Why most women shouldn't run

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?

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

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.

'Im 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.

It's all personal. Some people will suffer more than others from running too far and too often and too intensely. Others are built better for the long haul and intense requirement. I don't think I said that if you go over x amount you will suffer. Some will suffer.

There are many out there who are doing distances and intensities that they are not able for. They force it onto themselves, believing they are benefiting themselves and this is what leads to harm. That applies to many disciplines in life.

I think that article is trying to touch on that. People who aren't really physically made up for distance running yet who push themselves to do it. Those people are likely not helping themselves, but maybe they don't realize this. Later life may tell them.

Would I advise people to run. Absolutely, but I'd be very selective on what running each does.

Clearlier

walshb wrote: »

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

The article is sufficiently vague around what running is that you could interpret it to include running to catch the bus. It's symptomatic of the thought process and research that went into it. Wishy washy and based on a half thought through thought experiment as far as I can see.

walshb wrote: »

There is probably many many people doing themselves no favors by doing this, men and women.

There are loads more people doing themselves no favours by not doing this. Does anyone seriously think we would be worse off if everybody did some running?

walshb wrote: »

Running in moderation and in balance with what your physical make up is is the best option.

What do 'moderation', 'in balance with your physical make up' and 'best option' actually mean? You can't argue a point with meaningless platitudes.

walshb wrote: »

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

What does 'physical sense' mean? As far as I can see running 5k is great but running more is usually better. I can see the benefits far beyond that and I don't see any need to distinguish between genders when determining those benefits.

Of course there are people who would be ill-advised to run but it's got nothing to do with gender.

walshb

ectoraige wrote: »

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?

Why deny them that 2.9 miles?

Clearlier

walshb wrote: »

It's all personal. Some people will suffer more than others from running too far and too often and too intensely. Others are built better for the long haul and intense requirement. I don;t think I said that if you go over x amount you will suffer. Some will suffer.

There are many out there who are doing distances and intensities that they are not able for. They force it onto themselves, believing they are benefiting themselves and this is what leads to harm. That applies to many disciplines in life.

I think that article is trying to touch on that. People who aren't really physically made up for distance running yet who push themselves to do it. Those people are likely not helping themselves, but maybe they don't realize this. Later life may tell them.

Would I advise people to run. Absolutely, but I'd be very selective on what running each does.

The article is not trying to touch on that. The article is trying to say that most women who run get injured and that most women shouldn't run because they'll get injured.

walshb

Clearlier wrote: »

What does 'physical sense' mean? As far as I can see running 5k is great but running more is usually better. I can see the benefits far beyond that and I don't see any need to distinguish between genders when determining those benefits.

Of course there are people who would be ill-advised to run but it's got nothing to do with gender.

For me when I get to 5 K I feel that I have hit a sort of limit. The heart is great and all feels well. I just think that is my best option. No need to put the body through more. No need to put the legs and muscles and ankles etc through more. I am not a runner. I run to keep active and fit. I don't believe that going 6 and 7 and 8 k is somehow making me even fitter. The legs and heart and lungs and muscles have been given a 20-21 minute work out. That's me done.

Oryx

walshb wrote: »

For me when I get to 5 K I feel that I have hit a sort of limit. The heart is great and all feels well. I just think that is my best option. No need to put the body through more. No need to out the legs and muscles and ankles etc through more. I am not a runner. I run to keep active and fit. I don't believe that going 6 and 7 and 8 k is somehow making me even fitter. The legs and heart and lungs and muscles have been given a 20-21 minute work out. That's me done.

Your best option.

You are not 'most women'.

walshb

Oryx wrote: »

Your best option.

You are not 'most women'.

I was responding to a poster on my own choice. So, have you a question on that post for me?

BTW, the original article has several other articles in its page that doesn't seem to think that the original post is stupid or inaccurate.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

For me when I get to 5 K I feel that I have hit a sort of limit. The heart is great and all feels well. I just think that is my best option. No need to put the body through more. No need to put the legs and muscles and ankles etc through more. I am not a runner. I run to keep active and fit. I don't believe that going 6 and 7 and 8 k is somehow making me even fitter. The legs and heart and lungs and muscles have been given a 20-21 minute work out. That's me done.

Don't project your own limitations onto anyone else. It's a silly mistake to make. Have a read of this for an example of a scientific study which shows the opposite to your assumptions.

walshb

Enduro wrote: »

Don't project your own limitations onto anyone else. It's a silly mistake to make. .

What? I think I was fairly clear in what I said. My own personal distance is up to 5 K.

btw, I am not assuming anything. I have ran farther than 5 k (8-12 on occasions) before and I have been sorer and suffered because of it. I know my own body. So, I don't think I am assuming anything.

BrokenMan

walshb wrote: »

For me when I get to 5 K I feel that I have hit a sort of limit. The heart is great and all feels well. I just think that is my best option. No need to put the body through more. No need to put the legs and muscles and ankles etc through more. I am not a runner. I run to keep active and fit. I don't believe that going 6 and 7 and 8 k is somehow making me even fitter. The legs and heart and lungs and muscles have been given a 20-21 minute work out. That's me done.

Getting more exercise doesn't make you fitter? Are you serious?