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?