if i am a female running 75 miles per week, what is this equal to a guy running, My coach says women go by the 2/3 rule which would mean that a 75 mile week for a woman is like a guy running 100 miles per week since we are weaker and slower by 1/3, but this makes no sense to me, it seems more like the equiv. of a guy running 85 miles a week or so. What do you think?
I think for purposes of comparison, you'd be better off looking at the amount of TIME you spend running instead of distance.
You know, some people keep track of their running completely on the basis of time instead of distance. Seen as a more objective measure of effort.
Your coach has had a fee too many martoonis. It doesn't matter what gender you are, it's the distance you are racing. If you're a HS girl, then girls do the same as guys. If you're racing 5k/6k college as opposed to 8k/10k guys, then doing about 60-70 percent of their volume might make sense.
I wouldn't say that women are weaker and slower by 1/3. 1/3 is a whole lot. You must have the feminist organizations picketing outside your house.
That said, elite women are roughly 10% slower than elite men at every distance. So, when it comes to *time* on your feet, your miles take you 10% longer than your male counterpart. So your 90 mile week puts you on your feet as much as his 100 mile week.
Personally, I'm not into saying that "men should run x amount and women should run y amount." It's really an individual thing. There are some women out there who can out-train most any guy.
don't run for time!
you don't race until four minutes have elapsed...
1 mile for a woman equals 1 mile for a man.
If a woman runs as many miles as a guy and runs them as well (pace, workouts, etc.), then she will mysteriously race comparably as well.
Run as much as you can handle (don't get injured, don't slow down to run more, be able to do your workouts at least as well as you could prior to upping mileage, increase gradually)... But, do as much as you can handle well.
Girls should stay home and cook and clean and do the laundry and have babies. (I am being sacrcastic, don't send me hate mail)
Ask Deena Drossin, etc.
Ask Lisa Martin Odienski (sp?). She ran 40x400s? I don't wanna do the math. How many miles is that?
"If a woman runs as many miles as a guy and runs them as well (pace, workouts, etc.), then she will mysteriously race comparably as well."
I don't understand what you mean by "comparably" as well. The top female distance runners (at least in the NCAA, and I'm sure at the higher levels as well) don't run as much as guys do who finish in the same place at the same competition. That is on the average, of course. There are some very good male runners who only run 70/week, but most would be higher than that. I'm sure you can't mean that if girls started running as much as guys they would be as fast.
Also, about running for time... I know one or two people who do that, but I don't see how it can make too much sense. I'm not saying it can't work for someone, but I don't see how you can get just as strong running less miles. Sounds pretty dumb. If you are running for time and happen to run just as many miles anyway, then it doesn't make a difference. If not, you aren't doing as much work. If time is all that mattered, everyone would start jogging/walking for an hour rather than running 10 miles in that time.
Freddy wrote:
Ask Lisa Martin Odienski (sp?). She ran 40x400s? I don't wanna do the math. How many miles is that?
16,000m= approximately 10 miles worth of 400's.
think outside the box wrote:
I think for purposes of comparison, you'd be better off looking at the amount of TIME you spend running instead of distance.
You know, some people keep track of their running completely on the basis of time instead of distance. Seen as a more objective measure of effort.
I've also read that women should go by the amount of time they're out there instead of trying to go longer to cover the same distance as a guy.
I run by time, but then I guestimate my pace each day to try to figure out my daily/weekly mileage. It's only an approximation.
:) jag
Freddy wrote:
Ask Lisa Martin Odienski (sp?). She ran 40x400s? I don't wanna do the math. How many miles is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ondieki, wife of Yobes (who could himself do some fine running).
I meant ?comparably? as in having very similar times (give or take a few seconds), or similar placings if racing against the SAME competition (not a woman against women compared to a guy against men). So, lets say you (assuming your female ? not many on this board) want to run a 16min 5K, you could expect to do so when you ran similar mileage / quality of workouts as a guy who runs 16min. Obviously, achievement is not based on mileage alone. I am indeed saying that if women run as many miles at the same level of quality, they will run as fast (and maybe faster in many cases). Nderaba / Drossin / Teter / etc. do similar work as their guy counterparts who run about the same times. Up to this point, women (due to physiological differences) have not been able to handle the same workloads/intensity as the top men, therefore the women?s records (times in general) are not quite as fast.
Dumb!
laissez-faire wrote:
don't run for time!
you don't race until four minutes have elapsed...
had to say it wrote:
Dumb!
laissez-faire wrote:don't run for time!
you don't race until four minutes have elapsed...
no, not dumb. races are the same distance for both. if you want to train to run a certain distance, you should focus on distance. your body doesn't just give you a different physical performance based on your gender. women run a longer race, timewise. therefore, they need to train a longer time for racing the same distance. this is also known as running the same distance, but taking longer.
an independent comment:
1 mile = 1 mile.
i remember coming upon this in interviews at least three times so far with some successful (that is, olympic success) coaches and athletes. when it comes to workouts, at least, whether your a guy or a girl, all athletes are running the same % of race distance at the same % of race pace. if you're a guy running 10 miles at a marathon pace, your training group partner who's a girl, runs 10 miles at marathon pace, too. if you're running repeat 1000s at 5k race pace, ... etc.
if you're just running miles for the sake of running miles, then i don't know what the conversion would be. but if you're running miles for the sake of a particular workout and training emphasis, then they're the same for guy or girl.
here's an experiment: stop counting your miles per week. stop counting your miles per training cycle. simply put, stop counting miles. then wonder if you'd ask the same question. if every time you run there's a purpose, then a lot or most of your runs are going to be focused on running a certain pace for a certain distance, both of which are related to a race (pace and distance). girls race 10ks. guys race 10ks.
i bet that if you round up 100 random college guys and 10 college female track team members, you're going to find a fair amount of college guys who, even with training, won't approach the same 800, mile, 5k, and 10k times as the girls. that is, there are guys who just aren't as genetically gifted -- on an absolute not relative level -- as these girls. when they're decently fit -- that is, when they ARE fit -- and still running slower than these girls, i'd give them the same workouts as their faster male counterparts ... AND their faster (and slower) FIT female counterparts.
just one take. and i certainly can waffle. ;)
Mileage is the most overrated component of proper training.
Good coaching is the most underrated component.
It does not matter if you run for time or distance. My guess is that most people on here do a combination of both. Unless you have every course marked out, then you are running for a time, that you then convert to a distance becuase it is easier to keep track of. My personal view is that women should put as much time on their feet as they can without overtraining, becoming injured, becoming mentally burned out, etc. And the same goes for men.
Women are capable of running the same mileage as men. It has been argued as in the case of ultramarathoners such as Ann Trason that in fact women are better suited for very high mileage due to their higher fat to muscle ratio as compared to men. Their speed is limited by muscle mass and average lower VO2 Max. There is no advantage to men with regards to the volume of training.