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
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Gavlor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,179 ✭✭✭Gavlor


    This all sounds eerily familiar to a conversation that I had with Ososlo on monday evening......

    for that reason, I'm out!


  • Options
    #63
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BrokenMan wrote: »
    Getting more exercise doesn't make you fitter? Are you serious?

    Is it that simple? More doesn't always mean best. Surely you can understand this?


  • Options
    #64
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Gavlor wrote: »
    This all sounds eerily familiar to a conversation that I had with Ososlo on monday evening......

    for that reason, I'm out!

    First post?


  • Options
    #65
    BrokenMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭BrokenMan


    walshb wrote: »
    Is it that simple? More doesn't always mean best. Surely you can understand this?
    Find me one peer reviewed study that finds getting more exercise doesn't make you fitter. I'm not asking if you can get fitter by constantly running 5K's as you definitely can but increasing the volume will increase fitness further.


  • Options
    #66
    kit3
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭kit3


    Murph_D wrote: »
    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.

    Would have to agree with this. It's like going back to the dark ages reading some of the attitudes here - really thought we had gone way beyond that ! I'm female, I run for my health (both physical & mental) and also because I love it. Couldn't care less if some males think this leads to an unattractive body !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Gavlor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,179 ✭✭✭Gavlor


    walshb wrote: »
    First post?

    I know!!


  • Options
    #68
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BrokenMan wrote: »
    Find me one peer reviewed study that finds getting more exercise doesn't make you fitter. I'm not asking if you can get fitter by constantly running 5K's as you definitely can but increasing the volume will increase fitness further.

    Simple: More doesn't necessarily mean better. Quality is every bit as important as quantity. Training/exercising more and more when maybe the body is not able for it is likley more damaging. You need to obey the body. If the body gives signs that it's suffering or struggling, then I would argue that you stop.

    Example: Running good and effective 1-3 mile distances vs. running 5-6 miles where miles 4-6 are beginning to really affect and hurt you?

    What's better and more helpful as regards getting fit and staying fit?

    I am not claiming that more exercise cannot make you fitter. I am claiming that it's not always true.


  • Options
    #69
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    kit3 wrote: »
    Would have to agree with this. It's like going back to the dark ages reading some of the attitudes here - really thought we had gone way beyond that ! I'm female, I run for my health (both physical & mental) and also because I love it. Couldn't care less if some males think this leads to an unattractive body !

    The question is not so much do you care, but do you think that running long and consistent (distance runners) can affect your physical appearance (in the negative/aesthetic/attractive sense) to others?


  • Options
    #70
    kit3
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭kit3


    walshb wrote: »
    The question is not so much do you care, but do you think that running long and consistent (distance runners) can affect your physical appearance (in the negative sense) to others?

    The question, for me, is do I care what others think - the answer is no.


  • Options
    #71
    BrokenMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭BrokenMan


    walshb wrote: »
    Simple: More doesn't necessarily mean better. Quality is every bit as important as quantity. Training/exercising more and more when maybe the body is not able for it is likley more damaging. You need to obey the body. If the body gives signs that it's suffering or struggling, then I would argue that you stop.
    Obviously training on if its doing you damage is wrong and of course you should stop. However, that in no way backs your claim that doing more exercise wont make you fitter.
    I dont have time to go round in circles with you. I'm joining Gavlor on the "I'm out" bus


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    kit3 wrote: »
    The question, for me, is do I care what others think - the answer is no.

    Ok, you don't care if they think that you looked more pleasing to the eye pre running. Fair enough. But I think the article was making a sort of claim, as opposed to what people think of not looking pleasing.


  • Options
    #73
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BrokenMan wrote: »
    Obviously training on if its doing you damage is wrong and of course you should stop. However, that in no way backs your claim that doing more exercise wont make you fitter.
    I dont have time to go round in circles with you. I'm joining Gavlor on the "I'm out" bus

    Grand. Nobody is going around in circles. I never said that more exercise means that you cannot get fitter. You seemed to think that I did. Hence my response to that. Over and out!


  • Options
    #74
    Netwerk Errer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭Netwerk Errer


    The whole premise of this nonsense. It's just letsrun stirring up an argument.

    At the very top level, women are natural ectomorphs. They were born with that body type. Elite male runners are called emasculated but elite females are called masculine. What a contradiction! In that case, we should just make up a new gender for ectomorphs.

    The line can be crossed by woman when their training load results in issues of the menstrual cycle but saying women shouldn't run because of their appearance is ridiculous. We have all been to races and know that there's every size and shape of runners there. Why is one body type and gender singled out like this?

    I think body weight should only be called into question when it's a result of an eating disorder or another health issue. If the runner is healthy and they want to run, then they should run.

    It's part of who they are and if someone doesn't find them attractive, so be it.


  • Options
    #75
    ectoraige
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    walshb wrote: »
    Why deny them that 2.9 miles?

    The suggestion was made that women's bodies don't cope with endurance so the logical reaction if it were true would be to shorten the distance so there's less to endure. Given a shorter average stride length women would actually have to endure more impacts over a 26.2 mile course than their male counterparts. I just picked 90% out of the air.


  • Options
    #76
    kit3
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭kit3


    walshb wrote: »
    Ok, you don't care if they think that you looked more pleasing to the eye pre running. Fair enough. But I think the article was making a sort of claim, as opposed to what people think of not looking pleasing.

    I think the article is nonsense but in response to your comments on it the benefits I get from running would outweigh anyone's opinion on how I look. On Gavlor's bus too


  • Options
    #77
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    ectoraige wrote: »
    The suggestion was made that women's bodies don't cope with endurance so the logical reaction if it were true would be to shorten the distance so there's less to endure. Given a shorter average stride length women would actually have to endure more impacts over a 26.2 mile course than their male counterparts. I just picked 90% out of the air.

    I'd say let if they have gotten that far let them go the last 3 miles.....


  • Options
    #78
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    Netwerk Errer wrote: »
    The whole premise of this nonsense. It's just letsrun stirring up an argument.

    At the very top level, women are natural ectomorphs. They were born with that body type. Elite male runners are called emasculated but elite females are called masculine. What a contradiction! In that case, we should just make up a new gender for ectomorphs.

    The line can be crossed by woman when their training load results in issues of the menstrual cycle but saying women shouldn't run because of their appearance is ridiculous. We have all been to races and know that there's every size and shape of runners there. Why is one body type and gender singled out like this?

    I think body weight should only be called into question when it's a result of an eating disorder or another health issue. If the runner is healthy and they want to run, then they should run.

    It's part of who they are and if someone doesn't find them attractive, so be it.


    To be fair to the original article (and I'm not particularly inclined that way) it never said anything about running turning women into anything other than injured (and thus 'saggy'). It's Walshb who has been banging on about attractiveness.

    I honestly, honestly can't work out if he's just misunderstood the article or trying to wind people up. Thing is I'm usually pretty gullible.


  • Options
    #79
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Clearlier wrote: »
    To be fair to the original article (and I'm not particularly inclined that way) it never said anything about running turning women into anything other than injured (and thus 'saggy'). It's Walshb who has been banging on about attractiveness.

    I honestly, honestly can't work out if he's just misunderstood the article or trying to wind people up. Thing is I'm usually pretty gullible.

    No, I don't think I brought that up first. I think I responded to a point made on that, and then that was leapt on and it went from there. Mostly me responding to posts that posters had questioned from me.. So, I didn't carry it on any more than others who replied to me. And I think the article did bring in aesthetics as well as regards women runners.

    Not sure what is so winding up because I happen to think that elite female distance runners are less attractive in comparison to the average woman on the street. I wasn't the only one to say that.

    Purely from the injury point of view there are other links on the site that seem to endorse the view.


  • Options
    #80
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    walshb wrote: »
    Not sure what is so winding up because I happen to think that elite female distance runners are less attractive in comparison to the average woman on the street.
    it's completely irrelevant. Nobody cares about your personal preferences.


  • Options
    #81
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    walshb wrote: »
    No, I don't think I brought that up first. I think I responded to a point made on that, and then that was leapt on and it went from there. Mostly me responding to posts. So, I didn't carry it on any more than others who replied to me.

    Purely from the injury point of view there are other links on the site that seem to endorse the view.

    No, I didn't say that you were the first. I said that you were banging on about it. You also came in pretty early in post no. 5. I could go through the thread and pick out all the other posts where you mentioned it if you like?
    walshb wrote: »
    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 wrote: »
    Not sure what is so winding up because I happen to think that elite female distance runners are less attractive in comparison to the average woman on the street. I wasn't the only one to say that.

    Perfect example of where this could be a comprehension problem or an attempt to wind people up.
    walshb wrote: »
    Purely from the injury point of view there are other links on the site that seem to endorse the view.

    the site?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    DQ6 wrote: »
    Why is this thread even still going. The trolling is tired/ not funny/ insulting to the many amazing women who go out and bust their asses in the sport we all love. Depressing that we have a prolific former boardsie running in a World Championship 50k on Friday and instead of a thread on that we have one degrading female distance runners and talking about how "attractive" they are. Super lame.

    So ask the mod to close it then.

    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.


  • Options
    #83
    BrokenMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭BrokenMan


    Originally Posted by walshb viewpost.gif
    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.
    BrokenMan wrote: »
    Getting more exercise doesn't make you fitter? Are you serious?
    walshb wrote: »
    Grand. Nobody is going around in circles. I never said that more exercise means that you cannot get fitter. You seemed to think that I did. Hence my response to that. Over and out!

    Except thats exactly what you did claim and going back and editing your posts to take it out doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.


  • Options
    #84
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BrokenMan wrote: »
    Except thats exactly what you did claim and going back and editing your posts to take it out doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

    You show me one edit that makes this true. Anyway, I thought you were out. The only edits were for spelling and additional info. I never made a claim that more exercise cannot make you fitter. Never said that.


  • Options
    #85
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Clearlier wrote: »
    the site?

    The thread. There are a couple of other articles that seem to endorse the view that females are more susceptible to injury from running.


  • Options
    #86
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    walshb wrote: »
    So ask the mod to close it then.

    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.

    FWIW I reported your posts for trolling a few hours ago. The mods however have day jobs so understandably haven't got round to this yet. In the meantime however it appears that most of us are uncomfortabe with the thought of belonging to a forum where the kinds of beliefs you express go unchallenged.


  • Options
    #87
    BrokenMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭BrokenMan


    walshb wrote: »
    You show me one edit that makes this true. Anyway, I thought you were out. The only edits were for spelling and additional info. I never made a claim that more exercise cannot make you fitter. Never said that.

    Then pleased explain your statement

    I don't believe that going 6 and 7 and 8 k is somehow making me even fitter.


  • Options
    #88
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Clearlier wrote: »
    FWIW I reported your posts for trolling a few hours ago. The mods however have day jobs so understandably haven't got round to this yet. In the meantime however it appears that most of us are uncomfortabe with the thought of belonging to a forum where the kinds of beliefs you express go unchallenged.

    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."


  • Options
    #89
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BrokenMan wrote: »
    Then pleased explain your statement

    I don't believe that going 6 and 7 and 8 k is somehow making me even fitter.



    Look up the word 'me' in the dictionary!

    Then look up the word you.


  • Options
    #90
    BrokenMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭BrokenMan


    OK so you're special....bit different from everyone else


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,082 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BrokenMan wrote: »
    OK so you're special....bit different from everyone else

    Not special at all. Like I said, I never made the claim you believe I did.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement