Why most women shouldn't run

Ososlo

:eek:

I'd be interested to hear opinions on this!

So do elite female runners look like they do because of the training they've been doing from an early age or are they born that way?

My sister is a ballerina. She's been told that even though she's really good, she'd never make it as a pro as her hips are too wide. (it's not a weight thing it's a skeletal thing). Is it the same for runners?

tunguska

Ososlo wrote: »

:eek:

I'd be interested to hear opinions on this!

So do elite female runners look like they do because of the training they've been doing from an early age or are they born that way?

My sister is a ballerina. She's been told that even though she's really good, she'd never make it as a pro as her hips are too wide. (it's not a weight thing it's a skeletal thing). Is it the same for runners?

Really good question and not one that's addressed at all as far as I know. I think its nurture more than nature. That physique is the product of years of training and dieting. I know its probably not diplomatic to say so, but I Dont find that look attractive at all. Then again ultra skinny men wouldn't exactly be high on Calvin Klein's modelling wish list either.

Murph_D

That article really is a load of reactionary bull****. It ultimately is saying that women should not run because to do so, if they take it to the logical conclusion, will cause physical problems based on their "natural" disadvantages (hips and breasts). There are implications also about what women want to look like and what men find attractive, and quite frankly it is all just ridiculous.

The "average" male runner, I would suggest, has as few natural attributes as his female counterpart. You only had to be among the walking dead of DCM yesterday to see that. The really talented people, of either sex, are exceptional.

ultrapercy

Ososlo wrote: »

:eek:

I'd be interested to hear opinions on this!

So do elite female runners look like they do because of the training they've been doing from an early age or are they born that way?

My sister is a ballerina. She's been told that even though she's really good, she'd never make it as a pro as her hips are too wide. (it's not a weight thing it's a skeletal thing). Is it the same for runners?

Why most people shouldnt read letsrun

walshb

I thought the article was ok. It's just an opinion. For a woman to try and maintain a womanly figure/appearance then high intensity (distance) running is probably the least best way to do it.

walshb

tunguska wrote: »

Then again ultra skinny men wouldn't exactly be high on Calvin Klein's modelling wish list either.

I think they still look a little more male than the equivalent woman looks female.

HelenAnne

walshb wrote: »

I think they still look a little more male than the equivalent woman looks female.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Elite female runners ARE female, so obviously they look female; that's just what some women look like.

The problem isn't how they look, it's with your perception of what 'female' looks like. Men and women come in all shapes / sizes / abilities and all of them, by definition, fall within the range of what 'male' and 'female' looks like.

walshb

HelenAnne wrote: »

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. .

Another milestone for you then. Congrats!

Sam Kade

HelenAnne wrote: »

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Elite female runners ARE female, so obviously they look female; that's just what some women look like.

The problem isn't how they look, it's with your perception of what 'female' looks like. Men and women come in all shapes / sizes / abilities and all of them, by definition, fall within the range of what 'male' and 'female' looks like.

There's a woman on my road who runs morning noon and night and she doesn't have a figure straight down like a schoolboy plenty more like her so I have to disagree with you.

walshb

Just a question. Women have naturally more fat than men. I think it's mid 20s percent wise for women and mid teens percent for men. Elite female distance runners, what would their body fat % be?

Elite men's would be probably 6-7 percent. A drop of maybe 8-10 percent off the general population of healthy men.

Men maintain their masculine and male appearance better than the equivalent female who is at the elite level in distance running. Men by nature are leaner and more ripped and muscled, and carry less body fat.

Hannibal

I seen an article on this recently about the Liverpool ladies team, three of their players have suffered serious acl knee injuries recently. The conclusion was that due to wider hips and the angle of the thigh bone to the knee means that some women are at high risk of suffering from these type of injuries due to the shape of their skeleton.

Ososlo

Hannibal wrote: »

I seen an article on this recently about the Liverpool ladies team, three of their players have suffered serious acl knee injuries recently. The conclusion was that due to wider hips and the angle of the thigh bone to the knee means that some women are at high risk of suffering from these type of injuries due to the shape of their skeleton.

If you find the article maybe post it up. I'd be interested to read.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I think they still look a little more male than the equivalent woman looks female.

Female distance runners look absolutely fine to me.

HelenAnne

Sam Kade wrote: »

There's a woman on my road who runs morning noon and night and she doesn't have a figure straight down like a schoolboy plenty more like her so I have to disagree with you.

Why are you disagreeing with me? I'm just saying that if someone IS a woman, whatever they look like, then that's obviously what some women look like.

Maybe I should have been more specific -- women and men come in all types of appearances, sizes, shapes, hues AND women and men of all these appearances can be seen doing loads of different activities, including running.

I was more pulling walshb up on saying some women don't 'look female' -- I think that's a) mean and b) inaccurate.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Female distance runners look absolutely fine to me.

I only said that for me the men seem to maintain that masculine/male look better than the equivalent woman maintains the female look. Men look more natural ripped and toned and lean. Women don't look as natural with that appearance, and IMO they look less like women than men look like men.

And, I am well aware that we come in all shapes and sizes.

HelenAnne

walshb wrote: »

Another milestone for you then. Congrats!

I probably shouldn't have said 'stupidest'. Sorry! I just get fed up of people deciding what the parameters of 'normal' are for how people look / behave.

I appreciate it may just have been a throwaway comment; I didn't mean to say you were stupid. Sorry for the way I phrased it.

walshb

HelenAnne wrote: »

Why are you disagreeing with me? I'm just saying that if someone IS a woman, whatever they look like, then that's obviously what some women look like.

Maybe I should have been more specific -- women and men come in all types of appearances, sizes, shapes, hues AND women and men of all these appearances can be seen doing loads of different activities, including running.

I was more pulling walshb up on saying some women don't 'look female' -- I think that's a) mean and b) inaccurate.

You pulled me up incorrectly. Read what I wrote.

Edit: They look a little less female than the equivalent man looks male. That's how I see it.

walshb

HelenAnne wrote: »

I probably shouldn't have said 'stupidest'. Sorry! I just get fed up of people deciding what the parameters of 'normal' are for how people look / behave.

I appreciate it may just have been a throwaway comment; I didn't mean to say you were stupid. Sorry for the way I phrased it.

That's cool, thanks.

Oryx

Is full of crass generalisations assuming that women are a weaker sex that should stick to spinning or a stairclimber. How insulting to attempt to limit what women should try to do. It is true that your physical makeup limits what you can achieve at the elite end of sport, thats true for any sport from running to gymnastics. But to say most women should not run at all is quite frankly, ridiculous.

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

Is full of crass generalisations assuming that women are a weaker sex that should stick to spinning or a stairclimber. How insulting to attempt to limit what women should try to do. It is true that your physical makeup limits what you can achieve at the elite end of sport, thats true for any sport from running to gymnastics. But to say most women should not run at all is quite frankly, ridiculous.

They are the weaker sex in terms of physical capabilities. I don't think the article said that no women should run.

But for maintaining the more 'female look,' distance running wouldn't be the best choice. It robs the female body of a lot of what is the female body.

Oryx

walshb wrote: »

They are the weaker sex in terms of physical capabilities. I don't think the articles said that no women should run.

To me it was like saying men shouldnt try to dance, cos theyre just too big and clumsy. Women may be comparably weaker than men, but does that mean they should only use a spin bike?

And it said most women shouldnt run.

It robs the female body of what is the female body.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

yaboya1

I'm not sure how popular this is going to be, but....

Does it ever occur to people that women who 'look like schoolboys', 'look less female' (not my words) choose to take up running because that's how they are naturally built and are therefore more able to adapt well to such a sport, whereas women of different builds (Serena Williams for example) excel at other sporting disciplines. Of course we get women of all different shapes and sizes who run, but it's the one's who are built most favourably for running who generally end up at the top end of the sport*.

*This is also true for men, but this thread is about women running.

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

To me it was like saying men shouldnt try to dance, cos theyre just too big and clumsy. Women may be comparably weaker than men, but does that mean they should only use a spin bike?

And it said most women shouldnt run.

It's a very interesting debate. Going back through history the male species has been designed to perform physical tasks better than the female species. It's in the DNA. Distance running is a hell on the body. I wouldn't advise men or women to take it up. It's that very tough and challenging. I believe men are that bit more designed to withstand the physical hardship and challenges that it brings. I also happen to believe that women's bodies alter and change more dramatically from elite distance running than men's bodies.

walshb

yaboya1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how popular this is going to be, but....

Does it ever occur to people that women who 'look like schoolboys', 'look less female' (not my words) choose to take up running because that's how they are naturally built and are therefore more able to adapt well to such a sport, whereas women of different builds (Serena Williams for example) excel at other sporting disciplines. Of course we get women of all different shapes and sizes who run, but it's the one's who are built most favourably for running who generally end up at the top end of the sport*.

*This is also true for men, but this thread is about women running.

Then take the average woman/man. Hips, breasts, bum all natural and in proportion. Not skinny, not fat. This woman takes up hard distance running. Her womanly appearance may well 'disappear' more (to the eye) than the man's male appearance would disappear.

RacoonQueen

So many things I want to pick up on here but basically, women shouldn't run because it makes them unattractive to men if they end up with the typical long distance runner (mccambridge, radcliffe type) physique?

Of course, the only reason any woman does sport of any description is to appear attractive to men and their appearance is their only concern.

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

It robs the female body of what is the female body.

This is clearly wrong. Liz McColgan came back after having a baby to win world gold, Sonia came back after having a baby to win Olympic silver (some say should have been gold), and recently Jo Pavey won European gold.

Clearly, their bodies are still fully female. Maybe they have a little less fat than you'd like, but don't project your own preferences onto everyone else.

Oryx

walshb wrote: »

It's a very interesting debate. Going back through history the male species has been designed to perform physical tasks better than the female species. It's in the DNA. Distance running is a hell on the body. I wouldn't advise men or women to take it up. It's that very tough and challenging. I believe men are that bit more designed to withstand the physical hardship and challenges that it brings. I also happen to believe that women's bodies alter and change more dramatically from elite distance running than men's bodies.

I dont know of any scientific studies that illustrate the changes, but at the very pointy end of things, both sexes are similar build. In order to run distance, you need to have a particular muscle formation and build. Our version of normal makes us feel that this look is more masculine, but it is not, it is the physical look of an elite runner.

And the famous born to run book would argue that we are indeed evolved for distance running.

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

True. But generally speaking I think most men are attracted to the shapely and curvy and womanly figure that is a female. The skinny and gaunt look, very little breasts, loss of a lot of fat, the bum receding etc etc doesn't do it for many men. Now, maybe women will say that the equivalent male distance runner doesn't do it for them. I still think the males maintain that male appearance better.

HelenAnne

yaboya1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how popular this is going to be, but....

Does it ever occur to people that women who 'look like schoolboys', 'look less female' (not my words) choose to take up running because that's how they are naturally built and are therefore more able to adapt well to such a sport, whereas women of different builds (Serena Williams for example) excel at other sporting disciplines. Of course we get women of all different shapes and sizes who run, but it's the one's who are built most favourably for running who generally end up at the top end of the sport*.

*This is also true for men, but this thread is about women running.

That's sort of what the article says, I think, and I'd say at the elite end there's a lot of truth in it. I remember reading something about the 10,000 hours needed to become expert / elite at anything, and I think one argument put forward (about music I think?) was looking at whether those who had a natural aptitude for it practised more, and put in their 10,000 hours, because they took to it quickly and were good at it, so the same could apply to sport.

Oryx

walshb wrote: »

True. But generally speaking I think most men are attracted to the shapely and curvy and womanly figure that is a female. The skinny and gaunt look, very little breasts, loss of a lot of fat, the bum receding etc etc doesn't do it for many men. Now, maybe women will say that the equivalent male distance runner doesn't do it for them. I still think the males maintain that male appearance better.

Be careful with generalisations like that. This may be true for you, but you do not speak for most men!

Curves are associated with fertility, and have been since man first created fertility symbols in the shape of rotund women. So a thin woman is not less female, but to a man, possibly less fertile. This is an almost genetic conditioning we have inbuilt. But I think if you start to use that mental conditioning to purport that women should not do something because their look might change, thats dangerous.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is clearly wrong. Liz McColgan came back after having a baby to win world gold, Sonia came back after having a baby to win Olympic silver (some say should have been gold), and recently Jo Pavey won European gold.

Clearly, their bodies are still fully female. Maybe they have a little less fat than you'd like, but don't project your own preferences onto everyone else.

Not sure what this means. So they had children? Big deal. I don't think I ever said that distance running means women can't bear children. How do these debates go so off the radar?

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

Be careful with generalisations like that. This may be true for you, but you do not speak for most men!

I wouldn't call that a generalization. I'd probably bet on it being true. That most men would select the non elite distance runner look in a woman.

RayCun

walshb wrote: »

True. But generally speaking I think most men are attracted to the shapely and curvy and womanly figure that is a female. The skinny and gaunt look, very little breasts, loss of a lot of fat, the bum receding etc etc doesn't do it for many men. Now, maybe women will say that the equivalent male distance runner doesn't do it for them. I still think the males maintain that male appearance better.

So women shouldn't run because it will make them less attractive to men?
Interesting.
Do you have a list of other things that women should avoid doing because it makes them less attractive to men? You could put it on your online dating profile, could save a lot of people a lot of time.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't call that a generalization. I'd probably bet on it being true. That most men would select the non elite distance runner look in a woman.

Two in every three people in the Anglosphere are overweight, so there's a high likelihood that the non runner look is the overweight look. I'd rather the runner look.

walshb

RayCun wrote: »

So women shouldn't run because it will make them less attractive to men?
Interesting.
Do you have a list of other things that women should avoid doing because it makes them less attractive to men? You could put it on your online dating profile, could save a lot of people a lot of time.

Where did I say any of what you are claiming? Women can run and do what they want.

This thread is bonkers. I happen to think that the article wasn't all that inaccurate.

Less attractive to men does not mean not attractive.

yaboya1

walshb wrote: »

True. But generally speaking I think most men are attracted to the shapely and curvy and womanly figure that is a female. The skinny and gaunt look, very little breasts, loss of a lot of fat, the bum receding etc etc doesn't do it for many men. Now, maybe women will say that the equivalent male distance runner doesn't do it for them. I still think the males maintain that male appearance better.

Sounds like you're a fan of the Saturday Night Show.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Two in every three people in the Anglosphere are overweight, so there's a high likelihood that the non runner look is the overweight look. I'd rather the runner look.

There are different types of runners, just like there are different types of non runners. Me, I would prefer the sprinter/jumper athlete over the long distance runner. Why? To me they seem to have more of what I would find attractive in a woman.

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what this means. So they had children? Big deal. I don't think I ever said that distance running means women can't bear children. How do these debates go so off the radar?

You said they lost what makes them female! Clearly they haven't.

This "most men" argument of yours is moot. The presence of married women with children amongst elite runners shows that they are indeed an attractive proposition to the men who married them and that's all that counts.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

You said they lost what makes them female! Clearly they haven't.

This "most men" argument of yours is moot. The presence of married women with children amongst elite runners shows that they are indeed an attractive proposition to the men who married them and that's all that counts.

I didn't mean to imply that they are robbed of being female, and I don't believe I said this as that would be stupid. I will edit that post to fix. They are still female, and still look female. I was meaning that hard distance running IMO robs them of the natural and 'attractive' female look. Not completely. I happen to believe that most men would be more attracted to the shapely and womanly and curvy figure that is a female. This figure is eradicated and depreciated a lot when a woman takes up serious distance running, hence maybe other sports and disciplines would be better to maintain that general womanly look. Distance running is a hell on the body.

Take the elite tennis players or skaters. They to me are a lot more physically attractive than the elite distance runners. That's just me by the way. My reasoning is that they maintain what I find attractive in a female better than what a distance runner maintains.

Not speaking for any of you here. Just to be clear.

Maybe some of the female posters could give their views on male distance runners in comparison to males in other disciplines?

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

This "most men" argument of yours is moot. The presence of married women with children amongst elite runners shows that they are indeed an attractive proposition to the men who married them and that's all that counts.

So, people in the super morbidly obese category who are married, would that also make a general point moot?

Oryx

walshb wrote: »

Not speaking for any of you here. Just to be clear.

I think most men are attracted to the shapely and curvy and womanly figure

Which is it?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

So, people in the super morbidly obese category who are married, would that also make a general point moot?

Generally speaking, though there probably are a good few exceptions, morbidly obese women who are married tend to fall into one of 2 categories:

1) They are married to morbidly obese men, so neither of them care too much about looks (or healthy living for that matter)

2) They blew up like a balloon once the knot was tied.

The same goes for morbidly obese men.

Clearlier

Ososlo wrote: »

:eek:

I'd be interested to hear opinions on this!

So do elite female runners look like they do because of the training they've been doing from an early age or are they born that way?

My sister is a ballerina. She's been told that even though she's really good, she'd never make it as a pro as her hips are too wide. (it's not a weight thing it's a skeletal thing). Is it the same for runners?

If you want to be the best at any sport Ososlo you (more and more) have to have to ideal body type for that sport. Observations have suggested that for male distance runners it's short, light, small calves, long legs and a host of other physiological characteristics. Women however are often relatively tall apparently. OTOH until Bolt came along everybody would have said that you couldn't have a top class 6' 5" sprinter so you have to be extremely wary.

The truth is that there are so many different factors that go into making up a person's ability to perform that it's not yet possible for us to definitively state what the ideal is. Weaknesses in some area are covered over by strengths in others and vice versa.

It's important not to make the mistake of using generalisations to draw specific conclusions. Whoever told your sister that she couldn't become a pro is wrong. There may not be many (or even any) ballerinas with her width of hips but width of hips is not actually what is required. Narrower hips make it easier to deliver what is required for a ballerina but it's possible that if she is supremely gifted in some other area that she can overcome the difficulties caused by wider hips (I'm making a general point here, I haven't much clue about ballet).

The article said that women shouldn't run because they'll get injured. Leaves me wondering if they should walk? It's nonsense, total nonsense, akin to the people who thought that women shouldn't compete at longer distances than 200m because some misogynist misreported the end of an 800m race.

As for the 'it'll make you less womanly' argument, give me a break. I thought we'd move on a little from thoughtless binarised gender roles.

Yes, there are physical differences between men and women. No, it's not reasonably to draw the conclusions of the author of the article drew from them. If any big studies could be cited supporting their conclusions I'd maybe take a bit of notice but none are cited, I'm not aware of any and I'm willing to bet that there will never a reputable study that finds a result which suggests that the majority of women should not run.

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

Which is it?

Like I said, I would bet on most men selecting the non elite distance runner look if offered an alternative look, say like the tennis player or skater, or Sam Fox (in her prime) look!

I know, I could be wrong.

Anyway, I am the only one who has given my preference. Maybe some other males/females could give theirs so we could get a general view.

annapr

The article lost me at "You can't run to get that cute little runner's body" ... because obviously that's the only reason any of us run...
sexism masked by pseudo-science and advertising.

of course there are physiological advantages and disadvantages for any runner... but world-class elite runners, both male and female, are very, very different to the vast majority of runners out there -- they have natural advantages, multiplied by years of extreme training.

Peterx

Everyone should run, load bearing activities are very good for bone density. Spinning classes do nothing for bone density.

Running is the king of exercise, why would a website called letsrun let itself be used to tell half the population to not run???

Articles like this one can be used reinforce the idea that sport is not for women.

I was doing bike marshalling at the marathon and lucky and privileged enough to witness the racing for 2nd and 3rd Irish Women. The effort and guts of the women involved really was inspirational. 5 different women were in the running at different stages for these medals and all had slightly different body shapes. Of course they were skinny! At an elite level you have to have a good power to weight ratio. The "easy" way to achieve this is to be skinny. The hard way is to be very very strong

walshb

Peterx wrote: »

Everyone should run, load bearing activities are very good for bone density. Spinning classes do nothing for bone density.

Running is the king of exercise, why would a website called letsrun let itself be used to tell half the population to not run???

Articles like this one can be used reinforce the idea that sport is not for women.

I was doing bike marshalling at the marathon and lucky and privileged enough to witness the racing for 2nd and 3rd Irish Women. The effort and guts of the women involved really was inspirational. 5 different women were in the running at different stages for these medals and all had slightly different body shapes. Of course they were skinny! At an elite level you have to have a good power to weight ratio. The "easy" way to achieve this is to be skinny. The hard way is to be very very strong

I think the article is implying that hard/long/repetitive distance running is the problem? Maybe it's not.

There is probably many many people doing themselves no favors by doing this, men and women. Running in moderation and in balance with what your physical make up is is the best option.

I personally prefer up 5 k and no more. I don't see that more will help me in the physical sense.

annapr

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what this means. So they had children? Big deal. I don't think I ever said that distance running means women can't bear children. How do these debates go so off the radar?

...does 'off the radar' mean when people disagree with you? isn't that the definition of a 'debate'? :rolleyes:

walshb

annapr wrote: »

...does 'off the radar' mean when people disagree with you? isn't that the definition of a 'debate'? :rolleyes:

No, it doesn't mean that. For example, when someone says less attractive, and that is taken as not attractive. That would be going off the radar. Not sure why you need the roll eyes. Kind of spoils your post.

Oryx

walshb wrote: »

I personally prefer up 5 k and no more. I don't see that more will help me in the physical sense.

Yet again thats a personal thing. It comes down to why you run. Fitness, weight loss, to get a particular look, to be able to run 5k. Whatever your ambition happens to be.

I'm different. Peterx is different again. We run/walk/cycle - whatever we do, for our own reasons. Our bodies are adapted differently and we will achieve different things, and look different!

For you, or that bloody silly article to imply that to go over x amount of running is harmful, with no stats to back it up, is just stating a random opinion, without any merit.

ectoraige

walshb wrote: »

It's a very interesting debate. Going back through history the male species has been designed to perform physical tasks better than the female species. It's in the DNA. Distance running is a hell on the body. I wouldn't advise men or women to take it up. It's that very tough and challenging. I believe men are that bit more designed to withstand the physical hardship and challenges that it brings. I also happen to believe that women's bodies alter and change more dramatically from elite distance running than men's bodies.

Continuing that line of thought, wouldn't it then make sense to have different distances for mens and womens events? Say a 23.6 mile ladies marathon?