I have seen many women win overall races, at distances from 5k to 200 miles. But what is always left out of these articles is the relative talent and fitness of the entire field. Elite-level women can beat 90% of all men. So if a male in the top 10% doesn't show up to race, elite women can win the overall. This is what is happening in all of these cases. I love to see women win the overall, but even they would say it depends entirely on who shows up on the start line.
I was curious about this so I looked at the percentiles for the Boston Marathon since the data is readily available.
Roughly speaking, the top 1% of women times lines up with top 10% for men so the data backs up your statement. After that, there's a pretty consistent 20% difference.
This is what is going on in these races, the best women can sometimes win races where none of the best men are participating. You can easily check this by looking at race results of the women mentioned in the article at ulrasignup.com . They might beat an elite man if the guy bonks and falls apart (which is not all that rare for men or women in ultraruns), but other than that, no, doesn't happen.
I think all of the women mentioned in the article have run at Western States 100, where there are always a decent number of the best men and women (but never as many as want to go, because it's a lottery system with limited spots for elites). It is extremely unlikely a woman will ever win that race. The women's course record (by Ellie Greenwood, one of the women mentioned in the linked article) is 16:47, which is over two hours slower than the men's course record, and in that record-setting run in 2012 she finished the race in 14th place overall. That's an excellent run, even for a male, but she is nowhere near as strong a runner as the best men.
I think all these women are quite aware that they're not at the level of the best men; they're not delusional. It's the media that likes to sensationalize things when they see a woman win a race outright. The media doesn't understand that the fields in these races are wildly uneven; there's a limited number of races where substantial numbers of the best runners show up.
Isn't that true for any sport where endurance is more important than elegance or intelligence (such as ballet or chess)? Almost everyone, if not everyone, at the Olympics or world championship is better than you or me in their expert field of sport.
The most intriguing 'graf in the article for me was this:
'After scouring the results of nearly 100,000 marathon finishers, Sandra Hunter, a professor of exercise science at Wisconsin’s Marquette University, made an interesting—if not intuitive—find. The more men there are in a race relative to the amount of women, the bigger the performance gap between those genders. “If you had one female for every twenty men, the likelihood that that female is going to be the best . . . compared with the best male in that age group is pretty small,” says Hunter.'
Which suggests it has a lot more to do with the statistics of outliers than anything else. Elite performance is signal (training!) plus noise (daily variation, environmental variance, Athena rooting for you, etc), which can overwhelm the signal on any given day. But each participant is also a random draw on the /signal/ variable as well. Get more people in the event, and you get more draws on the signal variable. Get more people on race day, and you get more chances for outliers on the noise variable.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Elites are outliers by definition. Elite runners are mostly elite because of genetics. Then they train hard to realize their potential. 99% could never become elite in traditional running events, no matter how much, how hard or how smart they train. The top 1/10 of 1% of the general population is more likely the definition of elite in running.
Outlet statistics work differently from measurement of means. The distribution of the largest draw from a collection of draws from a normal distribution depends heavily on the size of the sampled population.
Consider each runner's skill, training, etc as a sampled variable. Then the top score in the sample depends heavily on the population size. Comparing the best draw from two equivalent groups of different sizes is thus going to favor the larger group. And this sounds like what they observed in the study.
I've always assumed it's just two normal distributions overlapping. Where the tails reach both ends (it's possible to find men or women being the best and worst). But where the centres are offset by some amount.
> Women have more body fat than men in both elite (Vernillo et al. 2013) and recreational (Hoffman et al. 2010a, b) athletes. In both elite and recreational runners the percentage of body fat is higher in women compared to men (Blaak 2001). It could be argued that fatty tissue may be used as an energy reserve and this could be an advantage for ultra-distances since runners tend to lose body fat during multi-hours running competitions (Karstoft et al. 2013; Schütz et al. 2013). Women might benefit from their higher percentage of body fat since both sexes lose a similar amount of fat during an ultra-endurance performance such as a 100 km ultra-marathon (Knechtle et al. 2010a, b, 2012a, b).
> Women might benefit from their higher percentage of body fat since both sexes lose a similar amount of fat during an ultra-endurance performance such as a 100 km ultra-marathon (Knechtle et al. 2010a, b, 2012a, b).
Fat is 9 Calories per gram, so 6250 Calories is 1.5 lbs (0.694 kg) of fat. Even if the calorie burn rate is way off - say by 50%, there is no way any of those athletes is in danger of running out of body fat.
And that doesn't even count the carb gels and other food runners typically eat on runs.
Okay, at least that blog post is written by someone with a phd, but you can't really take this at face value either. It's probably reasonably true in general (obviously still highly dependent on the person doing the running), but you seem to be assuming that this rate is the same on short runs and long runs, which sound suspicious. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the rate of energy expenditure increased as the time/distance of the race increased. Also if they're running instead of sleeping, I imagine that is probably increasing energy use as well.
I'd also be pretty surprised it the 100 calories/mile was taking into account the person's resting metabolic rate. That could easily add another one to two thousand (more depending on the person) calories per day.
Finally, even with your analysis coming to 1.5lbs of fat, that's quite a lot of fat in a trained athlete. I'd expect most of the men running these races are well below 10% body fat, and the lower your body fat is the more resistant the body tends to be when it comes to losing more. Losing 1.5 or more lbs of fat would probably be moving their body fat percentages down quite noticeably, which is not easy to do at such low levels.
So maybe it is all bs, but I don't think it can be ignored so easily either.
> I'd expect most of the men running these races are well below 10% body fat
You're way off
> This study compares body composition characteristics with performance among participants in a 161-km trail ultramarathon. ... Mean (+/-SD) BMI (kg x m(-2)) was 24.8+/-2.7 (range 19.1-32.2) for the men and 21.2+/-2.1 (range 18.1-26.7) for the women. Among the three fastest runners, BMI values ranged from 22.1 to 23.4 for men and 21.5 to 22.9 for women. [0]
For clarity, you could have just quoted the body fat percentages from the next couple sentences in the abstract.
>> Mean (+/-SD) percent body fat values for men and women were 17+/-5 (range 5-35) and 21+/-6 (range 10-29) , and ranged from 6 to 14 and 14 to 27 among the fastest three men and women.
I would imagine the fastest finishers are not "bizarrely jacked" (they usually look pretty scrawny), but their BMI is not very well correlated with their body fat percentage.
> We conclude that despite wide variations in BMI and percent body fat among ultramarathon participants, the faster men have lower percent body fat values than the slower men, and finishers have lower percent body fat values than non-finishers.
So I do stand corrected that not all of them are significantly below 10% body fat, but some definitely were (I don't see a breakdown anywhere giving an indication of how many), including some of the top finishers. I'd also imagine the ones at higher percentages who performed well probably have higher floors to begin with for how little body fat they can reasonably reach.
In any case, it is not at all abnormal for BMI to have nothing to do with body fat percentage or how jacked someone looks, especially with athletes. BMI is probably one of the most meaningless health metrics in common use.
Even further I'd imagine looking at the data for the top 30% of runners who are in the competitive tier this article is talking about would have more relevant and uniform data with narrower ranges.
I've gone to ultras. You really need to have a range for the elites vs. everyone else. It's a very inclusive sport and you have participants that are fairly overweight even. Based on what I recall from my college track days where I knew my teammates' body fat percentages (4% to about 10%) I'd estinate that most elite men are at the lower end of that. Also because most men have more muscle mass their metabolic resting rate is higher so that definitely could be part of the reason why women and men peak performance is so close in ultras. They are using 10 to 15% more calories per hour I'd estimate. Also on a hilly course they need to tote that extra mass up a lot of extra climbs.
I am surprised no one has mentioned Ann Trason that won 13 (iirc) Western States and used to win many ultras outright.
Elite athletes that can't manage their weight so that they have enough body fat to last until the end of the race? I think not. Also, extremely low body fat can cause a host of other issues like low testosterone that could effect race performance.
You are assuming that a fat cell can deliver into the bloodstream all of its fat over the course of the ultramarathon. If on the other hand it can deliver only a small fraction of its fat in that amount of time, then the argument in grandparent is saved from your criticism.
Yea I doubt body fat is the reason. I bet women's bodies just burn less/km than men's. Not just in weight, but also in anatomy. Not just skeletal structure, but muscle composition, etc.
Totally depends on the runner. An 85lb female athlete will burn X per km. A 300lb male, covering the same distance/speed, will burn at least 4X and probably 6X.
Seriously doubt there are 300lb dudes running many ultra marathons. I recently read that book by the ex marine dude who did them. He was a freak in the low-mid 200s and he talks about how he destroyed his body pushing thru it. On top of it runners have sugar and whatnot they eat on the way, so op was making a conservative estimate.
Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Goggins? If so his wikipedia article is fcking hilarious. Someone should coin a term for people who write self-aggrandizing hyperbolic autobiographical wikipedia entries.
The article may have some strangely worded parts but he seems to be an incredibly strong willed and determined person going from a fat slob gulping down milkshakes (paraphrasing his words) to a seal and an ultra runner.
It is my understanding that humans generally are limited to converting about 0.8% of the body fat into usable energy per day. If women generally have more body fat, then they would be able to yield more energy from it before hitting the 0.8% limit (which likely is spread out over the day especially in endurance events). Or there might even be some variance in that 0.8% limit, with women being able to convert a bit more per day than men. This would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that women have a more difficult time losing weight than men. Certainly would be an interesting possibility to study.
Well recent studies have actually found that women have a different catabolism than men. Women also switch to catabolism while they still have glycogen remaining in their muscles, meaning they don't build up as much lactic acid.
This flies in the face of conventional wisdom because all of the original studies were only done on men.
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if women do have a harder time losing weight than men, but I know that a woman's body reacts to starvation differently. That may play a role.
There is a massive need for "foundational" studies to be redone with women. The assumption that men and women have the same metabolism has been shown to be wrong, and it has a lot of broad and overarching implications, especially in the field of medicine.
My layman's understanding is
- fat burning results in CO2
- CO2 is only removed by exhaling
- we exhale ~about~ 2lbs of CO2 per day
- fat burning is limited by the amount we can exhale
note: this does not claim one can only burn 2lbs of fat/day only that resulting CO2 from burning some amount of fat must fit in the exhaling budget
Very interesting. I assumed that the limit was due to some internal process and hadn't considered maximum CO2 output. Wonder if this means people with larger lung capacity could burn more fat per day.
It states the maximum conversion is (290+/-25) kJ/kgd.
It's been a while since I last worked on this subject but I believe that works out to somewhere in the range of 0.8% to 1% of body fat that can be converted into energy per day at most.
Of course there were some experimental controls in the study that don't always map exactly into the real world. There always are but this should be close enough for the discussion here.
Thanks for the source! Jumping from that study (which is tightly focused) into the statistic of "0.8% body fat per day limit" is dubious, and "close enough" doesn't work with nonlinear systems like the our bodies. Read many of the threads around discussing that article for more information :)
I've read that historically on Jeju Island in South Korea, women were the breadwinners for the longest time. This was because the most valuable thing peasants could do was dive for shellfish. Women could do it better than men since their level of body fat gave them more protection from the cold, etc.
Sounds reasonable to me. I've been eating keto for a long time and I always feel like I have fat energy reserves to draw on. I wonder if keto-adapted men and women would outperform carb-adapted counterparts in ultra-endurance.
From personal experience there is a difference and it is a big difference.
Researchers have not seen any evidence that the ketogenic diet (or any other diet that trains the body to engage lipolysis to a greater degree) increases exercise capacity.
They have seen evidence that these diets can retool the body to more readily use fat as an energy substrate. While this doesn't translate to performance gains, it can mean that on a multi-hour/multi-day effort that a self-supported athlete might need to have a bit less food in their packs as well as foods with a higher proportion of fat that are lighter. Lighter pack = faster athlete.
But...even low intensity exercise over long duration is going to result in the recruitment of FTa/FTb muscle fibers that run almost exclusively by glycolyis. So an athlete counting on fat to be the primary energy substrate has be really highly trained, practiced, and know their pacing thresholds really well to keep the recruitment of those muscle fibers to a minimum.
I can only speak to my personal experience. I’m not an athlete but I lift, bike and so on. On empty stomach. I don’t eat before training. I could never do that on carb diet.
Speaking from my personal experience to counter this, I run in the mornings up to 1 hour on an empty stomach. While I don't follow one diet, a larger portion of my food is carb based.
I follow TFTNA (Training for the New Alpinism) and Uphill Athlete (Steve/Scott's new book) training regiments that Parent mentions.
They do talk about retooling your body to use fat reserves more than carbs. While I'm sure the evidence shows that keto diet might make this switch faster and easier, someone on a non-keto diet (carb based) can also do this.
I don't think I'll be able to make any of their talks because the nearest city is a bit away, but I do frequent their forums/site which has an incredible trove of information.
Agreed! I love that Scott is so active on there. Those guys are legit.
My other very favorite resource is Shawn Bearden's Science of Ultra podcast, which is where I learned of the research paper I linked in my first post. Here's the one on fat adaptation: https://www.scienceofultra.com/podcasts/19 . He has lots of pretty hardcore exercise scientists and researchers on. It's one of my favorite things to listen to while grinding up a hill. :)
Have you tried? I always run before eating (not as part of a regimen, it's just convenient), as I expect many do. And my diet is closer to inverse-keto than keto.
My guess: It appears as though your reason for posting was to say "I could never do that on a carb based diet". However, you never established and reason for that conclusion. Each of us has our personal opinion on a variety of different subjects. We could all post that personal opinion without any corroborating evidence, but because there are a lot of people, this would create a comment section containing mostly noise. People would prefer to see comments based on research or personal experience that seems to strongly corroborate the conclusion. Generally it has been my experience that I do not get many down votes simply because people disagree or are unhappy with what I'm saying. It's usually because I am clearly wrong, or I have simply contributed to the noise.
I think that your comment falls into the noise category and is undesirable because of that. If you had explained personal experiences to show how you reached your conclusion, It think you would get a better reaction. If you also showed how other possibilities could be rules out, then I think people would find it very interesting and you would get many up votes.
I don't think that's true for most people. I do weight lifting in the mornings with only a coffee, dinner around 6pm the previous day with no snacks afterwards, and my diet is fairly carby.
I found intermittent fasting hard on carb diet. It is super easy on keto diet. In fast I fast 2-3 days every now and then because it's just a seamless transition.
I'm not saying my personal experience should be considered universal, that'd be foolish. Just recounting that.
But it makes sense given how metabolizing fat and metabolizing sugar works. Insulin response, etc.
Especially in the case of diets, I think personal experience should acccount for most of how you make your decisions. The human body is very flexible to different conditions, the science here is pretty flaky, that trying to make sense of diets by using logic only helps very little. Anyway I'm just repeating what you're saying, that personal experience may not be universal but it's important for yourself.
The body can only convert so much fat into energy at a given moment. Usually we have both carbs we've recently eaten to fuel us plus a store of glycogen. On Keto you should have little to no glycogen and only whatever small number of carbs you've eaten recently. If your energy expenditure exceeds what they body can convert from fat along with whatever it can extract from your limited carbs and whatever glycogen is hanging around, you'll get an energy crash. Keto might be good for ultra endurance events where there is little to no sprinting involved. Just keep a nice steady pace at the level that can be fueled by the body's capacity to convert fat into energy.
Except then you would still eat carbs the night before a race because not having glycogen is just intentionally gimping yourself for no imaginable possible gain. It's not like the mj of glycogen energy is weighing you down.
You should absolutely train in a glycogen depleted state just so you will know what it feels like and can deal with it. But it's not how you would ever start a race.
There are a couple examples: Zach Bitter (50 mile - 24 hour races) and Tim Olson (100 mile trail). Both have held notable records.
In the marathon distance or shorter, being fat adapted would be a bad thing, as you couldn't train at upper capacities. But where you are running purely aerobically for very long periods of time (12+ hours), this may be an advantage.
The secondary (or even primary) advantage would be a low carb or ketogenic diet is that it is anti-inflammatory. People who run ultra distances do huge volumes of training, and it may be enabled by a lack of inflammation.
No. But modern training methods include fasted workouts to improve fat metabolism. If you are ok with sub maximal performance keto can be a good way to reach it as the highest keto fat burning is higher than when you use carbs as well. the absolute performance is quite a bit better if you consume carbs though.
Some elite ultrarunners are on LCHF diets, like Zach Miller, Timothy Olson or Jeff Browning. I don't think any of them are on the keto diet specifically. But the vast majority of them are on the typical high-carb runner diet.
There is a world record holder for 1000 mile races who is all about running off only fat. Advises to eat nothing before the race, and to refuse all of the gu and gels they try to hand you while running.
I successfully completed a marathon 3 months after reading his book after having never run more than 3 miles in my life. (Stu Mittleman - Slow Burn)
Women's dominance of open water long distance swimming is mostly from the higher natural buoyancy of body fat rather than any sex specific ketogenic effects.
I recall reading in an older running book (maybe one of Jeff Galloway's) something along the lines of: because of physiological differences, in theory women may be able to outperform men in ultra-high mileage events. I suspect the author of this piece is overstating the "conventional wisdom" of the running community.
Yeah, this (that women have some advantages at longer distances that may prove decisive) has also been something that's been something that's been imparted on me as "conventional wisdom" so long ago that I can't really remember when, so I was also surprised by the author's use of "conventional wisdom" for the opposite claim.
If you look at marathon winners, it's clear that the male advantage of more muscle mass doesn't help here. You want to have as little energy-consuming muscle as you can get away with, and as little total weight to lug around as well.
It would appear studies have been done on relative body fat % between male and female long distance athletes.
But have they included relative different upper body muscle mass between males and females?
IF upper body muscle mass differential between genders exceeds the same differential for body fat, perhaps it may explain the declining performance gap between genders over distance?
Might male upper body physiology, excess to ultramarathon requirements, become a net negative compared to women’s excess body fat?
A human physics and engineering problem that possibly favours females at extreme distance?
I’ve got data for hundreds of people travelling 80km, but carrying 25kg.
Including female participants.
Different story with the additional weight carried though.
However, we did have 1 truly exceptional/outlier female who once came in 1st place.
Mental resiliency is very much an individual effort.
Having a lot of experience assessing humans in this realm, I don’t see any gender based causal factors.
However, the one human I met who was truly willing to push themselves to the point of true failure was a female. It was the only time I was nervous in my role. But that is strictly anecdotal.
Ultrarunning is such a niche sport. That's why it isn't an olympic sport. There aren't enough people in the sport to make finishes consistent across similar terrain. The winner of the race could be 2 hours ahead of the second place finish.
My spouse has gotten into trail running, and has done a couple of 50k's along with shorter events. This amount of variation is really noticeable. I also have a friend who rides cyclocross, and it's a similar thing. My impression as an outsider is that perhaps as a result of this level of inherent variability, the social atmosphere surrounding these sports at the amateur level is much more laid back.
Peak X Keto What's more, we cherish whatever is utilizing something new and one of a kind. Since, it implies Keto X Factor Diet Pills aren't simply following a horde of other enhancement organizations and searching for cash. Along these lines, once more, we truly trust that Keto X Factor Weight Loss merits the shot here. All things considered, this item could be actually what you were searching for.
This phenomenon isn’t just confined to extreme distances. It is present during various high caloric stress events. Another example is potentially marathon ruck marching with a heavy backpack and possibly other hand carried gear.
No... I mean you sure do see the same effect as in running that the 1% top woman beat 90% of the men. But there is absolutely no competition between top 1% men and top 1% woman. Testosterone is one hell of a drug. And for the top trails in the woman’s league you can see guys who aren’t even in the competitive leagues scaling it like it was a kids playground.
Not really, it's all about the legs, and the hands are mainly to keep the balance. Also women are lighter so they dont need to be that strong, it's all about technique
"When Male Runners Lose to Women: Conventional wisdom has long asserted men outperform women in long-distance races. Ultramarathon results prove that assumption wrong"
Actual article: men outperform women in long-distance races, usually but not always winning:
"By the most common perceptions about the biology of strength and endurance, physiology was stacked against St Laurent. On average, her male competitors had bigger hearts, larger lung capacities, and leaner bodies. And most results reflect that: in last year’s marquee Ultra Trail du Mont Blanc TDS, a 145-kilometre mountain race with more than 9,000 metres of elevation gain, the first female to cross the finish line came twenty-third. St Laurent, who placed fifth among women, came sixty-first overall."
There's a whole lot of "might" and "maybe" being thrown around here. Honestly, I think the biggest factor in these longer distances is the smaller sample size. There just aren't as many elite athletes competing at the ultra distances as there are at marathon and shorter distances.
The article throws in a bit of speculation about how men might be socialized to run too hard at the beginning of a race. I disagree. That observation says, to me, that the men competing in these events are not as well trained, not as experienced.
Look at the men's marathon and you'll see everyone taking it easy at the beginning of the race! They have to hire people to push the pace in the beginning because the elite runners don't want to do it. That directly contradicts the speculation about male socialization.
There's actually very substantial differences in the metabolism inside of muscles for men and women. Nobody realized this because literally every study that created baselines for what was going on inside the muscles in relation to the metabolites that ended up in the blood was done with men. So when women were later included in studies they just used the blood workup or VO2 to estimate energy expenditure and the like, and it turns out those are nearly completely wrong.
Long story short, women switch to catabolism way earlier than men, while they still have glycogen inside their muscles. Men don't switch to catabolism until after they are completely out of glycogen and are creating fucktons of lactic acid. Since your muscles run on glycogen, and lactic acid is not a great thing to have kicking around, women actually appear to have a better metabolism for endurance.
Unfortunately a lot of doctors and researchers are men, and are extremely dismissive of the idea that there is any reason to actually study women, instead inventing behavioral reasons for why you don't always get the same results for men and women in studies.
I think the fact that you are willing to chalk up the fact that women are winning these races on occasion to there not being enough elite runners has signs of a similar chauvanism.
(This is mostly off the top of my head, but I have a degree in biology and I have studied metabolism fairly extensively)
That's an unreasonable thing to do, especially since it was less an ad hominem attack than it was pointing out the fallacy at the root of your misunderstanding. They were doing you a favor. But mostly because, "I will take this one line from your statement, to show that you were arguing in bad faith, and use it to nullify the rest of what you said," is... very obviously a rhetorical tactic, rather than a substantive counterargument.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the claim that women beat men occasionally because of a small sample size is chauvinistic, regardless of whether or not it was intended to be.
Unlike other events, where strength is a limiting factor (for instance, sprint speed is limited by muscle mass), there isn't much of a reason to believe that women would be worse at distance running.
For instance, the same line of logic would be 100% chauvinistic if someone said "The best engineer in this field is a woman, but it's a narrow field, I assume the sample size is very small."
People used to make very similar claims about the inferior mental capacity of women as they do about physical performance now. Yes, men outperform women in feats of strength, however, in many sporting disciplines the fact that men continue to outperform women is most likely due to the fact that men are generally encouraged to participate in sport to a greater degree than women, and sporting communities are more welcoming to men.
The author of the comment I replied to has no basis for his claim that the sample size accounts for the women winning beyond a feeling that men are superior athletes in all ways. That is chauvinism, and if that claim makes you feel uncomfortable or angry, perhaps you should reflect on why that is.
No, what that person said was not chauvinistic. You're just trying very hard to imply it that way and your horrendous smugness about it isn't helping.
Especially when you're backing them up with ridiculously biased assumptions (which aren't supported by the science): "In many sporting disciplines the fact that men continue to outperform women is most likely due to the fact that men are generally encouraged to participate in sport to a greater degree than women"
I'm sure the reason Serena Williams can barely compete with a fringe male pro is because society is mean to her.
You're trying extremely hard to avoid scientific realities and scolding anyone who acknowledges them as "chauvinist". Your method of argument is everything that's wrong with societal discourse in 2019.
>I think the fact that you are willing to chalk up the fact that women are winning these races on occasion to there not being enough elite runners has signs of a similar chauvanism.
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that men drastically outperform women in almost any other physical trial, and this therefore has the markings of a statistical anomaly? What's with this desperation to explain away any differences with accusations of sexism?
What's next? Chauvanism is the reason we believe that men can lift heavier weights than women?
Men generally have the potential to be stronger than women, yes, but in general men are only stronger than women and larger than women, neither of which is particularly meaningful in endurance racing.
I replied to the comment above you in greater depth, but basically endurance appears to be something that women have the potential to be better at than men. If this strikes you as wrong, well, it's probably because it challenges your conception of male superiority rather than because of any innate advantage that men actually have.
> If this strikes you as wrong, well, it's probably because it challenges your conception of male superiority rather than because of any innate advantage that men actually have.
It challenges all the data that so far have supported that men dominate in endurance too.
Stop injecting bigotry into everything. This axe to grind of yours is the very same that is infesting and ruining academia and industry.
My conception of physical male superiority stems from the inarguable fact that in almost every physical test men have been shown to unquestionably dominate. There's a reason sports are segregated. Your ideal world of equality does not exist; this bias is based in reality. Am I saying it's impossible in this case that women may actually be better suited for ultra endurance? No, but it's unlikely because the data isn't there, not because of your sexism Boogeyman man. I don't appreciate being slandered without substantiation either.
Edit: to summarize, extraordinary facts require extraordinary evidence, of which you currently have non, only plausible speculation. This has absolutely nothing to do with chauvinism, and, frankly, your reverse bias is dangerous.
This is exactly the problem. Since running naturally normalizes for body weight, going by your "stronger and larger", we would expect men to be significantly slower. At any endurance event, starting at a mile. But the evidence isn't there.
> Honestly, I think the biggest factor in these longer distances is the smaller sample size. There just aren't as many elite athletes competing at the ultra distances as there are at marathon and shorter distances.
Off the top of my head, though, is that sufficient? There are many sports beside ultra-distance endurance races which are fairly niche, but the impression I get is that their elite events still don't tend to throw up female outright winners at all. I assume that ironman is fairly popular and taken quite seriously compared to most sports (as opposed to the few which get the lion's share of the attention and participation) and yet it threw up something as striking as Chrissie Wellington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrissie_Wellington 's success.
"Honestly, I think the biggest factor in these longer distances is the smaller sample size. There just aren't as many elite athletes competing at the ultra distances as there are at marathon and shorter distances."
Yes, order statistics are definitely relevant here. The bigger the sample, the more random fluctuations even out. If men have any edge in running, in a race between 1 man and 1 woman, the winner will nevertheless often be the woman; if there's a race with 1 million men and 1 million women, the winner would almost always be a male.
The article points out (somewhat obtusely) how this works within a race (a smaller fraction of women means an even more disproportionate probability the winner will be male), but seems like it should also works across kinds of races, too. The more niche a sport...
If men evolved to be bigger and stronger, as measured in some peak power output, surely there's a price on that? The candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast as the saying goes.
Also, the article is mainly about one woman. It mentions that the gap has narrowed but in order to have any meaningful analysis we'd need more stats.
Also, many, many people run marathons. So narrowing gap makes sense due to increased participation rate and better training; men and women aren't that different, on average. The extremes though are where differences truly manifest themselves.
Side effects include increased aggression, risk-taking behaviour, acne, heart disease, and prostrate cancer. Men are basically taking an increased steroid dose all their life.
This article is about ultra marathons which have very low participation of both sexes. Likely we haven’t seen top performance for either sex. However in the marathon, the evidence is exactly opposite. The performance gap is large and widening. Paula Radcliffe has the fastest female time (male-paced) while men have continued to widen the gap to nearly 15 minutes. Even in the ultramarathon, the top times show a massive performance gap between male and female competitors. This effect truly is one of sample size. You see the same effect even in small local 5k races. Yes a fast woman can enter and win an event with a small number of competitors sometimes. These woman are faster than men in the ultramarathon articles are very poorly researched.
You also see this type of thing happen in long distance swimming. Dr. Julie Bradshaw holds many records for long distance butterfly swimming, including being the first to swim around the island of Manhattan only using butterfly (28 miles). I remember listening to a podcast about this, one of the theories is that women have a much higher tolerance for lactic acid build up, pretty much they can deal with sustained pain better than men.
Another contributing factor that has been theorized is that women are somewhat more buoyant than men due to a different distribution of bodyfat. As a result, they expend a bit less energy keeping themselves afloat and can instead use that energy for moving forward. It's probably no single factor but rather several working together to give women an advantage in long distance swimming.
At the very tippy ends of the spectrum of humanity that these crazy ultra-endurance athletes are on, some freak genetic mutations can account for significant differences. There have been a bevy of stories about Michael Phelps having the perfect body for swimming. Likewise I recall a nordic skier that dominated because he had a gene that boosted naturally his amount of red-blood cells, as if he were doping. I won't even touch what is going on with intersex runners in track and field...
It's interesting to ponder how many people there are who have these far end of the spectrum genetic traits that could give them an edge in some sport but have no idea and may have never even tried out the sport. How many other Michael Phelps are there in the world who never had access to a swimming pool, much less a social environment that would have encouraged taking up competitive swimming?
A common misconception about Michael Phelps is that he has an abnormally long wingspan, while it is about average for his height. Studies show that a wingspan is on average 2.1 inches longer than your height and Phelps is 6'4 and has a 6'7 wingspan. To compare some other althetes with actually abnormal wingspans
Are you ignoring the entire rest of the article and focusing on just that one line? Go read the rest. It turns out there are race circumstances where women compete on equal footing with men, or may even have a slight edge.
