight (except give up beer) to no avail. Although, apparently because I'm male, I owned my largeness and it didn't affect my self esteem. I knew a couple of women on our team struggled with eating disorders and it wasn't pretty.

On the flip side, this sounds like Oregon, with their methodology, either has been recruiting the wrong athletes or their coaches haven't made the transition to Gen Z - whom I believe, rightly, are demanding more interpersonal coaching than the old days. We'll see if today's coaches can keep up.

ianove wrote:

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.

It is not a terrible coaching strategy.

It works, and it equates to success.

Lighter is (generally), better.

Signed,

Rosie (not a boy) the Cuban

avenue A wrote:

It's not about weight or metrics or science at all.

It's about a culture of fear and intimidation that has no place in coaching.

DEXA scans are a symptom, not the cause.

Robert is careless with his decisions. Winning at all costs.

The outrage in this thread is bullsh!t

You are literally telling coaches to deliberately not help women's athletes reach their full potential. Feminists should be outraged that women are being held to lower standards. Women's sports will be less viewed and women's pro athletes will be worse compensated than men because coaches aren't allowed to make women's athletes run to their full potential.

If you’ve got a sound training program and your athletes are putting in the work their weight should be fine.

As a coach unless you are feeding these athletes with “training table“ you don’t have any control over them the 22 hours a day you don’t see them. You’re unnecessarily stressing yourself and stressing your athlete about food, body image with this micromanaging style.

You want your athletes in a mental space where they feel fit and invincible.

^ this

nina_sjl wrote:

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

Did anyone ever hear of Greg Metcalf, Alberto Saladbar, or the practices of the famous John McDonnell??

I’m tired of these click bait mofos acting surprised when this is the subject that Dominates our sport.

burnout factory wrote:

The outrage in this thread is bullsh!t

You are literally telling coaches to deliberately not help women's athletes reach their full potential. Feminists should be outraged that women are being held to lower standards. Women's sports will be less viewed and women's pro athletes will be worse compensated than men because coaches aren't allowed to make women's athletes run to their full potential.

Nope. They are saying that a college coach should turn pro if he mistreats his collegiate athletes as if they were pros instead of sub elites evolving at a lower rate and pace. Also, college athletes that are physically, mentally and emotionally ready, should turn to the pro experience, hire an agent and coach to take advantage of the higher expectations on everyone.

Neither scenario should allow a hostile environment. Plenty of legitimate harrassment litigation in the 9-5 world of work for sure.

Now, lets imagine today's Shakari Richardson being fat shamed by a college coach. I think the coach would get an earful and told to f-off but remain on the team. But she turned pro even though shes obviously lacking emotionally and possibly mentaly not prepared for elite level proffesionalism. Bobby Kersee probably told Jackie Joyner, Flo-Jo, Gail Devers etc...a few normally unacceptable things as well but they were pros and handled it in their own ways. College kids arent ready for that and todays society just doesnt accept that behavior, right or wrong, and people are more confident to speak up when it happens.

They just have a problem keeping the pro environment/expectations separate from the collegiate. Too much money and egos at stake. Theres plenty of successful coaches and programs at Oregons level that dont behave that way.

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?

Did you read the article & see the number of times people from the school refused to comment? Are you not going to print the article because UofO is being very careful in crafting their response & keeping things very close to the chest?

& at what point is there a problem? 5 people all dealing with the thing & breaking down systemic problems within the system doesn't warrant change? I must have missed the part where this is just about eating healthy. What I saw was an unhealthy push to "look right" before scans and shaming if you didn't "make weight." You get prescribed extra cross training & everyone knows why. What I saw was coaches way too focused on appearance & asking female runners questions that don't concern them.

This stuff is problematic even if you want to ignore it. College running shouldn't have to be like this.

You don't understand. The coaches are trying to help these women so they can get a pro contract.

A few seconds in a distance race or a few hundredths of a second in a sprint can mean the difference between going pro or going to work at burger king.

What you are all saying is that the only ones that can be successful are the ones that just happen to be self-disciplined with their diet on their own and can get themselves to their optimal body weight without anyone telling them to. The other ones that maybe have a few beers during the week or eat unhealthy foods late at night, the coaches should just let them do that and let them underperform and MISS OUT ON A PRO CONTRACT even though they may be more naturally talented than the ones who are smart enough to eat right without a DEXA scan.

For the millionth time. There is a difference between encouraging a healthy body, a healthy diet etc. and mentally abusing your athletes to the point of developing eating disorders. Why is this so hard for you mental midgets to understand?

6 WOMEN… 6! 6 women are upset because they were asked to get in shape. LAWD HELP US.

^^^this doesn’t matter!

If an athlete isnt self directed/self motivated they won’t achieve anything. The winningest athletes bring it everyday, if anything the coaches of the best needs to hold them back from taking things to the extreme.

If a coach has to motivate an already gifted athlete they’re not achieving anything. Sorry!

The best have it physically and mentally. Talk to any long time coach, they’ll probably tell you of plenty of gifted athletes they had that just didn’t want it for whatever reason.

I am conducting a research study for my Master's thesis on healthy and unhealthy attitudes and behaviors associated with the sport of d1 female collegiate distance running. The anonymous survey has been approved by the IRB at the University of Delaware and takes 15-20 minutes to complete. At the conclusion of the study, participants can enter a drawing to win a $100 Amazon gift card. All current NCAA D1 female collegiate distance runners are eligible to participate.

The survey can be accessed here:

https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eEREXIQI8XIYIg6

and can be shared with any D1 female distance runners who may be interested in participating.

Any questions or concerns can be directed to

sweir@udel.edu

To all the White Knights on here...

IF you were coaching a college girls team and a couple of your highly recruited runners were no longer performing well and you noticed they were 8-12 lbs heavier, what do you tell them if they ask for help?

If they asked why they aren't performing as well as they did even in HS?

Do you just give them a bunch of work outs and extra mileage and never mention weight?

Just talk in general about "better nutrition" but w/o ever mentioning weight gain/loss?

If they're D1 runners they probably WANT to get better.. do you dare cross that bridge?

^^^this doesn’t matter!

If an athlete isnt self directed/self motivated they won’t achieve anything. The winningest athletes bring it everyday, if anything the coaches of the best needs to hold them back from taking things to the extreme.

If a coach has to motivate an already gifted athlete they’re not achieving anything. Sorry!

The best have it physically and mentally. Talk to any long time coach, they’ll probably tell you of plenty of gifted athletes they had that just didn’t want it for whatever reason.[/quote]

You are foolish. You want coaches to give up on the athletes if the athletes aren't the most motivated person on the team their first day on campus.

Maybe those athletes are working extremely hard in practice but nobody every taught them nutrition. Sometimes you have to explain the ketchup on your bacon cheeseburger doesn't count as a vegetable. Sometimes freshmen gain the freshman 15 just because there is different food in the dining halls than you ate at home. That doesn't make them bad people, it just means they need coaching.