"Why (Most) Women Shouldn't Run"

Darn, I don't have the body of a 12-year-old boy. I guess I better stop running.

Sure, body type determines who is a more efficient runner, but saying that a woman should not run at all based on her hip angle is a load of crap.

The elite female runners, gymnasts, etc. all look a certain way because they have been training since an early age and their muscles adapted to the sport over time.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Darn, I don't have the body of a 12-year-old boy. I guess I better stop running.

Sure, body type determines who is a more efficient runner, but saying that a woman should not run at all based on her hip angle is a load of crap.

The bottom line: Running is not good for most females. If you want higher-intensity exercise, ride a stationary bike. Take a spin class, use a stairclimber, and don't run.

Reading comprehension. It's a good thing...

It would have been more interesting if the original author showed some statistics of the running related injuries comparing men and women. While the physiology is obviously different,I wonder if women statisically, have more running related medical problems than men. I tried to Google it, but as usual, came up with too much crap to wade through to actually find any decent data on the subject.

well I can see one point, that perhaps if you are very overweight and out of shape, that a great deal of running might not be the best option to try and get into shape. it really is not a good idea to have "plus size" runners, but perhaps if they can get into shape there is no reason why they shouldn't run in the future when they are in better shape and their bodies can handle it.

but this is a running board, not a jogging club.

while yeah, lots of girls get hit with injuries when their hips are developing, its not something permanent. there are elite athletes out there with the "q angle".

How narrow minded. That's like saying most men shouldn't play football because they don't have the body of a football player. The problem is, some people will think this idiot is right.

Most men should not run.

Studies stating the same theory.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/2/151

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n11_v50/ai_15242464

Here's one study that didn't even include a running sport in its survey, rather odd.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=535218

Unfortunately, Mike Boyle has little if any background in running. His mainstay has been working with football players and, most recently, hockey athletes. He is out of his element when it comes to working with runners.

LG Goettingen wrote:

By Michael Boyle

Why do I say this? Two simple reasons. Anatomy and physics. My favorite two sciences. No matter how hard you try or how well you eat, you can't change your skeleton. The problem with most women and running comes down to something they call Q angle in sportsmedicine. I won't bore you with the details, but it boils down to this. Wider hips make for narrow knees. This angle of hip to knee creates problems. Problems are magnified based on the number of steps. The average person gets about 1500 foot strikes per mile. Do the math on your 5-mile run. Running produces forces in the area of two to five times bodyweight per foot contact. Do we need more math?

Well, at least Mr. Boyle can spell "anatomy" and "physics" properly.

Q-angle is defined to be the angle defined by the force vector generated by the quad muscles as applied to patella and the reaction force from the patellar center to the patellar tendon insertion (imagine a pin in the center of the kneecap, draw a line from that to the tibial insertion of the tendon below it, and another line from the pin "straight up" the leg; the included angle between these lines is the Q-angle). It grossly defines the shear forces applied to the patella as it moves up and down the trochlea. It has absolutely nothing to do with running efficiency, but deals more with durability of the patello-femoral cartilage.

Shall we translate the statement "I won't bore you with details?" It seems pretty clear to me what he's saying.

LG Goettingen wrote:

Wider hips make for narrow knees. This angle of hip to knee creates problems. Problems are magnified based on the number of steps. The average person gets about 1500 foot strikes per mile. Do the math on your 5-mile run. Running produces forces in the area of two to five times bodyweight per foot contact. Do we need more math?

.....

So what happens when a "normal" woman begins to run? She becomes a statistic. She becomes a physical-therapy client as she tries to shovel you-know-what against the tide. Her wider knees cause her to develop foot problems or most likely knee problems.

So wider hips make narrower knees, and narrower knees are bad, but the normal woman has problems with her wider knees. Quite a contradiction.

Reading comprehension. It's a good thing...

I agree, you should learn it sometime.

His bottom line that running is not good for "most females" refers to females who have wide hips, the high Q angle, etc... in the end, bodies not similar to those of men. txRunnergirl was right to make her sarcastic remark, because the article assumes that since she has more of a "female" body, she shouldn't run.

You will also find that the average chronically injured male runner is built like a woman. Wider hips, knock kneed and splay footed.

Very clearly this is a case of a highly trained individual (I'm giving Boyle the benefit of the doubt here) assuming that his knowledge base is applicable in things he clearly knows nothing about. The underlying premise is that the definition of a runner is a world class runner, competing in World Championships and Olympics. Anything less than this is not considered running and most women shouldn't waste their time.

Taking it a little bit further then all those girls and women who will never be world class because of their Q angles are something less than runners. It also means that all those brisque Saturday mornings where they gathered in nervous apprehension, ready to face their personal demons for the betterment of the team and themselves, vaguely aware of their coach barking out words of encouragement and advice, searching for something to ease their burden as they huddled with their teammates bravely facing the self inflicted pain that will surely come with effort, developing the confidence that comes with being an athlete, building positive memories and making friends for life, carrying these positive experiences into marriage and motherhood...is better pursued on a stationary bike.

Boyle get a life.

Mr. Nipple had the right idea but quoted the wrong thing. We've already seen the Q-angle discussed here. Injury with a larger angle is more probable. It won't correlate perfectly because there are other factors involved with injury.

TXrG- "Elite" not "mediocre" was where he drew a distinction. Are you not telling us something about your Olympic history?

The title of the article is wrong. If it were "Why women shouldn't run like men," Boyle might have a point.

Perhaps the original poster should take himself over to coolrunning.com (where there are many more female "fitness" runners). There he can meet women who have, through running, lost weight (some 100+ lbs), run their first road races, gained self-confidence, and had fun pursuing a sport. Being women who fit the "shouldn't run" model, they might have better refutations as to why he's wrong.

Do most of those women have a body that would let them ever become an Olympic champion, log over 100 mi/week, or earn money on the roads? Likely not. But the benefits that they've gained through running are tangible and worthwhile. Some of them even discover that their too heavy, too wide bodies are capable of responding to better training, and their physical limitations don't prevent them from becoming Boston qualifiers, age group winners, or a contributing runner on a high school or college team. And face it, not every man who starts running as a fitness runner is able to do those things either.

Boyle is one of those "fitness gurus". Essentially, they promote:

A. themselves, or their gym

B. equipment to sell you

C. the latest "buzz" in exercise

Where they are effective is in sports, such as hockey, where they're contributions increase the general fitness of the athlete so that they may better apply their sport skills, such as skating. When the fitness guru tries to dabble in endurance running they have little to contribute.

Mr. Boyle happens to have bowed legs, so he would have first hand knowledge of the deleterious effects misaligned skeletal structures have on running performance. But his assertion that the average woman cannot or should not run because her hips are too wide is absurd.

True, the average woman is not going to become an elite runner, but neither is the average man going to become an elite runner. As the kids say, "Duh."

hey txrunnergirl, you say you're an example of someone with a "female" body that runs?

weren't you injured a lot?

Reading this, I felt it was time for a reality check. One critical statement in Michael Boyle's analysis is that the "average person [apparently both genders are included here] gets about 1500 foot strikes per mile." I decided to get on a treadmill (a nice, controlled environment) and test this out. Before I go any further here, you should know this about me:

Male, nearly 50 years old (which is to say that the muscles are not as elastic as they once were and thus my stride length is probably shorter than when I was, say, 20), run about 30 - 35 mpw, height about 5-10, 32" inseam on my pants, I run recovery at around 7:00 per mile, and my stride length is shorter on a treadmill than on a trail (like a lot of other people, a treadmill makes me slightly uncomfortable and uncomfortable runners adjust by increasing their turnover rate--thus increasing the time you have a shoe on terra firma).

So, I got on the treadmill, ran a quarter mile easy to loosen and warm up, and then set the speed to 8.4 mph (7:08 miles) with an incline of 0.5%, and proceeded to count strides. I counted every right foot strike since it gets a little hectic counting every foot strike. At 750 right foot strikes, I was just over 1.25 miles. Since this came out to just under 1200 foot strikes per mile, I tried two more tests of 300 right foot strikes. Both times, I went just over one-half mile. Interestingly, each test came to slightly fewer footfalls per mile than the first test. On the last test, I actually hit one-half mile at 286 right foot strikes. I take that to mean that I was mentally adjusting to the treadmill and returning my stride length to something more like its usual span. Increasing my footfalls by the 25%+ necessary to reach 1500 per mile would be unimaginably inefficient and clumsy.

All that to say this--whomever Mr. Boyle is talking about, it isn't about the kind of runner who puts on his or her team's cross country uniform in the fall. You might argue that the evidence I've provided is strictly anecdotal. To which I would reply, "that is true, but all the variables--except possibly my height--suggest that my stride length is, at best, slightly longer than average." And, you're welcome to generate your own ancedotal evidence. If enough letsrun people do that, pretty soon we have data. Just guessing here, I'm thinking the average female competitive runner turns over 1250-1300 footfalls per mile, if that.

If Mr. Boyle wants to stick with the 1500 foot strikes per mile, I think we need to conclude that he is talking about recreational runners (joggers) and not competitive runners.

Thus, we might conclude that most women shouldn't be joggers. Maybe most men, too, for that matter.

Clearly, some people are not designed to be either competitive runners or joggers. They may even make up a majority of the population. Just as clearly, some people's physiques are further from the competitive runner's model than others. For those who are marginal, patience and good training can probably overcome a good bit of the physiological "deficiencies." Thus, if you're a female and already a competitive runner, this study says nothing to you IMO. It may, however, say something to you if you tried running a couple times and had to give it up because you kept breaking down.