Why most women shouldn't run

walshb

downthemiddle wrote: »

Congratulations on tunnelling over the 5k mark today.

Whatever that means, you're welcome.

sam30

Ososlo wrote: »

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

Not sure if anyone posted up an article for u or not but this one is a simplified overview http://www.sportsmd.com/SportsMD_Articles/id/418/n/preventing_acl_injuries_and_anterior_knee_pain_in_female_athletes.aspx#sthash.rKmJInat.dpbs

If you looking for more in dept detail or discussion lookup some of hewetts acl work such as this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096145/ . He is prolific so there is lots of it!

sam30

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

Just to not worry people who cant/dont run spinning classes will help bone density lots of loading through all your joints with spinning. In fact you could argue spinning is more effective for generalised bone density as you have upper limb loading that you wont in running. upper and lower body weight training also develops bone density. Important not to confuse loading with impact.Joints respond positively to loading but there may be a levelof impact above which there is assoicated joint damage possibly

plodder

sam30 wrote: »

Not sure if anyone posted up an article for u or not but this one is a simplified overview http://www.sportsmd.com/SportsMD_Articles/id/418/n/preventing_acl_injuries_and_anterior_knee_pain_in_female_athletes.aspx#sthash.rKmJInat.dpbs

Some useful advice in there.

If you looking for more in dept detail or discussion lookup some of hewetts acl work such as this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096145/ . He is prolific so there is lots of it!

I'd say ACL rupture is a bigger problem for women, in sports like football than athletics to be honest. I'd wonder if running is a safer sport then on that basis.

rom

You had me at letsrun

menoscemo

rom wrote: »

You had me at letsrun

A thread about a thread on letsrun :pac:.
It should be pointed out that the thread on letsrun got 47 replies of which almost all of them called out the OP as BS.

Meanwhile this thread (about a thread on letsrun) gets more than double the replies, many of which agree with the OP.

And people wonder why people say this forum has gone to SH1t. Gone are the days when letsrun was so full of trolls as to be avoided....

pconn062

menoscemo wrote: »

A thread about a thread on letsrun :pac:.
It should be pointed out that the thread on letsrun got 47 replies of which almost all of them called out the OP as BS.

Meanwhile this thread (about a thread on letsrun) gets more than double the replies, many of which agree with the OP.

And people wonder why people say this forum has gone to SH1t. Gone are the days when letsrun was so full of trolls as to be avoided....

Not sure if serious?! Letsrun is riddled with trolls and pretty bad ones at that.

Check out this thread that I seen earlier just as an example: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6086442

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

Not sure if serious?! Letsrun is riddled with trolls and pretty bad ones at that.

It sure is.
But how come a troll thread gets double the response here (a much smaller forum) than it does over there?
Something is not right when you think about it.

pconn062

menoscemo wrote: »

It sure is.
But how come a troll thread gets double the response here (a much smaller forum) than it does over there?
Something is not right when you think about it.

I'm as stumped as you meno, but I'm guessing smaller number of threads here, catchy headline, plus some people were actually interested in discussing the "science" in the original link. It's like asking why do so many people read the Sindo.

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

I'm as stumped as you meno, but I'm guessing smaller number of threads here, catchy headline, plus some people were actually interested in discussing the "science" in the original link. It's like asking why do so many people read the Sindo.

We'll leave it to the feedback thread tomorrow

Pherekydes

menoscemo wrote: »

A thread about a thread on letsrun :pac:.
It should be pointed out that the thread on letsrun got 47 replies of which almost all of them called out the OP as BS.

Meanwhile this thread (about a thread on letsrun) gets more than double the replies, many of which agree with the OP.

Yes, but a good proportion of those were by one person.

gerard_65

menoscemo wrote: »

A thread about a thread on letsrun :pac:.
It should be pointed out that the thread on letsrun got 47 replies of which almost all of them called out the OP as BS.

Meanwhile this thread (about a thread on letsrun) gets more than double the replies, many of which agree with the OP.

And people wonder why people say this forum has gone to SH1t. Gone are the days when letsrun was so full of trolls as to be avoided....

I don't think the OP here was trolling. The original point was about body shape and injury, could have been interesting but it was turned into something completely different and thats when most people stayed away.
I don't agree this forum is gone to sh1t. Reading all the experiences about last Monday has been inspiring.
The other drama has happened before and will no doubt happen again but thats the way it is. Many will regret closing their accounts and will be back.
After all, why posting on an other internet forum when you'll be seeing the same people at their club training sessions every Tues and Thurs.;)

Ososlo

I don't understand why anyone thinks I was trolling. I don't know anything about Let's Run and how it is seen by the serious athletics community here or anywhere else. This is a subject I'm interested in. I wondered how your musculoskeletal make-up (if that's the correct term to describe the make-up of your skeleton) has an influence on your abilities as a runner. I googled it and that site came up and I was interested to hear about how some people might be more predisposed to injury due their natural make up and how some of us just might not be naturally built to be decent runners and a few other related things. 'Nature or nurture' - Tunguska got it and I thought it would lead to a decent debate.

If I had known that website was viewed by people as it is then I wouldn't have posted it.
I'm really sorry I bothered now. Only a few people seemed to 'get' what I was asking about.
I'll research better next time and ask The Elders if what I quote is acceptable or not. Forgive me:rolleyes:

dwayneshintzy

pconn062 wrote: »

Not sure if serious?! Letsrun is riddled with trolls and pretty bad ones at that.

Check out this thread that I seen earlier just as an example: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6086442

Ha! Seems to be a lot of anonymous and ****-talking "sub 2:20" runners on there.....

laura_ac3

gerard_65 wrote: »

I don't think the OP here was trolling. The original point was about body shape and injury, could have been interesting but it was turned into something completely different and thats when most people stayed away.
I don't agree this forum is gone to sh1t. Reading all the experiences about last Monday has been inspiring.
The other drama has happened before and will no doubt happen again but thats the way it is. Many will regret closing their accounts and will be back.
After all, why posting on an other internet forum when you'll be seeing the same people at their club training sessions every Tues and Thurs.;)

Indeed. A chunk of the replies ended up being about attractiveness and femininity, as many posters took issue with the fact that a discussion about women's bodies turned into how this impacts how men see them.

JohnDozer

The much loved Ian O'Riordan wrote an interesting article in today's Times about the potential positive impact pregnancy has on the female distance runner... Not entirely relevant to the thread but not irrelevant either!?!?

pconn062

Ososlo wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone thinks I was trolling. I don't know anything about Let's Run and how it is seen by the serious athletics community here or anywhere else. This is a subject I'm interested in. I wondered how your musculoskeletal make-up (if that's the correct term to describe the make-up of your skeleton) has an influence on your abilities as a runner. I googled it and that site came up and I was interested to hear about how some people might be more predisposed to injury due their natural make up and how some of us just might not be naturally built to be decent runners and a few other related things. 'Nature or nurture' - Tunguska got it and I thought it would lead to a decent debate.

If I had known that website was viewed by people as it is then I wouldn't have posted it.
I'm really sorry I bothered now. Only a few people seemed to 'get' what I was asking about.
I'll research better next time and ask The Elders if what I quote is acceptable or not. Forgive me:rolleyes:

I don't think people were suggesting that you were trolling, but that the original link you produced was an attempt at trolling (by the original author).

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

I don't think people were suggesting that you were trolling, but that the original link you produced was an attempt at trolling (by the original author).

This is correct. Sorry O if it appeared I was accusing you of trolling, just that your OP brought it out. I will reply to feedback thread when at home later.

tunguska

pconn062 wrote: »

I don't think people were suggesting that you were trolling, but that the original link you produced was an attempt at trolling (by the original author).

+1. I'm pretty sure they were talking about the original author trolling not you you Ososlo.

rom

JohnDozer wrote: »

The much loved Ian O'Riordan wrote an interesting article in today's Times about the potential positive impact pregnancy has on the female distance runner... Not entirely relevant to the thread but not irrelevant either!?!?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/rewards-of-motherhood-going-beyond-norm-1.1983999?page=1

Surprising good article. There are many examples of this in Irish athletics. I do think that mothers are better at stress management also which would could have a benefit.

sam30

Ososlo wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone thinks I was trolling. I don't know anything about Let's Run and how it is seen by the serious athletics community here or anywhere else. This is a subject I'm interested in. I wondered how your musculoskeletal make-up (if that's the correct term to describe the make-up of your skeleton) has an influence on your abilities as a runner. I googled it and that site came up and I was interested to hear about how some people might be more predisposed to injury due their natural make up and how some of us just might not be naturally built to be decent runners and a few other related things. 'Nature or nurture' - Tunguska got it and I thought it would lead to a decent debate.

If I had known that website was viewed by people as it is then I wouldn't have posted it.
I'm really sorry I bothered now. Only a few people seemed to 'get' what I was asking about.
I'll research better next time and ask The Elders if what I quote is acceptable or not. Forgive me:rolleyes:

fair play to you i think it is very important subject the distinction between men an women in terms of injury risk, how can people involved in sport not be interested in research that shows women have up to 5 times the risk of a severe knee injury? undoubtedly female runners need to do more strength and conditioning that focuses on improving their neuromuscular abilities than their male counterparts. Excessive femur adduction/internal rotation is a huge contributor to injury and the female pelvis anatomy puts their gluts,deep hip rotators at a disadvantage that they need to work on to limit injury risk. if people on here think that is somehow sexist or put up some picture of some world class female athlete with terrible running form to 'prove' such things dont matter then there is a serious epidemic of head in the sand on here.

walshb

sam30 wrote: »

fair play to you i think it is very important subject the distinction between men an women in terms of injury risk, how can people involved in sport not be interested in research that shows women have up to 5 times the risk of a severe knee injury? undoubtedly female runners need to do more strength and conditioning that focuses on improving their neuromuscular abilities than their male counterparts. Excessive femur adduction/internal rotation is a huge contributor to injury and the female pelvis anatomy puts their gluts,deep hip rotators at a disadvantage that they need to work on to limit injury risk. if people on here think that is somehow sexist or put up some picture of some world class female athlete with terrible running form to 'prove' such things dont matter then there is a serious epidemic of head in the sand on here.

Do you think that the article's author was trolling?

sam30

walshb wrote: »

Do you think that the article's author was trolling?

I dislike the term trolling. It has no meaning in the real world ( i.e. not on the internet) . He raised an important issue that it appears from the lack of engagement in the actual topic not many runners are aware of or think is important which is a shame if they are involved in coaching/treating females

Deenie123

I was heading out in the car this morning with my mother in the passenger seat and saw a woman running. Very, very wide hips and mildly overweight. The way she was running looked extremely uncomfortable and looking at the angle of her knees and hips from behind I just thought "That girl is going to do herself damage". My mum, who knows nothing about pretty much any sport commented without any prompt "Gosh, I suppose it's good she's running but she really doesn't look suited to it, her hips look too wide".

Even to completely untrained uninterested eyes, really wide hips don't look right running. It looks painful.

Now don't get me wrong, I admire that girl so much for having the motivation to get up off the couch and go for a run. Fair play to her and I wish her every success. I just can't shake the feeling - as someone who's had multiple knee and foot injuries in the past - that having such an extreme angle from her hips to knees to ankles just can't be good for her skeleton.

But at the same time, if I saw a narrow hipped overweight guy running I'd probably feel sorry for his knees too.

Surely each individual has a cut off maximum weight after which point they'd be doing better by their body (i.e. less damage to it) to get on a bike or cross trainer to reduce their weight before running again? Over half of Irish women aged 20+ are overweight or obese. Most women don't have tiny narrow hips, so combined with over half being overweight, is the logical conclusion not that most women should get on a cross trainer or bike or go for a fast walk to reduce their weight (and hence the damage to their knees) before taking up running?

RayCun

A lot of women run badly, a lot of rotation of the upper body and hips, knees in tight and feet kicking out. But I think that's more lack of training than anything intrinsic

downthemiddle

Deenie123 wrote: »

I was heading out in the car this morning with my mother in the passenger seat and saw a woman running. Very, very wide hips and mildly overweight. The way she was running looked extremely uncomfortable and looking at the angle of her knees and hips from behind I just thought "That girl is going to do herself damage". My mum, who knows nothing about pretty much any sport commented without any prompt "Gosh, I suppose it's good she's running but she really doesn't look suited to it, her hips look too wide".

Even to completely untrained uninterested eyes, really wide hips don't look right running. It looks painful.

Now don't get me wrong, I admire that girl so much for having the motivation to get up off the couch and go for a run. Fair play to her and I wish her every success. I just can't shake the feeling - as someone who's had multiple knee and foot injuries in the past - that having such an extreme angle from her hips to knees to ankles just can't be good for her skeleton.

But at the same time, if I saw a narrow hipped overweight guy running I'd probably feel sorry for his knees too.

Surely each individual has a cut off maximum weight after which point they'd be doing better by their body (i.e. less damage to it) to get on a bike or cross trainer to reduce their weight before running again? Over half of Irish women aged 20+ are overweight or obese. Most women don't have tiny narrow hips, so combined with over half being overweight, is the logical conclusion not that most women should get on a cross trainer or bike or go for a fast walk to reduce their weight (and hence the damage to their knees) before taking up running?

I was watching TV yesterday and I saw a premier league soccer player miss an open goal, it was painful and I'm sure many of those in attendance thought that he shouldn't be playing soccer.

BrowmThomas

I ran 6kms today....All 11.5 stone of me.

I consider myself to be quite overweight. I might not have looked the prettiest sight but my knees and ankles are fine.

SERIOUSLY, some of the comments here are pathetic. Women with wide hips/how we look/damaging ourselves....coming from women???

Deenie123

downthemiddle wrote: »

I was watching TV yesterday and I saw a premier league soccer player miss an open goal, it was painful and I'm sure many of those in attendance thought that he shouldn't be playing soccer.

Love it when someone gives a completely facetious answer.

In seriousness, do you think it's better for someone overweight with a very high angle between their knee and hip to be running, or to be doing a lesser impact sport until they can reduce their weight to a point where running won't be so damaging to their joints? And I didn't say it was painful for me to watch her, I said it looked painful. As in, that running in that manner would cause pain. In a literal sense.

tunguska

BrowmThomas wrote: »

I ran 6kms today....All 11.5 stone of me.

I consider myself to be quite overweight. I might not have looked the prettiest sight but my knees and ankles are fine.

SERIOUSLY, some of the comments here are pathetic. Women with wide hips/how we look/damaging ourselves....coming from women???

I think there are legitimate concerns being addressed, why should it matter if other women are commenting on the issue and have different views?

BrowmThomas

tunguska wrote: »

I think there are legitimate concerns being addressed, why should it matter if other women are commenting on the issue and have different views?

I have wide hips, run 3/4 times per week and have done for some time. I am 1 of those bring attacked on this thread.

I think there is more than enough pressure put on women to be skinny/perfect without reading this here. I run as I enjoy and if that was me being commented on in earlier post, I'd be very annoyed.

Murph_D

I think it's irrelevant whether comments on this subject are made by men or women. Neither is a greater authority from a sports science POV. Why should it matter?

Whether or not there is a legitimate physiological basis for this argument, there are lots of counter arguments. Women may be able to compensate for any natural disadvantage, if there is one in the sport of running, as opposed to football, for example, with specific training. Or not - most of us simply don't know.

I see as many overweight men as women out running. Both have challenges to overcome. Heavy men seem to hit the pavement particularly hard, for example, which possibly leads to problems. Here on Boards, as many men as women seem to suffer from running related injuries.

tunguska

BrowmThomas wrote: »

I have wide hips, run 3/4 times per week and have done for some time. I am 1 of those bring attacked on this thread.

I think there is more than enough pressure put on women to be skinny/perfect without reading this here. I run as I enjoy and if that was me being commented on in earlier post, I'd be very annoyed.

But you seem to be implying that no woman has any business having a different viewpoint from the one you have. Maybe I'm wrong and that's not what you're saying?

BrowmThomas

tunguska wrote: »

But you seem to be implying that no woman has any business having a different viewpoint from the one you have. Maybe I'm wrong and that's not what you're saying?

No, not at all. I assumed poster before me was a woman. I just think as someone 5"7 & 11.5 stone that people like me were attacked for being heavy and running. I have never had injuries.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think it is unfair to make women feel worse reading some of the opinions here.

Hannibal Smith

Im seriously paranoid about running now! All I see when I see another runner is a target on their back for me to catch. ..I never even noticed hip to knee angles! !! I hope to god I wasn't that woman someone saw out running this morning

Ososlo

This thread is gone soooooo off-tangent at this point it's really going nowhere and the things been discussed have nothing to do with the sentiment of the original post. It's only going one way now... downhill fast...

Can it be closed?

walshb

Anyone who is obese or quite heavy and who is pounding the pavements is probably not doing themselves any favors. Male or Female. Simple: If in doubt it's probably best to go see a doctor before embarking on any high intensity/cardio regime.

walshb

BrowmThomas wrote: »

No, not at all. I assumed poster before me was a woman. I just think as someone 5"7 & 11.5 stone that people like me were attacked for being heavy and running. I have never had injuries.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think it is unfair to make women feel worse reading some of the opinions here.

I wouldn't consider 5 feet 7 and 160 lbs as being heavy. Male or female.

BrowmThomas

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't consider 5 feet 7 and 160 lbs as being heavy. Male or female.

You just made my day....Thanks

Peterx

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't consider 5 feet 7 and 160 lbs as being heavy. Male or female.

Your BMI is 25.6. This BMI indicates you are overweight. There is an increased risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers with a BMI in this range. Losing weight is beneficial and can be achieved through healthy eating and being active daily. It is a good idea to set a realistic target of amount of weight you would like to lose over a number of weeks. If you are muscular as a result of a lot of sport you don’t need to lose weight. -

See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Healthy-Eating/Weight-Loss/BMI-calculator.aspx?gclid=Cj0KEQiA7NyiBRCOhpuCm9Dq6b4BEiQA9D6qhZ3NabVS6l_sLAG10uos9VvHHV_cPyFNslbRyUU2oXUaAuc48P8HAQ#sthash.wTZmqU9H.dpuf

Peterx

http://www.safefood.eu/SafeFood/media/SafeFoodLibrary/Documents/Publications/Research%20Reports/Bodyweight-Perception-with-accepted-changes-JC-version-2.pdf

interesting reading

walshb

Peterx wrote: »

Your BMI is 25.6. This BMI indicates you are overweight. There is an increased risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers with a BMI in this range. Losing weight is beneficial and can be achieved through healthy eating and being active daily. It is a good idea to set a realistic target of amount of weight you would like to lose over a number of weeks. If you are muscular as a result of a lot of sport you don’t need to lose weight. -

See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Healthy-Eating/Weight-Loss/BMI-calculator.aspx?gclid=Cj0KEQiA7NyiBRCOhpuCm9Dq6b4BEiQA9D6qhZ3NabVS6l_sLAG10uos9VvHHV_cPyFNslbRyUU2oXUaAuc48P8HAQ#sthash.wTZmqU9H.dpuf

Thanks for the info, but my point still stands. It's far from heavy. BMI is not an exact science. It's an educated and researched guideline.

walshb

BrowmThomas wrote: »

You just made my day....Thanks

You're welcome. And I hope the running is helping you stay fit and trim and healthy.

pwurple

Peterx wrote: »

Your BMI is 25.6. This BMI indicates you are overweight. There is an increased risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers with a BMI in this range. Losing weight is beneficial and can be achieved through healthy eating and being active daily. It is a good idea to set a realistic target of amount of weight you would like to lose over a number of weeks. If you are muscular as a result of a lot of sport you don’t need to lose weight. -

^^^^
BMI calculator fail.

The BMI there for 5ft7 at 160pounds is 25.1
1 single pound less and it's in the normal range @24.9.
I'd call that borderline.

Peterx

walshb wrote: »

Thanks for the info, but my point still stands. It's far from heavy. BMI is not an exact science. It's an educated and researched guideline.

pwurple wrote: »

^^^^
BMI calculator fail.

The BMI there for 5ft7 at 160pounds is 25.1
1 single pound less and it's in the normal range @24.9.
I'd call that borderline.

24.9 BMI is borderline overweight (unless the person is quite muscular) but each to their own.
The bodyweight perception report I posted above does make for interesting reading on this topic.

pconn062

Ok, think we're done with this when we're discussing someones BMI. Shame, as I actually think it could be a useful discussion