Whats the physiological difference between men and women that determines a person's ability at that distance?? What is Paula doing in her training that other women arent doing?? These are questions which I would love to see answered. 2:15 would win American men's championship, pre-Kannouchi era that is.
Bigger heart, lungs (relatively to body size) so greater VO2 max, lower body fat attainable, more sweat glands, legs angled outwards instead of inwards, I'm sure there's more but I can't think of any right now.
What 10k time would most 2:15 men be capable of, or what marathon would 30min 10k men expect?
2:15-2:18 is reasonable.
For one, men have better basic turnover than women (usually).
This 2:15 business is otherwordly.
I have no idea what Paula's quarter is like but a performance like this starts to make you think of low 29s on the track.
I know comparisons like this are pointless, but think about this. The women's marathon world record is now 107.7% of the men's world record. If there was this same ratio between the other distances, the women's records would be...
100-10.53 (ok, so this one has been matched)
200-20.81
400-46.5
800-1:48.9
1500-3:41.9
mile-4:00.4
5k-13:38
10k-28:24
1/2M-1:03:26
insanity..
As I recall some physiological studies have shown that women should run as fast as men at long distances, so it's not surprising that the longest records have the lowest ratios. The longer runs are limited by energy storage systems and utilisation rather than physical size so it's reasonable to expect a different limit to performance than in the sprints.
Womens running isn't competitive. Paula marathon is right where the womens record SHOULD be. So SHOULD all of the records that you listed. Except, of course, that 200.
ratio yes, but...2:15:25 is equal to 64:29, 28:52, 13:45, 4:03, I would think.
Mercier tables: 2:15:25= 1:49,3:43,13:48,29:03. The latter seems within reach for PR.
As I recall, this question was settled some time ago. Women have a greater ability, and a higher percentage, of body fat, and their muscle make up tends more toward slow twitch, long efforts. I think the projected distance at which women overtook men in performance was 50 miles. If you look at ultra races, it's not terribly uncommon for a woman to win outright, or finish high.
I have heard a lot about this, but honestly it all seems like conjecture to me, women have not yet come close to overtaking men in the ultra distances. The two best thus far have been Ann Trason and Yionnos Kuorros, Trason ran 144 miles in the 24 hour run, Kuorros ran 188, they are not even close. The thing is both mens and women's ultra marathoning isn't highly developed but the gap at the very top is not any closer. I do recall however a few years ago a Japanese women set a WR in 100k run that was only 6% off the men's record.
One thing that has been overlooked is the ability to put in the extreme training required for these distances, perhaps theoretically women have advantages but men have shown the ability to train at higher volumes and intensity (Ikangaa, Bedford, Lindgren, Kenyans) and generally seem more durable which could be enough to overcome some of the innate advantages women may have by training their bodies better. Just a thought.
Perhaps women will be better but right now they're not and it isn't that close, once the sport has developed more we'll see.
The old greater-body fat issue was based on women having more total fat so they would have more total energy available, but carbohydrate is more efficient fuel so having more fat is not too great, unless of course the race is to see whether a man or a woman would run the farthest before they each had to quit or die due to all fuel being depleted. Most races are to see who can get from point A to point B the fastest, not who can go the farthest
jtupper wrote:
unless of course the race is to see whether a man or a woman would run the farthest before they each had to quit or die due to all fuel being depleted. Most races are to see who can get from point A to point B the fastest, not who can go the farthest
A new olympic event? So in that scenario, women would probably be better suited (more energy [fat] stores)?
The marathon is a race where carbohydrate stores do get depleted during the race. Arguably some of the recent improvements in marathon running can be attributed to ingesting carbs while on the run. Jim Peters couldn't even get water in his fateful race because the helpers had gone to watch Landry-Bannister! The time runs used to be more popular but still happen. Certainly the physiological limitations at distance are different than those for the sprints (and between men and women) so I see know reason to expect that the ratio of the best performances to be constant between the sexes at all distances.
jtupper, a better way to illustrate your point would be if a sendentary woman and a sedentary man were stranded on a raft in the ocean the women would most likely live longer. In the course of an athletic competition you want less body fat, not more.
I?ve read that women better at USING fat as an energy source than men- Giving them a bit of a comparative advantage (but not nearly enough to out-weigh other factors)... of course I would think having low, low body fat would still be optimal because you?re only talking using a small amount of body fat as energy, so having 5% body fat would be far better than 10% because of the greater weight you?d have to move if you were 10% body fat.