So basically you are saying it is better for women to understand that running should only be considered a recreational hobby in order for them to maintain health and fertility. Aspirations to become a pro will only lead to future health issues and ultimate failure.
I guess this philosophy would end the concept of professional women's running in the US. Perhaps this is the way we should go.
NotPC wrote:
whitewashed wrote:
You don't often hear of African women struggling with this transition.
Yeah, I have always been critical of college coaches that just go recruit a team of east Africans, but given what has come up with the Mary Cain drama, I am rethinking that.
If I were a coach I'm getting me some tough, non-entitled athletes and just worrying about running, and running fast. I'd be paranoid as heck that if I asked an American female to try harder, watch her diet, etc. she'd going to the news or the AD.
Coaching women and girls. Especially teenage girls. Is a different world and some men just aren't cut out for it if they need to walk on egg shells around them.
A male coach can use sarcastic ridicule and joke with guys (teenagers and 20 somethings) and they'll usually laugh it off. Girls in a social group fear rejection and not being accepted. I think they take things way more seriously than the guys when it comes to passing comments.
Positive Contribution wrote:
Girls in a social group fear rejection and not being accepted. I think they take things way more seriously than the guys when it comes to passing comments.
Really? Explain the male school shooters who've complained about rejection.
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.
You can say that about the men too. There are many critical of the NCAA system destroying development of American distance runners for men too. Which is where it's ironic that AlSal brought Rupp along slowly and let him develop but did not with do this Cain.
Positive Contribution wrote:
NotPC wrote:
Yeah, I have always been critical of college coaches that just go recruit a team of east Africans, but given what has come up with the Mary Cain drama, I am rethinking that.
If I were a coach I'm getting me some tough, non-entitled athletes and just worrying about running, and running fast. I'd be paranoid as heck that if I asked an American female to try harder, watch her diet, etc. she'd going to the news or the AD.
Coaching women and girls. Especially teenage girls. Is a different world and some men just aren't cut out for it if they need to walk on egg shells around them.
A male coach can use sarcastic ridicule and joke with guys (teenagers and 20 somethings) and they'll usually laugh it off. Girls in a social group fear rejection and not being accepted. I think they take things way more seriously than the guys when it comes to passing comments.
But the suicide rate of males who feel rejected and overwhelmed is much higher than for females. Also the life expectancy of males is lower because they smoke, drink and do other staff to cope with the pressure. the reality is just that females worked in way less stressful working environements or stayed at home. As this luckily changes the females are waking up to the reality
Greg wrote:
Positive Contribution wrote:
Girls in a social group fear rejection and not being accepted. I think they take things way more seriously than the guys when it comes to passing comments.
Really? Explain the male school shooters who've complained about rejection.
You mean the government false flags to foment a political reaction?
Greg wrote:
Positive Contribution wrote:
Girls in a social group fear rejection and not being accepted. I think they take things way more seriously than the guys when it comes to passing comments.
Really? Explain the male school shooters who've complained about rejection.
Check their estrogen levels
Greg wrote:
Positive Contribution wrote:
Girls in a social group fear rejection and not being accepted. I think they take things way more seriously than the guys when it comes to passing comments.
Really? Explain the male school shooters who've complained about rejection.
Beta Males are a real thing.
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.
This is not how I read Fleshman's article. To me, she was saying that college-age women need to stay at the weight their bodies want to be at when fit.
picky bart 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.
This is not how I read Fleshman's article. To me, she was saying that college-age women need to stay at the weight their bodies want to be at when fit.
"The natural improvement curve of young women generally includes a performance dip or plateau as the body adjusts to the changes of adolescence. If you make it past the dip, you are rewarded with steadier improvement through your mid-20s and 30s. During this normal plateau, though, girls train in a system that holds up the more linear, male performance curve as the ideal. When their biological performance curve is not normalized and supported, women and girls are faced with a choice: fight their body’s changes, or ride it out and be declared undedicated."
The above part suggests that women and coaches need to accept a performance plateau and not fight it. That means accept you will slow down and not fight it.
Fleshman also talks about rewarding coaches who don't have the fastest teams...but rather those who manage to get the most women to the professional ranks.
To me the gist of the piece is that women tend to slow down for a few years and the 'system' needs to accept this will happen. To not use the male linear improvement model for women.
Positive Contribution wrote:
You can say that about the men too. There are many critical of the NCAA system destroying development of American distance runners for men too. Which is where it's ironic that AlSal brought Rupp along slowly and let him develop but did not with do this Cain.
I don’t know what you’ve been smoking but Salazar did not bring Rupp along slowly.
Serious question - should HS, college and Pro female runners model their body after Sara Hall, Shalane Flanagan or Shelby Houlihan?
Jefe in the CO wrote:
Positive Contribution wrote:
You can say that about the men too. There are many critical of the NCAA system destroying development of American distance runners for men too. Which is where it's ironic that AlSal brought Rupp along slowly and let him develop but did not with do this Cain.
I don’t know what you’ve been smoking but Salazar did not bring Rupp along slowly.
He used a 10% mileage rule to increase year by year. Rupp was only averaging 80s in his senior year in college. He also didn't do workouts that broke him. So, what are you speaking about? Rupp may be one of the most well documented runners in terms of training, racing, etc in the modern era since Salazar did start coaching him so early. We have tons of articles, videos, etc throughout his entire career. When Rupp ran at Oregon it wasn't until his senior year that he became "Galen MF Rupp". I don't think he won a NCAA title before then. It was all his senior year in college. This was precisely because he was gradually adapting to both mileage and intensity.
really you can take out of the mix incompetence and lack of concern for the athlete in terms of a plan to maximize results.
Al Sal's coaching that is.
they're trying to blame Sal for societal pressures on women, as well as notions conjured up in the women' minds.
Of course psychologically, Al Salaole made matters worse for women and men alike, saying stupid things, idiotic things,
thinking it was funny, or beneficial, all the while he was ignorant....
Everyone has to change their body for their sport - that's what training does, if they are serious about it - but the question is whether they are damaging their body for their sport. There are plenty of ways to do that, too.
I'm a shorter male and slightly heavier set. I knew a few guys with eating disorders that blew me away time-wise but I never was jealous of them...I was glad I didn't have their struggles.
Give me a slower time but a healthier mindset--I found ways to improve on my own, at my own pace. My internal struggle was height (most runners are tall), rather than weight.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.