Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why most women shouldn't run

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    walshb wrote: »
    Because attractiveness happened to come into the debate? The article actually touched on aesthetics and appearance. Not the main body, but it did imply. 90 + percent of my posts are in reply to others.

    Uncomfortable in my beliefs that I am not all that attracted to the appearance of elite female distance runners? One comment.
    Scrap it. It's not my fault that the article was posted here and that it touched on this.

    "What do most female runners look like?

    A- Male runners.

    Ever ask yourself why? I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Women who run successfully for long periods of time were made to run. They look just like men runners. Good female runners generally do not look like plus-size models. It's not a question of cause and effect; it's a question of natural selection. You can't run to get that cute little runner's body. It's actually reversed. You have to have that cute little runner's body to survive running."

    The article also used the word secret but I wouldn't argue that it meant that it was talking about how to keep secrets. It very clearly wasn't making a substantive point about aesthetics.


  • Options
    #93
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,912 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Clearlier wrote: »
    The article also used the word secret but I wouldn't argue that it meant that it was talking about how to keep secrets. It very clearly wasn't making a substantive point about aesthetics.

    Your troll claim is still well off. I have not at all engaged in anything completely off topic apart from when asked a specific question from a poster.
    The main point of the article was in relation to injuries, but the author certainly did touch on appearance, not me. And, most of the posts in relation to appearance stemmed from one post I made. The rest were me replying. Am I not allowed to reply and answer? Does this constitute trolling?

    Forget appearance then. Scrap it completely if it means a troll accusation. As regards the rest of what the article says I happen to think it's not all that bad.

    BTW, what ever happened to common courtesy? If you believed that I was trolling why not tell me first. I'm fairly approachable. "walshb, I believe you are trolling here. Cut out this and that......." Was there a need to report it straight to a mod? I post fairly regularly here. I like the forum. I would have thought that we could at least try to work things out before running to mods. So, you continued engaging with me yet you reported me to the mods for trolling? Pretty underhanded, that!


  • Options
    #94
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    walshb wrote: »
    Your troll claim is still well off. I have not at all engaged in anything completely off topic apart from when asked a specific question from a poster.
    The main point of the article was in relation to injuries, but the author certainly did touch on appearance, not me. And, most of the posts in relation to appearance stemmed from one post I made. The rest were me replying. Am I not allowed to reply and answer? Does this constitute trolling?

    Forget appearance then. Scrap it completely if it means a troll accusation. As regards the rest of what the article says I happen to think it's not all that bad.

    Trolling can be done in lots of ways. Erecting straw men such as declaring that trolling is talking "completely off topic" things is an example. Responding to small tangential parts of a post without acknowledging the fact is trolling. Repeated slight misunderstandings can be trolling.

    All that being said I did say that it could be a comprehension problem.

    Anyway, I'm done on this thread. I'll leave the last word to you.


  • Options
    #95
    Gerry T
    Registered Users Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Back to the original post, it is interesting. My daughter (13) playing football and camogie was having knee problems. Brought her to a physio, that specialises in sports and have been doing exercises to "re-train" how she runs, jumps, lands so her leg doesn't buckle inwards because of wider hip physics. Results so far have been encouraging (doing exercise 6 mths). By the way physio is female.
    Apparently there is a geometry issue if you have wider hips, male or female, but by nature this would affect more females than males.
    For similar reasons you find more black men are better sprinters - doesn't mean white men shouldn't sprint and some will make the grade and could be the best ever, but less likely. Likewise not many black men become swimmers, whites excel at that, peoples geometry will give them a natural advantage or disadvantage in different sports. I think that's the thread ?


  • Options
    #96
    pconn062
    Registered Users Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    walshb wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    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.
    walshb wrote: »
    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.

    Mod/

    Ok, only getting around to reading this now. These are generalisations, and pretty stupid ones at that. Let's avoid them from now on.

    Also on another note (not aimed at you walshb), please don't make accusations of trolling. Just use the report post function.

    /Mod

    The thing from letsrun is just clickbait, and it is doing exactly what is was intended to do, getting people involved in stupid arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Ososlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,420 ✭✭✭Ososlo


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Back to the original post, it is interesting. My daughter (13) playing football and camogie was having knee problems. Brought her to a physio, that specialises in sports and have been doing exercises to "re-train" how she runs, jumps, lands so her leg doesn't buckle inwards because of wider hip physics. Results so far have been encouraging (doing exercise 6 mths). By the way physio is female.
    Apparently there is a geometry issue if you have wider hips, male or female, but by nature this would affect more females than males.
    For similar reasons you find more black men are better sprinters - doesn't mean white men shouldn't sprint and some will make the grade and could be the best ever, but less likely. Likewise not many black men become swimmers, whites excel at that, peoples geometry will give them a natural advantage or disadvantage in different sports. I think that's the thread ?

    That's exactly what I was getting at. Thanks for bringing it back on topic:)


  • Options
    #98
    Gerry T
    Registered Users Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Ososlo wrote: »
    That's exactly what I was getting at. Thanks for bringing it back on topic:)

    Didn't read every post but it was looking like the original post was being dragged off topic with what is a "real" woman or what is attractive in a woman. That's a different topic.
    Look at Soccer, if a young boy (12-14) shows potential to be a good goal keeper and is spotted by a UK premier scout, the club will do bone density tests to see if the boy has potential to grow to a height of 6 feet plus. If not then the club loose interest, to me that's a shame as who can say a 5ft 10in man can't be good enough for the grade.

    It's profiling, using predictive expectations. Which may work for most people but there will always be those that don't fit the stereotype and become world class in their chosen field, its just harder for them


  • Options
    #99
    tunguska
    Registered Users Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭tunguska


    walshb wrote: »

    Why post the article at all if it's so rubbish? I made one comment that I thought the article was ok. I added a detail to that, and it went from there.

    I have to say fair play to you for sticking to your guns, I respect you for that regardless of what your views are.


  • Options
    #100
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    walshb wrote: »
    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.

    I know many, my wife included, who think men who do a lot of distance running, just look ill and not a fine specimen of manliness.


  • Options
    #101
    downthemiddle
    Registered Users Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭downthemiddle


    walshb wrote: »
    Your troll claim is still well off. I have not at all engaged in anything completely off topic apart from when asked a specific question from a poster.
    The main point of the article was in relation to injuries, but the author certainly did touch on appearance, not me. And, most of the posts in relation to appearance stemmed from one post I made. The rest were me replying. Am I not allowed to reply and answer? Does this constitute trolling?

    Forget appearance then. Scrap it completely if it means a troll accusation. As regards the rest of what the article says I happen to think it's not all that bad.

    BTW, what ever happened to common courtesy? If you believed that I was trolling why not tell me first. I'm fairly approachable. "walshb, I believe you are trolling here. Cut out this and that......." Was there a need to report it straight to a mod? I post fairly regularly here. I like the forum. I would have thought that we could at least try to work things out before running to mods. So, you continued engaging with me yet you reported me to the mods for trolling? Pretty underhanded, that!
    I read the OP and wondered how this thread has escalated so quickly.
    Congratulations on tunnelling over the 5k mark today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,912 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    downthemiddle wrote: »
    Congratulations on tunnelling over the 5k mark today.

    Whatever that means, you're welcome.


  • Options
    #103
    sam30
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭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!


  • Options
    #104
    sam30
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #105
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,148 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #106
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,135 ✭✭✭rom


    You had me at letsrun :)


  • Options
    #107
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭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....


  • Options
    #108
    pconn062
    Registered Users Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭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?! :confused: 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


  • Options
    #109
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Not sure if serious?! :confused: 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.


  • Options
    #110
    pconn062
    Registered Users Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭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. :)


  • Options
    #111
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,120 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #113
    gerard_65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭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.;)


  • Options
    #114
    Ososlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,420 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #115
    dwayneshintzy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Not sure if serious?! :confused: 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.....


  • Options
    #116
    laura_ac3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #117
    JohnDozer
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭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!?!?


  • Options
    #118
    pconn062
    Registered Users Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #119
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #120
    tunguska
    Registered Users Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,135 ✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement