We apologize for futural intrusions into 2019.
The culprits have been equalized.
Regards,
Diana Moon Clampers
Handicapper General
February 25, 2081
We apologize for futural intrusions into 2019.
The culprits have been equalized.
Regards,
Diana Moon Clampers
Handicapper General
February 25, 2081
Maybe if she had believed in changing her body for sport, ie. training LF would still be running like her teammate in the background Sarah Hall.
OHWQUIT wrote:
They should not have to compete, just show up and get the awards, the scholarships etc. Certain other humans also should be just handed all winnings and not have to ever move a muscle. Man, and this world, has been mean to them. Cancel all Football and let all kinds of humans dress up in Football gear and be the New England Patriots. Get rid of Brady he is mean to all people because he can throw a ball 80 yards and others can't......that is mean and cruel to humans. Cancel and get rid of all men sports. Just have womens, in betweens, obese humans, humans on springs etc. Let them sort it all out between them.
We are doing this already by having gender divisions in sports. Literally thousands of people have run faster than Cain, Fleshmen etc and yet vitually none of these people have been given a dime from the sport nor were they given anything like the same sports scholarship/coaching opportunities. In contrast Cain was on a 6 figure contract from Nike and Fleshman made a very decent living from the sport. This is not really justified at all based on the performances produced. If the sport is to be a serious profession, then it should be paying based on performance only and should not take gender or any other sort of subcategory (age etc) into account. If the sport does not want to do this then it should probably be made amateur again which would be a good thing in terms of reducing PED use and stopping the abuse of athletes by coaches/agents which is what people are complaining about these days.
The problem is not the message. The problem is the messenger.
I knew when Mary Cain made national news that it wouldn’t take long before Lauren would want to be included. She is a media whore.
LoneStarXC wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/girls-sports.amp.htmlDiscus.
It is non-sense to believe that you can reach the pinnacle of anything (sport, career, etc.) and not make outrageous sacrifices.
Do you honestly think that linemen in the NFL don't change their bodies for their sport? That Serena Williams or Simone Biles didn't change their bodies for their sport? That Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Larry Page, etc. have solid relationships with their family/friends?
Sacrifice is a large part of what it takes to reach the top. Whether or not that is a good thing can be debated, but whether or not it is the reality cannot.
Some people can change their body or their habits in a more healthy way. Other people sabotage their health/relationships in their pursuit for glory. You can't blame the system for that. People make their own choices.
If people didn't have to sacrifice to change their bodies or sacrifice time with their family/friends in order to reach an elite level in their field then there would be no elite levels in any field, because any schmuck would be able to be elite.
Why would anyone train an american women? They are clearly the inferior athletes and also whiny bitches
Huge thanks to Lauren Fleshman for giving the LRBF misogynists a fat, hanging slider over the middle of the plate. They'll never not swing at something so tempting!
LetsIncel wrote:
Huge thanks to Lauren Fleshman for giving the LRBF misogynists a fat, hanging slider over the middle of the plate. They'll never not swing at something so tempting!
Thanks also go out to the self-loathing female who started this frenzy by baiting this thread! I know you like getting credit so boys won't criticize you.
I don't know why people are being so obtuse about this and acting as though Lauren is implying that elite running should now be a participation exercise or something, and that no athlete should ever make any sort of sacrifice. That is not what she's saying. It could be that people just aren't reading the actual article and are judging based off the title -- I don't think the headline of the article properly conveys her meaning in the article and isn't doing the piece favours.
But in considering it further -- to take another look at it -- consider the semantics. No GIRL should change her body, exactly to her point:
She's saying that girls, transitioning into women and going through puberty, are likely to undergo a natural decrease in performance as a result of their changing hormones. Biologically speaking, this is prime child-rearing time and young women, regardless of their level of fitness, are likely to have naturally higher BF% at this time in their lives because their hormones are being primed to have a baby via higher estrogen levels. This is normal and this is the opposite of what boys transitioning into men go through because of THEIR changing hormones, i.e. more testosterone. Many girls will fight this by seriously underfueling themselves in an effort to maintain their prepubescent weight and leanness, efforts which are encouraged by "the system" that rewards short-term success over longevity. Instead of riding this normal/inevitable performance decrease out, young women are encouraged to keep themselves as lean as possible at any cost, despite biology's effects.
YES, elite distance runners, men AND women, need to generally be as lean as they can be in order to achieve their best performances. What she's saying is that these changes to one's body, which can indeed be essential to high performance, will come NATURALLY through the effects of years of hard training (which will generally be impossible if the young woman tries to artificially lower her weight through underfueling during those prime developmental years, leaving her susceptible to injury, RED-S, and developing an eating disorder). Top women runners in their late 20s-30s tend to be extremely lean, and they are well past their prime child-rearing years biologically speaking, so the combination of higher testosterone and lower estrogen over time PLUS many years of hard training and proper fueling gets their body exactly where it needs to be.
But if a GIRL takes the short-sighted approach and underfuels, she will more likely than not cut her career much shorter than it could have been (because of injury, burnout, etc.). Think of all the young women in HS and college who were extremely promising and could have been America's next great runner, but kept themselves extremely thin throughout their prime developmental years (by whatever means -- an actual ED, accidental underfueling leading to RED-S, etc.) and ended up quitting the sport before ever reaching their true potential. THAT is the culture she wants to change.
Most athletes from other sports get a medical second opinion before following the team doctor’s recommendation
facts and reason wrote:
Thanks for the link. You made the best post in this thread.
"None of the athletes were amenorrheic."
This is incredible. Top Kenyan athletes did not lose their periods for 6 months in a row.
This seems to be hard evidence that the Nike Oregon Project was a failure for female teenagers.
I don't disagree with the NOP failed Mary Cain but one of the reasons Mary Keitany lost the 2017 NYC Marathon was she had her 1st period in 3 months right before the race.
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8524629Now it's not 6 months, but she is one of the top marathoner runners in the world. I think it would be better to get an understanding of how pervasive this problem is.
On our podcast last week, Robert revealed the story that an NCAA D1 coach estimated 50% of the women in D1 have some issues with their periods. But only 5% of the All-Americans. I'm going to start a thread on that.
oye_oye_oye wrote:
I don't know why people are being so obtuse about this and acting as though Lauren is implying that elite running should now be a participation exercise or something, and that no athlete should ever make any sort of sacrifice. That is not what she's saying. It could be that people just aren't reading the actual article and are judging based off the title -- I don't think the headline of the article properly conveys her meaning in the article and isn't doing the piece favours.
But in considering it further -- to take another look at it -- consider the semantics. No GIRL should change her body, exactly to her point:
She's saying that girls, transitioning into women and going through puberty, are likely to undergo a natural decrease in performance as a result of their changing hormones. Biologically speaking, this is prime child-rearing time and young women, regardless of their level of fitness, are likely to have naturally higher BF% at this time in their lives because their hormones are being primed to have a baby via higher estrogen levels. This is normal and this is the opposite of what boys transitioning into men go through because of THEIR changing hormones, i.e. more testosterone. Many girls will fight this by seriously underfueling themselves in an effort to maintain their prepubescent weight and leanness, efforts which are encouraged by "the system" that rewards short-term success over longevity. Instead of riding this normal/inevitable performance decrease out, young women are encouraged to keep themselves as lean as possible at any cost, despite biology's effects.
YES, elite distance runners, men AND women, need to generally be as lean as they can be in order to achieve their best performances. What she's saying is that these changes to one's body, which can indeed be essential to high performance, will come NATURALLY through the effects of years of hard training (which will generally be impossible if the young woman tries to artificially lower her weight through underfueling during those prime developmental years, leaving her susceptible to injury, RED-S, and developing an eating disorder). Top women runners in their late 20s-30s tend to be extremely lean, and they are well past their prime child-rearing years biologically speaking, so the combination of higher testosterone and lower estrogen over time PLUS many years of hard training and proper fueling gets their body exactly where it needs to be.
But if a GIRL takes the short-sighted approach and underfuels, she will more likely than not cut her career much shorter than it could have been (because of injury, burnout, etc.). Think of all the young women in HS and college who were extremely promising and could have been America's next great runner, but kept themselves extremely thin throughout their prime developmental years (by whatever means -- an actual ED, accidental underfueling leading to RED-S, etc.) and ended up quitting the sport before ever reaching their true potential. THAT is the culture she wants to change.
nice post, but ultimately Fleshman is saying that college aged women should not try to be as fast as they could be. That they should step back and settle for less than their short term potential.
Sure, in theory they would have longer careers if they don't grab for the brass ring at 22, but 99% of them will have jobs and work instead of be professional athletes. So it's now or never if they want to hit their potential.
hard to tell competitive 22 year olds not to try to hit their potential.
Lauren Fleshman sure does a good job of triggering the trolls here. It's kind of funny to see them get all bent up over this, the poor little snowflakes.
Yeah, she took the body changes a little too far by having testicles implanted:
oye_oye_oye wrote:
I don't know why people are being so obtuse about this and acting as though Lauren is implying that elite running should now be a participation exercise or something, and that no athlete should ever make any sort of sacrifice. That is not what she's saying. It could be that people just aren't reading the actual article and are judging based off the title -- I don't think the headline of the article properly conveys her meaning in the article and isn't doing the piece favours.
But in considering it further -- to take another look at it -- consider the semantics. No GIRL should change her body, exactly to her point:
She's saying that girls, transitioning into women and going through puberty, are likely to undergo a natural decrease in performance as a result of their changing hormones. Biologically speaking, this is prime child-rearing time and young women, regardless of their level of fitness, are likely to have naturally higher BF% at this time in their lives because their hormones are being primed to have a baby via higher estrogen levels. This is normal and this is the opposite of what boys transitioning into men go through because of THEIR changing hormones, i.e. more testosterone. Many girls will fight this by seriously underfueling themselves in an effort to maintain their prepubescent weight and leanness, efforts which are encouraged by "the system" that rewards short-term success over longevity. Instead of riding this normal/inevitable performance decrease out, young women are encouraged to keep themselves as lean as possible at any cost, despite biology's effects.
YES, elite distance runners, men AND women, need to generally be as lean as they can be in order to achieve their best performances. What she's saying is that these changes to one's body, which can indeed be essential to high performance, will come NATURALLY through the effects of years of hard training (which will generally be impossible if the young woman tries to artificially lower her weight through underfueling during those prime developmental years, leaving her susceptible to injury, RED-S, and developing an eating disorder). Top women runners in their late 20s-30s tend to be extremely lean, and they are well past their prime child-rearing years biologically speaking, so the combination of higher testosterone and lower estrogen over time PLUS many years of hard training and proper fueling gets their body exactly where it needs to be.
But if a GIRL takes the short-sighted approach and underfuels, she will more likely than not cut her career much shorter than it could have been (because of injury, burnout, etc.). Think of all the young women in HS and college who were extremely promising and could have been America's next great runner, but kept themselves extremely thin throughout their prime developmental years (by whatever means -- an actual ED, accidental underfueling leading to RED-S, etc.) and ended up quitting the sport before ever reaching their true potential. THAT is the culture she wants to change.
Not a clever comment. Sports is about competing over the short term to even get in a position to stay in this profession. Of course after the fact you are always smarter, but you never know exactly on which side of your limit your are currently operating. Only time can tell. Also this is an issue for male runners as well. No need to be sexist and only make it about girls
well ok but really wrote:
oye_oye_oye wrote:
I don't know why people are being so obtuse about this and acting as though Lauren is implying that elite running should now be a participation exercise or something, and that no athlete should ever make any sort of sacrifice. That is not what she's saying. It could be that people just aren't reading the actual article and are judging based off the title -- I don't think the headline of the article properly conveys her meaning in the article and isn't doing the piece favours.
But in considering it further -- to take another look at it -- consider the semantics. No GIRL should change her body, exactly to her point:
She's saying that girls, transitioning into women and going through puberty, are likely to undergo a natural decrease in performance as a result of their changing hormones. Biologically speaking, this is prime child-rearing time and young women, regardless of their level of fitness, are likely to have naturally higher BF% at this time in their lives because their hormones are being primed to have a baby via higher estrogen levels. This is normal and this is the opposite of what boys transitioning into men go through because of THEIR changing hormones, i.e. more testosterone. Many girls will fight this by seriously underfueling themselves in an effort to maintain their prepubescent weight and leanness, efforts which are encouraged by "the system" that rewards short-term success over longevity. Instead of riding this normal/inevitable performance decrease out, young women are encouraged to keep themselves as lean as possible at any cost, despite biology's effects.
YES, elite distance runners, men AND women, need to generally be as lean as they can be in order to achieve their best performances. What she's saying is that these changes to one's body, which can indeed be essential to high performance, will come NATURALLY through the effects of years of hard training (which will generally be impossible if the young woman tries to artificially lower her weight through underfueling during those prime developmental years, leaving her susceptible to injury, RED-S, and developing an eating disorder). Top women runners in their late 20s-30s tend to be extremely lean, and they are well past their prime child-rearing years biologically speaking, so the combination of higher testosterone and lower estrogen over time PLUS many years of hard training and proper fueling gets their body exactly where it needs to be.
But if a GIRL takes the short-sighted approach and underfuels, she will more likely than not cut her career much shorter than it could have been (because of injury, burnout, etc.). Think of all the young women in HS and college who were extremely promising and could have been America's next great runner, but kept themselves extremely thin throughout their prime developmental years (by whatever means -- an actual ED, accidental underfueling leading to RED-S, etc.) and ended up quitting the sport before ever reaching their true potential. THAT is the culture she wants to change.
nice post, but ultimately Fleshman is saying that college aged women should not try to be as fast as they could be. That they should step back and settle for less than their short term potential.
Sure, in theory they would have longer careers if they don't grab for the brass ring at 22, but 99% of them will have jobs and work instead of be professional athletes. So it's now or never if they want to hit their potential.
hard to tell competitive 22 year olds not to try to hit their potential.
Perhaps even more important for those women to not risk osteoporosis and infertility if they aren't even going to be a professional athlete at the end of the day. If at the end of the day they will have a career outside of professional running, then finding sustainability in an activity that will ultimately become a hobby if pursued in the future at all is arguably all the more important. One can still have a long and goal driven relationship with running as a recreational sub-elite runner.
For the minority of women who become pros, it ultimately likely hinders their ability to hit their long term potential through putting them through cycles of injury that don't allow them to train consistently. For the majority of women who do not become pros, it leaves long standing health consequences for something that will ultimately be a hobby. Regardless of where you end up, short term peaking through unsustainable leanness sounds counterproductive to long term goals.
justanopinion wrote:
well ok but really wrote:
nice post, but ultimately Fleshman is saying that college aged women should not try to be as fast as they could be. That they should step back and settle for less than their short term potential.
Sure, in theory they would have longer careers if they don't grab for the brass ring at 22, but 99% of them will have jobs and work instead of be professional athletes. So it's now or never if they want to hit their potential.
hard to tell competitive 22 year olds not to try to hit their potential.
Perhaps even more important for those women to not risk osteoporosis and infertility if they aren't even going to be a professional athlete at the end of the day. If at the end of the day they will have a career outside of professional running, then finding sustainability in an activity that will ultimately become a hobby if pursued in the future at all is arguably all the more important. One can still have a long and goal driven relationship with running as a recreational sub-elite runner.
For the minority of women who become pros, it ultimately likely hinders their ability to hit their long term potential through putting them through cycles of injury that don't allow them to train consistently. For the majority of women who do not become pros, it leaves long standing health consequences for something that will ultimately be a hobby. Regardless of where you end up, short term peaking through unsustainable leanness sounds counterproductive to long term goals.
It's a problem.
On the one hand the whole point of endurance sports is to see how close to your potential you can get.
On the other hand, doing so, if you are a 20 year old woman, can damage you in severe and long term ways.
No easy solution. But 20 year old competitive people are not known for their willingness to stand down and not really care about PRs and working hard.
So I don't really know what Fleshman and Cain are talking about when they say 'change the system.' I mean it's easy for two profesh athletes to say that. But for the 99% who have one last chance to hit their potential before joining the workforce...telling them to be satisfied with less....is unrealistic.
justanopinion wrote:
well ok but really wrote:
nice post, but ultimately Fleshman is saying that college aged women should not try to be as fast as they could be. That they should step back and settle for less than their short term potential.
Sure, in theory they would have longer careers if they don't grab for the brass ring at 22, but 99% of them will have jobs and work instead of be professional athletes. So it's now or never if they want to hit their potential.
hard to tell competitive 22 year olds not to try to hit their potential.
Perhaps even more important for those women to not risk osteoporosis and infertility if they aren't even going to be a professional athlete at the end of the day. If at the end of the day they will have a career outside of professional running, then finding sustainability in an activity that will ultimately become a hobby if pursued in the future at all is arguably all the more important. One can still have a long and goal driven relationship with running as a recreational sub-elite runner.
For the minority of women who become pros, it ultimately likely hinders their ability to hit their long term potential through putting them through cycles of injury that don't allow them to train consistently. For the majority of women who do not become pros, it leaves long standing health consequences for something that will ultimately be a hobby. Regardless of where you end up, short term peaking through unsustainable leanness sounds counterproductive to long term goals.
Isn't that kind of a tough call, though? There will be always be women like, say, Jenny Simpson, where we all knew throughout her college career that she was a surefire pro. She was able to think of running and the planning, etc. that goes into it in terms of "college plus 10-15 years, so if she/her coaches thought they might "strategize" a workout, a race schedule, etc. around long term development and health like that, they could have.I'm not saying she did or didn't, but if she wanted to, she could have, since she was an obvious future pro. But then there will be women who are on the cusp, so to speak, who might be able to get that contract if they really, really push themselves in college. If, God forbid, they cut a bit of weight, they push themselves to the edge of what we might call the health-breakdown limit? If those women want to try and make it to the pro ranks, do we really tell them not to go all in? We know plenty of athletes who parlayed an initial contract into long term stardom, but they had to get the contract first.
Women elite runners aren’t any thinner than those of previous generations. It wasn’t uncommon for the top runners to weigh between 95-115 lbs. no matter their height. I’d love to hear from the elites from the 80’s, and ask if weight goals, eating disorders and missed periods were common. It also seemed more common 30 years ago for elites to have children while still competing.
I think one difference in training between then and now for women is time spent in the gym. I don’t think strength work was as huge a component of overall training as it now.
mannotclever wrote:
Not a clever comment. Sports is about competing over the short term to even get in a position to stay in this profession. Of course after the fact you are always smarter, but you never know exactly on which side of your limit your are currently operating. Only time can tell. Also this is an issue for male runners as well. No need to be sexist and only make it about girls
Note that I said both male AND female elite runners typically need to be as lean as possible to achieve their best performances... and boys developing into men undergo significantly different hormonal changes than girls developing into women do... it's not that weight is solely a female issue, not at all, and that's not the argument. But for young male vs. female athlete developmental trajectories, it's apples and oranges in those prime ~17-21 years. Biology.