Female equivalent of a 6 min mile

quick mafs wrote:

5:59=5:59

But what about 6:00?

so now mileage == level of training rigor or difficulty, does it.

from this, i will posit that "there are men that are just as logical as women. they are just fewer in number."

umm what wrote:

so now mileage == level of training rigor or difficulty, does it.

from this, i will posit that "there are men that are just as logical as women. they are just fewer in number."

No, but it is one measure. Where is your evidence that competitiveness among women is equal to competiveness among men in running? You didn't address my remark about competition in local level races. There's endless data in race results that could prove things one way or another.

I don't lower my standards because of sex.

A 6:00 mile for a guy is literally equivalent to a 6:00 mile for a girl.

This whole thread is dumb.

umm what wrote:

zzzz wrote:

accounting for a bit less competitiveness/training than men at the hobby jogger level

care to expand on this? less competitive? yeah, you're right ... probably because we're so worried out uteruses will fall out!

By the way, your quote left out the rest of my sentence. "...accounting for a bit less competitiveness/training than men at the hobby jogger level - or that drugs have benefited women more than men at the WR level", meaning that I am open to about 15% slower than men as being equal performances, real data on who is on drugs not being available.

Interesting that you choose to attack me, someone looking at data and pretty pro-women's racing/equality and so on, while there are about 6 other people in this thread that think the female equivalent for a male 6:00 should be 6:00.

I'm going to go with 6 minutes. If a male runs a 6 minute mile, a female who runs a 6 minute mile will finish at the same time (assuming that they both started at the same time). It seems that this makes the two times equivalent.

It's the same for men and women. Stop hiding behind your percentages you sexist jerks.

I feel like this question is already well handled by age-grade tables

Rights for Everyone wrote:

I don't lower my standards because of sex.

A 6:00 mile for a guy is literally equivalent to a 6:00 mile for a girl.

This whole thread is dumb.

Let's use 5:00 mile for argument sake. Look at any high school. You will usually see one high school girl every 25 years who can race sub-5 for a mile for each high school. We usually see a half a dozen guys every spring in every high school racing sub-5 mile. It is more impressive for females to race sub-6 for a mile than it is for a male.

zzzz wrote:

Who said I'm fast? wrote:

Judging by world records, one would state women tend to be app. 10% slower than men. This is not necessarily fair. The most elite women runners tend to have narrower hips than the average woman. Elite women runners are smaller in the chest than the average woman. If we go by high school PE class, the last time all able body persons, male and female were forced to run, the male female difference is about 15%.

Elite men are also smaller than the average man. Plus Svetlana Masterkova, the women's world record holder in the mile doesn't have particularly narrow hips or midsection:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/russian-track-athlete-svetlana-masterkova-competes-in-the-heats-to-picture-id79028802?s=612x612

Yes, from the waste down, Svetlana Masterkova is built more like an average woman. That doesn't change my opinion that average women are about 15% slower than average men.

Most of that delta [moving from 10% elite v elite and 15% normie vs normie] is the delta in training levels/work ethic

all it basically proves is women don't work as hard [on avg]. We already know this

6:37 for adult female, but not exactly the same for different age groups

Females vo2 max is 20% less on average, the mile is highly dependant on vo2 max.

So the real answer is 7:12

Guess chicks don’t have it so easy when it comes to racing wrote:

Females vo2 max is 20% less on average, the mile is highly dependant on vo2 max.

So the real answer is 7:12

A 20% difference in VO2 max doesn't directly translate into 20% difference in times.

this just in wrote:

Guess chicks don’t have it so easy when it comes to racing wrote:

Females vo2 max is 20% less on average, the mile is highly dependant on vo2 max.

So the real answer is 7:12

A 20% difference in VO2 max doesn't directly translate into 20% difference in times.

Yes it does. Vo2 max is the pace you ate most efficient atf or 6-12 minutes. For 99% of people, this is mile speed.

zzzz wrote:

No, but it is one measure. Where is your evidence that competitiveness among women is equal to competiveness among men in running? You didn't address my remark about competition in local level races. There's endless data in race results that could prove things one way or another.

I'm kinda hating myself for jumping into this thread, but.... I do agree that women, on average, are less competitively motivated than men in running. with the caveats that a) there are outliers, such as myself and b) I think the less competitive nature is a matter of culture, not innate to the gender.

Basically, there was a time before title 9 when women participating in sports was disapproved. Then title 9 came around, and it made it easier to _participate_ in sports. However, for a long time, women were still discouraged from being COMPETITIVE. Growing up (I'm in my 40s) I felt that it was OK and encouraged for me to be physically active. Nobody told me my uterus was going to fall out or my ovaries would explode. But what was NOT OK was saying out loud that I wanted to beat others and to win, and that I was willing to hurt or look ugly in order to do so. For girls, we were subtly encouraged to think that sports were about teamwork and supporting your peers and perhaps giving our own best effort, not winning.

(I'm not saying that competing and winning were totally and universally discouraged - just that it wasn't acceptable to say "I want to win and to beat this other person" in the same way it might be for a guy.)

I think this is changing, and it's more and more acceptable for women to want to beat others, and to openly state so. Especially for younger generations. But we're still not quite there yet. As a woman, I still feel like an outlier being as competitive as I am.

(and just think about it - I think it's still acceptable for two women to decide to cross the finish line together in a way that it is not for men)

In races, that's why I think you'll see a smaller subset of women at the top - those who are fixated on competing - and then a larger population below of female participants who run the race in groups with others and then Instagram about it after.

Don't use the world records, they're outliers.

Use something like number 500 or number 1000 from poweroften, average it for 5 years and see what that brings.

Why is it that when boys perform better on math and science tests, we claim that it is entirely due to a cultural bias that discourages girls from focusing on those things? But when we examine the difference in athletics, we attribute most of it to genetics? When an immature child claims to be the opposite gender, we are supposed to accept that as the way their brain is wired because to can't possibly be changed. But when Asians outperform blacks on the ACT it is entirely due to effort and opportunity, not genetics or brainwiring?