Salazar response to Mary Cain

oldmanstillrunning wrote:

So, has anyone looked at the height to weight ratios of Des Linden, Shalane Flanagan, or Amy Cragg and raised any concerns? I didn't think so. I suppose their BMI is perfectly in line as well. I suppose their amenorrhea status is known by all you experts as well.

Do you place any faith in the published numbers being remotely accurate? It isn't like their is a weigh in and a height measurement before each race. Look at how far off the numbers of some college Football/Basketball players are when they are legitimately measured.

BMI is a rough measure that does not take into account an individual's frame size. And anyone looking at photos of a growing kid and judging them as 'heavy', when they are an elite runner, is misguided and/or rude. Go eat some pie. And fill that pie-hole . )

Try again wrote:

Trolls and shills aren't even trying wrote:

_______________________________________________________________________-

67 inches x 2 = 114 . Alberto wins this round.

Just checked my calculator, 67x2=132. 114/2=57 or 4'9

67 x 2 = 134, not 132.

You need a new calculator.

Regardless, I’m 5’8” and raced at 115 to 120 in my late teens to early 20s. I was skinny but not emancipated.[/quote]

Keep telling yourself that.

Regardless, I’m 5’8” and raced at 115 to 120 in my late teens to early 20s. I was skinny but not emancipated.

Emancipated? Try again.

grammarpolice wrote:

Regardless, I’m 5’8” and raced at 115 to 120 in my late teens to early 20s. I was skinny but not emancipated.

Emancipated? Try again.

Emaciated. Lol. Stupid autocorrect. It just tried to switch it to emancipated again.

Obsession with weight is not okay when you lose your period for three years. That means your body is so deprived of energy that it has no choice but to shut down any functions that are not absolutely necessary for survival. Do you really think not having a period, losing the fertility that every female over the age of 12 or so is biologically designed to have, is okay? Nobody is saying that weight doesn't matter, even Mary said that she'd be naive to say that weight doesn't matter in elite sports. We're saying 114 for Mary was clearly too low, because her body was literally SHUTTING DOWN all non-essential functions.

Also, why did Salazar see Mary's body as a problem to be fixed, when clearly, she was a rockstar before she went to NOP. Maybe her "extra" body mass was what made her stand apart in the first place. When everyone else was breaking, maybe that was one of many reasons she was strong enough to out-tough them.

The point is, being an elite athlete is not worth the sacrifice of risking permanently losing the ability have a family. Some athletes are rail-thin and have their period, maybe it works for them. But it didn't for Mary, it doesn't for Brenda Martinez and other successful elite female athletes, so why are we still acting like one size fits all?

I'm with Al on this one. wrote:

Till someone proves him wrong, I'm with Al on this one.

Cam Levins thinks otherwise (from his twitter):

"You deserve an apology for not having a person who was looking out for you in the right ways during your time in Portland at the Oregon Project, and I wish I had been that person.

I knew that our coaching staff was obsessed with your weight loss, emphasizing it as if it were the single thing standing in the way of great performances. I knew because they spoke of it openly among other athletes.

You may not get the apology from those you should, but I am sorry as your teammate for what happened. I understand both the arbitrary number goal placed on you and constant push to lose weight. I promise to be part of the culture change you are progressing by sharing your story."

Clearly you know nothing about female health wrote:

Maybe her "extra" body mass was what made her stand apart in the first place. When everyone else was breaking, maybe that was one of many reasons she was strong enough to out-tough them.

Someone pointed out somewhere that a track and field listing from the time she ran her best had a weight of 111 lbs.

Clearly you know nothing about female health wrote:

We're saying 114 for Mary was clearly too low, because her body was literally SHUTTING DOWN all non-essential functions...

The point is, being an elite athlete is not worth the sacrifice of risking permanently losing the ability have a family.

Yet that is the price of being an elite athlete, because enough women will pay it. Which is the reason serious female sports was traditionally frowned on, the winner of the women's division will always tend to be the most masculine female possible, if not some crypto male or openly trans male to begin with.

114 pounds or 51 kilos is a perfectly healthy wheight for a woman who is around her heighth. 44 or 45 kilos won't be rare in NON athletes of 165 - 168 cm high, she's 170, so 50 is about ok, not even too slim. So the issue was probably her hormonal background that made it possible for her to grow up faster, but then made her bulk up losing speed.

So many female athletes struggle with maintaining wheight before childbirth. The just plump up at 18 to 23. It's normal, it's sexy, but it doesn't help racing.

I believe both the athlete ant the coach should have been more patient.

That certainly corroborates her story. It's weird how so many people with no actual information are so quick to take sides and act as if accusations constitute proof. Or even weirder, act as if accusations constitute proof of the guilt of the accuser, as in this case.

By the way, what's with all the dudes getting mad at women for speaking up about, for instance, sexual harassment? You seriously think there ISN'T a sexual harassment problem in the world? Or are you just annoyed that you have to think about it - like, go away and suffer in silence! Anytime people get mad at the #metoo thing it just makes them look like predators.

Salazar denying is a bit rich he has done so on camera in front of the group

(From 02.55)

https://www.flotrack.org/video/5480164-best-raceworkout-combo-of-your-life-jordan-hasay-mary-cain-workout-wednesday

PukeCity wrote:

Salazar denying is a bit rich he has done so on camera in front of the group

(From 02.55)

https://www.flotrack.org/video/5480164-best-raceworkout-combo-of-your-life-jordan-hasay-mary-cain-workout-wednesday

Are you talking about the comment to Jordan where he says she can throw up if the workout is too hard?

I don't view that in relation to keeping a certain bodyweight and it wasn't directed to Cain.

Encouraging puking especially in a group setting with a female group shows his ideas and negative mentality with regards nutrition and health.

PukeCity wrote:

Encouraging puking especially in a group setting with a female group shows his ideas and negative mentality with regards nutrition and health.

throwing up after a race or ridiculously hard anaerobic workout is okay. settle down, fella. I am not on board with the workout, but allowing throwing up when they say they feel like throwing up is not the least bit negative.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

oldmanstillrunning wrote:

So, has anyone looked at the height to weight ratios of Des Linden, Shalane Flanagan, or Amy Cragg and raised any concerns? I didn't think so. I suppose their BMI is perfectly in line as well. I suppose their amenorrhea status is known by all you experts as well.

Do you place any faith in the published numbers being remotely accurate? It isn't like their is a weigh in and a height measurement before each race. Look at how far off the numbers of some college Football/Basketball players are when they are legitimately measured.

I’ve definitely seen tweets/interviews/whatever from elite women saying that they had no idea where google got the number that comes up with if you google “their name weight. ” the basketball team at my college definitely fudged their heights on the roster website, I don’t think any of them were listed as under 5’10” yet there were definitely a few who appeared barely taller than me(at 5’7”) when I saw them in the training room or study hall.

According to the President, this doesn't even qualify as mild locker-room talk.

Bygkurg wrote:

I’ve definitely seen tweets/interviews/whatever from elite women saying that they had no idea where google got the number that comes up with if you google “their name weight. ” the basketball team at my college definitely fudged their heights on the roster website, I don’t think any of them were listed as under 5’10” yet there were definitely a few who appeared barely taller than me(at 5’7”) when I saw them in the training room or study hall.

At best most of them come from a self reported number that could be years out of date. Heck if I told you I was 5'10/145 what does that mean. Is that 5'10 in shoes? Is the 145 the average of what I weigh when I wake up? The amount I weigh before doing my workout at 3pm? The weight I am during fall training or the weight at the day of the peak race of the year?

5'7/114 is far from absurd in general. It might have been for Cain. If you look around you will find 5'6-5'8 woman weighing from 110lbs to 125lbs who are all having success as distance runners. It would curious to see Dexascans (i.e. exactly how much fat and muscle they have) and some exact x-rays to see why their is such a weight difference (bigger frames, more muscles, fat) between everyone. And of course the weight history would be interesting. If cain was running at 115 when she made a WC final and went to say 130 when she showed up at NOP, it would be pretty easy to see why AlSal was focused on weight, If she was running 4:04 at 120lbs, it is a lot harder to figure out why he was obsessed with weight.

0990uj wrote:

Trolls and shills aren't even trying wrote:

_______________________________________________________________________-

67 inches x 2 = 114 . Alberto wins this round.

Just checked my calculator, 67x2=132. 114/2=57 or 4'9

____________________________________________________________________________

You're right. My apology. So, Mary would win that round

but perhaps the formula is different for women?[/quote]

Just to report without using a calculator that 67x2 (this magic appropriate weight formula that you assume is somehow perfect for each height for women and men alike) = 134, not 132 or 114. Mary was being asked to come in at an unhealthy weight. How do we know that? because 114 was much less than twice 67? No, because she suffered the side effects of that diet and low weight, the loss of her period, the multiple stress fractures, etc. When I am in my top shape, I pay almost no attention to how much I weigh. I am burning so many calories that it isn't an issue. The only thing I might do is to reduce the number of times a week I am eating or drinking total garbage like milk shakes, potato chips, and so forth. A little of that and hard workouts and as a male a shade under 5'11", I go from 140-44 during the bulk of my training to 136, my college best racing weight long ago, at peaking time and I don't have to go hungry at all to do it. When I don't train at all, I usually go up as high as 154 and then lose half that weight in a week or two of training with no effort. When you make dieting into a compulsive exercise, you get both ill health and mental illness.