Should women be allowed to compete in track and field if their body fat percentage is less than 11%?

Again I say a lot depends on the method used to determine % fat. Maybe my approach calculates lower % than does another that says higher % is better. And I have only tested a few thousand runners so may not be representative of what others report.

Hahhshsh wrote:

What about that. If a woman fat % is below 11%, then she can’t compete. They should be resting and get a little fatter. That would stop this unhealthy obsession to get more and more thin.

Solution found.

Next...

Solution found, but an even bigger problem would be created. What would happen is all these girls would think they need to get down to 11-12%, which is absolutely unobtainable for the majority of females. This would be excellent for the eating disorder business.

Jajjaja wrote:

Ggggggg wrote:

Are you saying that Hassan (5foot 7 and 108 pounds) and Koko (5foot9 and 106 pounds) have 10.5% body fat? Or what about Rowbury, who is on lipoflow?

Not sure who is spreading misinformation here...

...and if so. What was Cain’s % body fat at 5foot7 and 114 pounds (or 119 pounds, when Alberto got upset at het weight)?

If a woman were seriously 7% body fat, it would mean she was on the verge serious medical consequence such as organ failure (perhaps it depends on the measurement method, though). You know what happened to my friend who has ulcerative colitis and couldn't eat for months on end? She lost even her essential body fat. A fat pad that holds up her aorta collapsed and restricted bloodflow to her entire body. She had to be monitored in the hospital with a feeding tube until she regained enough fat for it to hold up her arteries. This particular problem commonly happens to really severe anorexics too. Single digit body fat for women goes beyond losing your period. Because even really malnourished women retain adipose tissue in their breasts and other areas that men don't have, single digit body fat is a lot more serious for women than men.

Hog wrote:

Again I say a lot depends on the method used to determine % fat. Maybe my approach calculates lower % than does another that says higher % is better. And I have only tested a few thousand runners so may not be representative of what others report.

Really, the point of this post is that:

- Top elite female middle/distance runners have unhealthy fat % (because it provides a benefit - as long as you also avoid injury)

- in order to win major championships, women are forced to strive for such unhealthy fat %

If federations care about the health of the athletes, they should put some rules around this.

The actual % finally decided upon is to be determined (probably not by me). But we know that it should be something. Let’s call it X%.

The problem that someone pointed out, is that there is no accurate, low cost test to determine body fat %.

Three potential outcomes

- develop a test quickly and determine a minimum %, below which a woman is not allowed to compete (told that she is “overtraining” and suggest that she eat a cheeseburger or two)

- not hold any world class female competition over 800m

- shut up about it and be ok that coaches of top level female distance runners will tell their runners to lose weight (if their body fat% is too high to compete at the highest level) or simply be cut from the group if they don’t want/can’t reduce their weight to what is required (imagine a 175 pound lineman).

-

Women shouldn't be allowed to race at all. Their uterus will fall out all over my course and that's bad for the sport. And even if I tried to coach them they would complain that I am abusive.