Obviously, Emily Sisson deserves huge props for winning the NCAA indoor 5K in such dominating fashion, but what I appreciated just as much is that she is living proof that a female distance runner is stronger when she is NOT built like a poster girl for anorexia. Smart gal, level head, great competitor!
I am so much faster at 115 pounds than I ever was at 95. Being thin and weak, with missing periods and constant stress fractures, is never a recipe for success. Stop putting these ideas into girl's heads.
Such a weak field. They couldn't even stay with her for the first 1600? Over a 4 second gap lol. It's sad, really.
Smart, lovely, talented. She is the real deal.
Ray would never let one of his girls compete with an eating disorder. He's one of the good guys. Interested in the long term of his runners, not just titles.
Most of the elite women yesterday did look strong and healthy in most of the distance races. What a awesome experience! First time being at a major college championship. My biggest take away from Friday was speed comes in a number of different shapes and sizes. I believe this is one of the factors that makes our sport so much fun!
This is a strange post. It seems to imply that a significant portion of the field is anorexic?
In the LR piece, it said, "She said she’ll come back for the 3k “for fun” and said there were no expectations on her in that race. She can’t downplay it to us. We are fully expecting Sisson to challenge for the 3000 title. The 3000 is far from a cakewalk. If Arkansas’ Dominique Scott, who split 4:28 to win the DMR for Arkansas, runs it (she’s entered and the Hogs are ranked #1 by the USTFCCCA as a team) it could be a great battle."
There was no battle in the 3000, and she didn't even appear to try to stick with the leaders. That kind of lack of competitive spirit could affect her success in the pro world.
Fastnbulbous wrote:
There was no battle in the 3000, and she didn't even appear to try to stick with the leaders. That kind of lack of competitive spirit could affect her success in the pro world.
Maybe she was just tired.
Fastnbulbous wrote: This is a strange post. It seems to imply that a significant portion of the field is anorexic?
The post doesn't imply that at all. You are simply making a trollish attempt to stir the pot. I will concede that I was comparing the ultra-skinny appearance of many female runners to the stereotypical physique of anorexics. You were also free to infer that Sisson looked the most "healthy" of all the women 5K runners. The 3K field also seemed to be comprised of more healthy bodies.
or that anyone who "by the eye" looks "too skinny" (whatever that means) must have some sort of eating disorder. some runners my have a less-than-cut appearance naturally, while others may naturally have a very low bodyfat percentage. to assume that appearance is solely based on dietary habits is idiotic.
Fastnbulbous wrote:
This is a strange post. It seems to imply that a significant portion of the field is anorexic?
Exactly. To say one runner looks healthier than the others is completely ridiculous. There are all kinds of natural body types, and without knowing any of their private health information, it's pointless to speculate.quote]slippery slope OP wrote:or that anyone who "by the eye" looks "too skinny" (whatever that means) must have some sort of eating disorder. some runners my have a less-than-cut appearance naturally, while others may naturally have a very low bodyfat percentage. to assume that appearance is solely based on dietary habits is idiotic.
Fastnbulbous wrote:
This is a strange post. It seems to imply that a significant portion of the field is anorexic?
[/quote]