It seems like there are always a number of competitive Russian women in the middle distances at international events but very few men. The Russian women even won the 4x400 in Moscow. Why the difference between men and women? Do Russian men not like to run? Are they all soccer players?
smoking and drinking are manly things.
The men are drunk. And the women run to get away from them
Ever thought that the best Russian men ARE the Russian women?
Ask the Chinese
Because aggressive steroid use improves the results of women more than it improves the results of men.
dkny64 wrote:
Because aggressive steroid use improves the results of women more than it improves the results of men.
cite?
russian men don't like to run, and drugs work better on women.
russian men choose other sports - for example, the endurance athletes go to xc xcsking. 3 of the top 10 ranked male xc skiers are russians. And 5 of the top 20.
In biathlon 3 of the top 20 men are russian.
Greater cultural barriers for East African women may well have a significant impact on the relative success of European women.
Less variation in ethnic performances among women relative to men at longer distances? Cultural factors? Greater promotion of female athletes by the Russian centrally operated sports schools relative to East Africans?
The Press Brothers wrote:
dkny64 wrote:Because aggressive steroid use improves the results of women more than it improves the results of men.
cite?
Why do you need a citation? It's self-evident. Women have low natural testosterone levels, artificial supplementation greatly increases their testosterone levels, greatly increased testosterone levels lead to greatly increased performances in athletics, especially in strength-based events like sprinting.
Men, on the other hand, have higher natural testosterone levels. Artificial supplementation doesn't provide as big of a benefit, as the difference between men who are on steroids and who aren't isn't as great (and you can only supplement testosterone so much). That's why it's easier to dope your women to Olympic medals and world championships than it is your men (although 100% of male champions are doping too, of course).
Reggi Nytrid wrote:
The Press Brothers wrote:cite?
Why do you need a citation? It's self-evident. Women have low natural testosterone levels, artificial supplementation greatly increases their testosterone levels, greatly increased testosterone levels lead to greatly increased performances in athletics, especially in strength-based events like sprinting.
Men, on the other hand, have higher natural testosterone levels. Artificial supplementation doesn't provide as big of a benefit, as the difference between men who are on steroids and who aren't isn't as great (and you can only supplement testosterone so much). That's why it's easier to dope your women to Olympic medals and world championships than it is your men (although 100% of male champions are doping too, of course).
Spelled out nicely - thanks for saving me the trouble.
Will add that mid-d has enough of a power component to also fit this analysis.
PEDs work better for the girls.
All the male russians I have known were pudgy and soft. The majority of russian women I have known have all been tall and lean. I suspect this is the reason. Sexual dimorphism works differently with this group of people.
Back in the 1960s and 70s there were some good Russian male runners. And through the 80s the nefarious (as in drug infused) East Germans were frequent contenders for medals at the Olympics. But look at this way, it's not just Russians off the lists anymore, it's almost all European runners. You get a Finn every few years cracking the top 10 or so, and a smattering of Norwegians. But excluding Mo Farah a Somali born Brit who lives/trains in the US, there aren't even many Brits. Some of the North African born/descended French have done well. Spaniards are purported to be on drugs. And what about the Italians?
Citizen Runner wrote:
Greater cultural barriers for East African women may well have a significant impact on the relative success of European women.
This is no longer true. African women already excel in running more than it would correspond with their natural potential. Many African women that you see in distances shorter than 3000 m could be regarded as eccentric anomalies in their native populations.
Average height in Africa is well documented thanks to DHS surveys. You can check the data:
http://legacy.measuredhs.com/accesssurveys/search/start.cfmKenya 158,9 cm (2008-2009)
Ethiopia 156,5 cm (2011)
Eritrea 157,0 cm (2002)
South African blacks 159 cm (2003)
Morocco 159,8 cm (2011)
Now compare it with runners like Arigawi (169 cm), Jepkosgei (167 cm), Jelimo (173 cm), Semenya (178 cm). These women could make it to a basketball team in their native country.
For me, this clueless, ignorant internet claptrap is irritating, but I understand that some 5 years ago I was on the same level and I ingenously succumbed to many sorts of "conventional wisdom".
dkny64 wrote:
Because aggressive steroid use improves the results of women more than it improves the results of men.
This is currently especially valid in the case of North American and African women, isn't it? You can look at some old athletic championships and see slim black girls, who even don't look like athletes. Now compare it with the creatures that we watch every week on the Diamond League.
agip wrote:
russian men don't like to run, and drugs work better on women.
russian men choose other sports - for example, the endurance athletes go to xc xcsking. 3 of the top 10 ranked male xc skiers are russians. And 5 of the top 20.
In biathlon 3 of the top 20 men are russian.
I think that in order to illuminate this question, we should follow money and doping.
The decrease of performance in white runners was a common phenomenon on both sides of the Iron Curtain in late 80's. People still think that when Africans started to win medals in track in late 80's, it was due to their growing numbers and superior "natural talent". This is a fallacy. In reality, Africans were not running much faster times than before. Only their competition started to disappear very rapidly on all distances from the 100 m to the longest distances.
Now, was it due to the out-of-competition testing introduced in 1988? But why did the performance of white runners decrease not only in sprints, but even in long distances? What a sort of blood doping was so well detectable in late 80's? And why do black runners in Western countries happily dope until now?
You should notice that even in mid-90's, when EPO emerged in athletics, there were virtually no good white runners on track. Otherwise we would see a flood of sub-3:30 Europeans. Why didn't they use EPO on a mass scale then? Well, we should probably find some other, majority-white sport, where EPO was abused on a mass scale. It would be logical to assume that the endurance talent headed in that direction. What about cycling? Or cross country running? And what about money? Where can you find the largest amount of money in an international sport? Football?
lpd wrote:
This is not limited to Russian women,it's all European men.
East Germany in it's heyday produced way more elite women
runners than men.It is a general pattern among white athletes
that the women are more competitive than the men.If you take
the last 4 global championships,white women have won more
than twice as many medals than white men on the track.
A sharp observation. The situation in women is far closer to the global distribution of athletic talent than the situation in men. But it is still improbably skewed in some events.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Greater cultural barriers for East African women may well have a significant impact on the relative success of European women.
this
i think it's just that there are fewer east african women competing. the men are expected to compete to make money, the women stay at home. obviously there are some exceptions, but the elite african women probably know they will be runners from a young age