If I'd like to have a baby boy, how much should I run?

Racing Flat

Lore of Running page 905...

The gender of the offspring of runners seems to be influenced by the training volume of their fathers :eek:

Runners who wish to conceive boys should either stop running or run more than 112km per week (?70miles). Those desiring girls should run between 48 and 80km per week (30-50miles).

Can any of our runners who are fathers confirm this theory???

Edit - I don't really want a baby boy, just trying to catch attention

RacoonQueen

I thought I'd stepped into another dimension there(wrong forum) till I saw who'd posted this.

tunney

Then surely non runners should only have girls?

Racing Flat

tunney wrote: »

Then surely non runners should only have girls?

Do you mean boys?

But to put up the odds ratios or whatever would be too much like work. Maybe I should have bolded the seems to.


Say 50% of births are boys....in the sample of non-runners and runners who run <48k or >80k per week it was 62%....

Obviously if every father on here let's us know if it held true in their cases we will prove the theory beyond doubt.:D

Pherekydes

Interesting thread...


...for AH.

I fathered 2 boys in my 20s when I was training heavily (not just running), then I fathered 2 more boys in my early 30s when I was doing nowt, and finally (I think) I fathered 2 girls in my late 30s when I was doing nowt. (Though it must be pointed out that one of the girls in a tomboy) Maybe I just ran out of 'male' sperm?

P.S. I found out what was causing all the babies. We got a TV.

Racing Flat

Pherekydes wrote: »

I fathered 2 boys in my 20s when I was training heavily (not just running), then I fathered 2 more boys in my early 30s when I was doing nowt, and finally (I think) I fathered 2 girls in my late 30s when I was doing nowt.

2 out of 3 (or 4 out of 6) ain't bad.

Funkyzeit

My OH is due our first kid in a matter of weeks - however I run less than 30 miles a week (considerably less )

Does this mean we'll be having one of these (2.40 onwards...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TufUH1T-F18

louthandproud

Funkyzeit wrote: »

My OH is due our first kid in a matter of weeks - however I run less than 30 miles a week (considerably less )

You will probably be running even more considerably less in a matter of weeks then! Best of luck with that...:pac:

Pherekydes

tunney wrote: »

Then surely non runners should only have girls?

The number of miles you run doesn't affect the 'output' of any other man, runner or not. It only affects your own output (according to someone's theory).

SucCes09

don't think Jrn is going to be that good looking now, do yea!!!!:D:D:D

Funkyzeit

louthandproud wrote: »

You will probably be running even more considerably less in a matter of weeks then! Best of luck with that...:pac:

Might be running even more !!

SucCes09 wrote: »

don't think Jrn is going to be that good looking now, do yea!!!!:D:D:D

Must take after the uncle...

shels4ever

Racing Flat wrote: »

Lore of Running page 905...



Runners who wish to conceive boys should either stop running or run more than 112km per week (?70miles).

If I was running that I don't think i'd be having any kids....

RJC

Had a boy while running 50-60km per week. kind of ruins the theory. had girls when i was bone idle (i'm the father)

mrak

Interesting thread! More on it here:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0076.htm

I had a boy when not training and a girl when training 30-40 miles so I fit the theory.

Abhainn

Well we a girl in 2006, not really running then.

About 6 weeks and counting untill I find out on no 2
Looks like I was in the 50-70 miles range when the deed was done:D Where does that leave me?

Racing Flat

Abhainn wrote: »

Looks like I was in the 50-70 miles range when the deed was done:D Where does that leave me?

See post #7 :pac:

hunnymonster

From mrak's link
"Yet to be reckoned in the sexual-determination story is the role played by the training mileage of the mother. In theory, higher mileage levels should drive female sex-hormone concentrations downward, increasing the chances of having a female. Thus, married couples training together for a marathon and also trying to have a child should have inordinate numbers of female offspring. Conversely, such couples ambling for just 15 to 20 miles per week can look forward with some confidence to boys."


it reminds me of a conversation with a friend who was training for her first ironman. She was feeling a bit tired and suffering from nausea so went to her gp to get checked out. As any woman who has seen a doctor with nausea will know, it can be an uphill battle to convince the doc that you are not pregnant. Jools, was a bit exasperated that the doc would not believe she couldn't be pregnant so blured out "I'm training for an IM, working and raising a family, you don't really expect me to be having sex as well!"

Milesandmiles

Great thread...... Catriona had a girl first, Sonia has two girls, Olive Loughnane had a girl, Patricia Griffin (mother of Colin) had a girl round the time she was training for marathons. But then Coughlan has boys as does Treacy (I think). Anybody know of anymore.

TFBubendorfer

It didn't work for us.

I was training for the Connemara Ultra two years ago, doing 85-90 miles each week when my wife got pregnant. In contrast to Noakes' theory, we had a baby girl.

Btw., I don't have the book with me, but I vaguely remember that chapter, and I think the correlation was pretty weak, something like 52% boys/48% girls.