Women and men are DIFFERENT.

Sorry--meant to add a word in the title: "DUH!"

If you have any background in exercise physiology at all, you should know the physiological differences and why MOST women can't train or perform like men. Several reasons being differences in absolute muscle mass, heart and lung size, and the all important testosterone for recovery.

boys have a penis. girls have a vagina.

I'm confused-- are you trying to compare a 5 min. female miler to a 5 min. male miler?

Yes, jaguar1--actually the intent was to compare females and males, but using the example of 5min. milers (from both sexes) to illustrate the differences.

why don't we see more female pre-puberty prodigies in running?

Physiologically/anatomically and psychologically, 'elite' men and 'elite' women are definitely different. To compare a 5 min. female miler to a 5 min. male miler, would they physiologically be different or similar? I don't know, but that would be interesting to do, say, a VO2 max test on a bunch of 5 min. female/male milers and compare the results. As a woman, I don't see why women can't train like men. We just have to spend more time on our feet to run the equivalent mileage. However, training just as much as men is not going to lead us to racing as fast as men cause we'll always be physiologically and psychologically different.

I would think that how a coach should approach 'coaching' women vs. men is different. However, that doesn't mean the 'training' should be any different. There is a different psyche-- in a broad sense, women want constant communication and feedback. More of an interconnection. They are hard enough on themselves that they don't want a coach harping on them constantly. That would be bad! Positive reinforcement, not negative. For both sexes, a coach needs to be there to hold them back on easy days, and maybe even moreso with women. I've never enjoyed group runs with women-- it becomes too competitive! But when I run with an equal (or maybe faster) male, the pace never goes beyond the means. That's an interesting observation/comparison about Daniels vs. Lydiard. I'm reading Run to the Top at the moment, and he seems to tell it like it is. I actually like it!:)

jaguar1 wrote:

As a woman, I don't see why women can't train like men. We just have to spend more time on our feet to run the equivalent mileage.

That's exactly why I've always heard that women shouldn't train as much as men...that they should spend a similar amount of time running, but it will come to lower mileage.

So it boils down to-- should women run equal time or equal mileage as men? What's wrong with women spending more time on their feet?

Yeah, but to jaguar1 (and to ..): my point is that probably most women would NOT be best served by getting the same kind of training that works best for most men.

"As a woman, I don't see why women can't *train* like men." Well, no doubt they *can*--my contention was that that probably would not be optimal for most women.

In other words, the fact that men and women (at similar levels of competitiveness within their own sex) run at such different speeds shows that there's a profound *physiological* difference between the sexes. It is NOT just a psychological thing (though I wouldn't be surprised--I just haven't seen any research, either way--to learn that there is a physiological component to the different physchological "needs," as well).

And I would suggest that in distance running the differences are, in part, illustrated by the success that men had with Lydiard and the success that women had with Daniels.

Women are more mature than men.

Proof: Jaguar1's remarks compared to the males on this board.

oldcoach wrote:

Yeah, but to jaguar1 (and to ..): my point is that probably most women would NOT be best served by getting the same kind of training that works best for most men.

"As a woman, I don't see why women can't *train* like men." Well, no doubt they *can*--my contention was that that probably would not be optimal for most women.

But why?

It's interesting that especially in individual sports, the question whether women should have their own competitions or should compete in men's was not settled until the early 1970s. There's some little-known history about how the NCAA agreed to forbid women from men's teams and championships (after a female diver from Michigan State made it to nationals) as a way of making peace with the women running women's sport organizations.

This is relevant because a handful of people argue that women's-only teams and competitions are a kind of affirmative action. Someday, it's argued, girls will receive the training, encouragement, and time playing to equal boys in most sports.

Nobody in his or her right mind would argue that women would ever sprint as fast, jump as high, or throw as far as the fastest/jumpiest/strongest man. But already the best women can beat all but a relatively tiny handful of men.

Inasmuch as training is an experiment of one anyways, why would there be a meaningful distinction of training between male and female runners? You train the runner relative to his or her strengths and weaknesses, so why not start with the same basic principles to train male and female athletes at the same level of fitness?

Gee, thanks for the head's up.

jaguar1 wrote:

So it boils down to-- should women run equal time or equal mileage as men? What's wrong with women spending more time on their feet?

Well, physiologically the great advantage of more testosterone is the benefits in repairing muscle damage. More time on feet=more muscle damage=greater need for recovery. More time on feet would seem to be a recipe for breaking down, at least at the higher mileage levels.

Southern Man

Estrogen has the same effect in women. Furthermore, at a slower pace for more time to run the same mileage, why would that lead to more muscle damage?

jaguar1 wrote:

Estrogen has the same effect in women. Furthermore, at a slower pace for more time to run the same mileage, why would that lead to more muscle damage?

I assume the woman and man would be running at the same relative intensity/percentage of capacity. I'm not sure I have thought it through entirely and if a faster absolute pace (plus, typically, a higher weight) would result in more muscle damage. You would also have to factor in the higher percentage of body fat that women must carry. This is quite a complicated question. It has been my understanding/belief that women should run about the same time as men at the same relative intensity. Can't say I can really defend that.

It has always been my understanding that estrogen was not as effective in repairing muscle damage as testosterone is. I am not a physiologist or biologist so I am certainly open to correction on that issue as well.

Women spend more time on their feet in races at a slower pace to run the same distance, so why not do the same in training?

Estrogen/testoterone aren't the only hormones used for muscle/bone repair-- growth hormone released during sleep and during intense workouts as well as insulin also play a significant role.

You're right, testosterone is much more anabolic than estrogen.