9 ms·

How could women be better physiologically suited at long distance running than men, when for example there are around 2500[1] men that have a better time than t

by kalind 2y ago

How could women be better physiologically suited at long distance running than men, when for example there are around 2500[1] men that have a better time than the women's marathon world record at 2:11:53? Or compare the men's record at UTMB (100 mile race) at 19:37:43 vs the women's record at 22:30:54. [1] https://worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/road-running/marathon/all/men/senior?page=26 https://worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/road-ru...

MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
The article isn’t about pure time, it’s about overall endurance over time. Women tend to finish ultramarathons at a higher rate than men, but not typically faster than men.
- uean 2y ago
  Barkley has a time cutoff so I think the point is valid.
- kalind 2y ago
  So to answers the OP's question: the reason she's the first woman to finish isn't necessarily because of bias or sexism, but could rather be simply because of the very challenging time limit, and the fact that the women's world record ultra times are around 10-15% slower than the men's on all distances from 50k up to 6 days (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon)
  - gcanyon 2y ago
    If you take that 10-15% number seriously, then her finish is a (graded) course record by a healthy margin.
    - votepaunchy 2y ago
      Her 59:58 is 15.2% longer than the course record of 52:03.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
CydeWeys 2y ago
They're talking distances much longer than marathons even.
alwaysrunning 2y ago
As a former ultra runner who never competed in barely, women traditionally do better downhill, they are lighter, have a smaller stride length (more agile), and Barkley has a lot of downhill. It's a loop also so comparing it to utmb or any race that isn't a loop or onb isn't quite the same. Men do better uphill traditionally where there is more power and lung capacity required, which Barkley has plenty of also. One thing no one has really pointed out is most ultras alow for a pacer after a certain point. This is vital once you start to lose your ability to think. It keeps you from getting lost, keeps you on pace, ensures you drink and eat at the correct times, mentally it gives you someone to keep you motivated, keep you sane, so on. In Barkley you see runners grouping together to compensate for the lack of a pacer but the fifth loop they send each runner out in the opposite direction so they do the final loop solo, when everything is at its worst. For example, in 2022, Karel Sabbe was found asking a trash can for help getting back on course because he thought it was a women, on his fourth loop. Honestly, I am surprised it hasn't happen prior to this year, minus the fact that there are just so few finishers.
kitd 2y ago
AIUI the difference between the sexes is less for long distances than it is for shorter, faster events, not that women are faster than men. Therefore the probability of a woman finisher in this race is theoretically not much less than a man finisher.
prmoustache 2y ago
Becayse marathons are relatively short distance. We observe the same in ultracycling where Lael Wilcox is among the fastest. The thing is traditionnally sports have been invented by men with charactetistics/rules that suited men first. You also have to take into account that in any society influcenced by patriarcal and sexism schemes, it is logical that they ate simply more men participating. The base level of a group always increase with the participation and competitivity within that group.
- epivosism 2y ago
  > The thing is traditionnally sports have been invented by men with charactetistics/rules that suited men first. Take a look at the history of the concept of marathon; I think your claim is a stretch. Running fast from point A to point B isn't some kind of patriarchal conspiracy. Also you make two contradictory claims, which one is it? 1) that the sport inherently is sexist in design, so of course women aren't winning 2) that women would be winning if the sport had more women competing Those are opposite arguments.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    The first claim is that less women are competing because it has been invented by men for men (and only a long time after were women allowed to compete) which is not contradictory nor opposite to claim 2 that the level of women would increase if there were more women competing. Look at pro cycling. 25 years ago I was riding in circle around an elite women cyclist as a junior. Now they haven't reached the same level as I had and are still far away from elite men (who are also much more to compete) but they are much closer because there is more money to the sport, more women competing. Now if races were 5to 10 times longer the difference would probably be lower as found in ultracycling events.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    > Those are opposite arguments. They aren't. If you make something tilted against group X, group X will not look very good in the distribution of performance. If those people in group X participate at a lower rate as a result, group X will look even worse in the distribution of performance. You'll be selecting the best from a much smaller population. I do think there's some merit in the argument that many athletic events have been developed to showcase and compare male athletic capability. (Of course, a few are the opposite!)
CamperBob2 2y ago
...when for example there are around 2500[1] men that have a better time than the women's marathon world record at 2:11:53? Women have only recently been allowed to participate in this type of sport. See https://kathrineswitzer.com/1967-boston-marathon-the-real-story/ https://kathrineswitzer.com/1967-boston-marathon-the-real-st... for instance. So it's not surprising that there's not much of a competitive tradition in marathoning that brings as many women into it as men, or that encourages them to train as hard. It's also true that some peoples' body types seem more naturally suited to it. See Kenya's domination in distance-running events. They have a cultural tradition that celebrates endurance running going back thousands of years. Even if that timeframe is too short to exhibit genuine selection pressure, it still has an effect. Their children have been raised to run. There is probably no inherent reason why women don't show the same speed or endurance as men, just as there was no actual science behind the widely-held notion that no one could break the four-minute mile. But it will take time to make up for past discouragement and outright discrimination.

by kalind 2y ago

MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago

The article isn’t about pure time, it’s about overall endurance over time. Women tend to finish ultramarathons at a higher rate than men, but not typically faster than men.

uean 2y ago
Barkley has a time cutoff so I think the point is valid.
kalind 2y ago
So to answers the OP's question: the reason she's the first woman to finish isn't necessarily because of bias or sexism, but could rather be simply because of the very challenging time limit, and the fact that the women's world record ultra times are around 10-15% slower than the men's on all distances from 50k up to 6 days (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon)
- gcanyon 2y ago
  If you take that 10-15% number seriously, then her finish is a (graded) course record by a healthy margin.
  - votepaunchy 2y ago
    Her 59:58 is 15.2% longer than the course record of 52:03.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

CydeWeys 2y ago

They're talking distances much longer than marathons even.

alwaysrunning 2y ago

As a former ultra runner who never competed in barely, women traditionally do better downhill, they are lighter, have a smaller stride length (more agile), and Barkley has a lot of downhill. It's a loop also so comparing it to utmb or any race that isn't a loop or onb isn't quite the same. Men do better uphill traditionally where there is more power and lung capacity required, which Barkley has plenty of also. One thing no one has really pointed out is most ultras alow for a pacer after a certain point. This is vital once you start to lose your ability to think. It keeps you from getting lost, keeps you on pace, ensures you drink and eat at the correct times, mentally it gives you someone to keep you motivated, keep you sane, so on. In Barkley you see runners grouping together to compensate for the lack of a pacer but the fifth loop they send each runner out in the opposite direction so they do the final loop solo, when everything is at its worst. For example, in 2022, Karel Sabbe was found asking a trash can for help getting back on course because he thought it was a women, on his fourth loop. Honestly, I am surprised it hasn't happen prior to this year, minus the fact that there are just so few finishers.

kitd 2y ago

AIUI the difference between the sexes is less for long distances than it is for shorter, faster events, not that women are faster than men. Therefore the probability of a woman finisher in this race is theoretically not much less than a man finisher.

prmoustache 2y ago

Becayse marathons are relatively short distance. We observe the same in ultracycling where Lael Wilcox is among the fastest. The thing is traditionnally sports have been invented by men with charactetistics/rules that suited men first. You also have to take into account that in any society influcenced by patriarcal and sexism schemes, it is logical that they ate simply more men participating. The base level of a group always increase with the participation and competitivity within that group.

epivosism 2y ago
> The thing is traditionnally sports have been invented by men with charactetistics/rules that suited men first. Take a look at the history of the concept of marathon; I think your claim is a stretch. Running fast from point A to point B isn't some kind of patriarchal conspiracy. Also you make two contradictory claims, which one is it? 1) that the sport inherently is sexist in design, so of course women aren't winning 2) that women would be winning if the sport had more women competing Those are opposite arguments.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  The first claim is that less women are competing because it has been invented by men for men (and only a long time after were women allowed to compete) which is not contradictory nor opposite to claim 2 that the level of women would increase if there were more women competing. Look at pro cycling. 25 years ago I was riding in circle around an elite women cyclist as a junior. Now they haven't reached the same level as I had and are still far away from elite men (who are also much more to compete) but they are much closer because there is more money to the sport, more women competing. Now if races were 5to 10 times longer the difference would probably be lower as found in ultracycling events.
- mlyle 2y ago
  > Those are opposite arguments. They aren't. If you make something tilted against group X, group X will not look very good in the distribution of performance. If those people in group X participate at a lower rate as a result, group X will look even worse in the distribution of performance. You'll be selecting the best from a much smaller population. I do think there's some merit in the argument that many athletic events have been developed to showcase and compare male athletic capability. (Of course, a few are the opposite!)

CamperBob2 2y ago

...when for example there are around 2500[1] men that have a better time than the women's marathon world record at 2:11:53? Women have only recently been allowed to participate in this type of sport. See https://kathrineswitzer.com/1967-boston-marathon-the-real-story/ https://kathrineswitzer.com/1967-boston-marathon-the-real-st... for instance. So it's not surprising that there's not much of a competitive tradition in marathoning that brings as many women into it as men, or that encourages them to train as hard. It's also true that some peoples' body types seem more naturally suited to it. See Kenya's domination in distance-running events. They have a cultural tradition that celebrates endurance running going back thousands of years. Even if that timeframe is too short to exhibit genuine selection pressure, it still has an effect. Their children have been raised to run. There is probably no inherent reason why women don't show the same speed or endurance as men, just as there was no actual science behind the widely-held notion that no one could break the four-minute mile. But it will take time to make up for past discouragement and outright discrimination.