Found it - https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/05/24/inenglish/1495618559_31...
From my personal opinions, people getting fractures from running barefoot likely need to change diet and running gait even more then they thought. I've personally adopted bone broth as a daily staple to my diet and I credit it with feeling fully recovered after my first 24hr race within 2 days.
While you're at it normalize success at giving birth based on the fraction of men to attempt it.
Why would that matter? They're not running as a group; if you're the fastest then you win. This isn't a probabilistic thing. Lots of slow men crowding the starting line isn't going to impact who finishes first.
I pulled up the most recent Ironman race; there were 5 men for every woman in the competition. So I'm using that as a rule of the thumb. But the same logic applies to any population imbalance at the top of the funnel.
I made no such assumption.
If you pull runner speeds from any distribution, and label 90% of those numbers "male" and 10% "female", 90% of the time the highest speed will be labelled "male".
Even if you are pulling the female runner speeds from a slightly faster distribution, if most of the people running are men then men will still win most of the time.
Failing to normalize by the population sizes at the start of the race is a blatant mathematical error. Until you fix it your argument is flawed and if you don't fix it you're willfully wrong.
You literally wrote "all else equal" in your comment.
> pull runner speeds from any distribution
Not true. If I pick a distribution of elite women and non-athlete men, all of the top finishers will be women. You're assuming speeds are normally distributed; they are not.
Where is this data that you're citing here? It doesn't line up with any data I've seen, nor with my extensive experience in amateur racing. Most races are won by the same small group of elite runners. The size of the field is immaterial as the majority of racers have no chance of winning.
Normalizing for population size might make sense if you actually had to beat everyone independently. Fortunately, you're only racing the person in first so everyone else can be safely ignored.
Put another way, if Michael Phelps is racing he's going to win. You can only win by beating him, the rest of the field doesn't matter.
>>You literally wrote "all else equal" in your comment.
That's different from the assumption that all competitors are equally likely to win.
>You're assuming speeds are normally distributed
No. Any distribution will work.
>Where is this data that you're citing here?
I didn't say anything about data. I said your argument has a blatant mathematical flaw. You said "why would it matter" in response to "if 90% of the competitors [are men]". It absolutely matters. Even if you do turn out to be correct about women being worse at this sport, you are only right in the broken clock sense.
>Put another way, if Michael Phelps is racing he's going to win. You can only win by beating him, the rest of the field doesn't matter.
The people who show up to the race are coming out of some distribution. Michael Phelps isn't showing up to every race. The probability that you win the race comes down to how fast you are vs. the max of n samples from the distribution of runners.
The list of the winner of some annual marathon is a really shitty piece of evidence. Out of all the racers and times taken, it gives us data on exactly one of them. It is especially useless to try and breakdown running ability by demographic because it doesn't even tell us how much data we have on each demographic of interest.
If you don't see why just citing the list of marathon winners fails to reject the hypothesis that women and men are about equal at ultra-marathons, then you don't understand what makes for a good data-supported argument.
If you're a data nerd and a runner armed with this knowledge, it will have occurred to you to wonder if distance (in time) from the winner is correlated with gender and field size. It is not. Thus, you're proposing that we "normalize" for something which is shown to not have an effect on who wins a race.
> at this distance.
~~All the distances in those tables are significantly longer than the 50k this article was about.~~
Edit: Ah, I missed it due to the weird order - but my original point stands, there is no point in ignoring part of someone's comment when trying to rebut them.
Let´s say you had a bunch of computers, and somebody had told you a certain type always ran slowly, so you never used them for anything fast, and even put them on slower connections, because of that. And then one day, you discovered if you connected them up to faster links, they ran faster.
You now have a larger number of faster computers. As with computers, so with society, it´s not a zero sum game.
1. Men generally tend to be faster than women
2. Women generally tend to be better at long-endurance than men
But this is for the average case and not the professional case, where men tend to dominate anyway.
Are there any facts that back up this claim?
50k is barely over marathon distance, and there is a huge difference between woman and men on marathon distance (~2:01 for men vs ~2:15 for woman (10% slower).
I don't know of any longer distance running event in which such a gap doesn't actually increase. That is, the larger the distance, the slower woman actually become relatively to men.
At the far end, for example, for the Spartathlon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartathlon), the fastest men complete the distance in around ~21 hours while the fastest woman takes ~24 hours (13% slower). If you look at the times of the top 3 males and woman of each year, most years top 3 mens finish in ~<24 hours, while women are at ~<31 hours.
It might be interesting to visualize the gap per year vs the temperature. There are some studies about how heat affects the running performance of men and woman in marathon distance races, but not so much for long distance races (https://insights.ovid.com/article/00005768-200703000-00012). IIRC (don't take me for this), heat affects slower runners more independently of sex.
This is 31 miles, which is not much longer than a standard 26.2 mile marathon. Marathons have a lot of competition, so we can see how top athletes compare, and there the record is 2:01 for men vs 2:15 for women. What you're saying is for much longer races.
I believe there’s a wall at about 20 miles, too.
~20 miles is the distance that a "median" person can run before muscle glycogen is depleted and less efficient energy-production mechanisms must take up the slack. The size (and duration) of one's muscle glycogen stores depends on many factors, including the physical size of muscles, efficiency of reintroduction of liver glycogen, training status, running economy, GI effectiveness vs stress, and many others.
Interestingly enough, in longer ultras one gets the chance to conquer the "wall," recover, and then hit it all over again, maybe several times.
men: 55 km
women: 48 km
People keep repeating this idea throughout thread but as user geargrinder posted earlier, the difference at the ~days level is pretty big, at least in ultra running. For example :
1000 miles Records
Men: Yiannis Kouros - 10 d + 10:30:35
Women: Sandy Barwick - 12 d + 14:38:40
I had also heard - and believed - the idea that women were roughly equal at ultra distances but seeing the tables posted by geargrinder has been a massive revelation to the contrary for me. Is there some other proof that indeed backs the claim that women are roughly equal at large distances, or is this a total urban legend?
The people who regularly win RAAM (race across america) are the masochists who are able to combine peak athletic performance and 2.5 hours of sleep a night for a week.
Obviously something else much longer than 1 hour, with as many variables removed would be a better comparison. I don't think a traditional road race would work, since there's too many variables about team/pack strategy, the peloton, breakaways, etc. But possibly a 2 or 3 hour solo time trial on the same course.
I would guess there's a sweet spot in distance where the finish times in men and women are closer, but considering testosterone helps with muscle recovery and creating red blood cells, I don't think it would be a multi day distance.
I suspect that this is the same (boring) situation, but runner's world being the garbage magazine that they are figured they could push the sociopolitical angle and get more clicks.
Having male only trophies is most often redundant because 99% of overall winners are male. That's just life. From time to time, an high/elite level female runner shows up when there are no elite male runner and she takes the overall winner. And that only happens in niche races (niche being every race longer than a marathon and some smaller city races). Ultras are also more likely to have DNFs (did not finish).
There's yet to be a popular race (6 majors, olympics, world championship, even regular "city marathons" etc.) where there's an overall female winner, because both m/f elites show up and men win by a huge margin.
It wasn't a major city race and probably had a lot of casual runners, but I ran a half marathon earlier this year with around 20,000 participants. A woman won the overall in 1:18:30.
The people who are good at this are just so much better at it than the average person. A fast woman, even if she isn't faster than the fastest men, will still be faster than 99.9+% of them.
That's not in doubt. An extremely skilled person will outcompete the field, all other things being equal.
Unfortunately, with reference to most sports, all other things aren't equal, which is why good high-school male teams in sports such as soccer can credibly compete with national-level adult female teams.
That race just wasn’t that competitive, even if it had 20k runners.
Courtney Dauwalter dominates men in Ultra races, you can call them niche races if it helps your ego, but lets call those races what they really are...the longest and most grueling races, stacked with elite and professional runners.
You must be massively confused. Confused by the name of the overall winner, perhaps? In Ethiopia, that’s apparently a man’s name. I don’t know how we’re talking past each other, but a person with a penis crossed the line first at NY in 2018.
EDIT: mm, I see; stealth edit. Well, I already typed a reply...
That is my understanding also. And that's all I am saying, I'm not saying a woman is going to go out and beat Bolt in 100M sprint or even win the WR for the mile.
Still to acknowledge the playing field levels over distance and then dismissing those races as niche isn't fair. Read these comments, they suggest the only reason Daualter wins is because men don't practice these runs, that is ridiculous, no one is waking up and running 240 miles.
>Courtney had a great race at Western States last year and dominated the women's field, but she was 12th OA and almost 3 hours slower than the OA winner.
And one year she failed to complete that race altogether. She holds multiple records, had has won multiple races overall, but certainly I'm not saying every time she races she wins.
List of races she won (beat the men):
Behind the Rocks Ultra
Continental Divide Trail Run (50k)
Coldwater Ruble (52 miles)
Moab 240 (238 miles)
The Bear Chase (50 miles)
Riverbank one day (24 hour run)
Desert Solstice (100 Miles)
Javelina Jundred (100k)
FANS (24 hour run)
The Chatfield Ultra Race (100k)
Tommyknowcker 12 hor & The mine shaft Half (100kk)
Chase the Moon (12 hours)
I did give you the names of the races she won, you could look at the fields and confirm of the hundreds/thousands of runners she never beat an elite make runner.
Here is a question, since your the authority how many ultra runners are elite and are they all male?
But please prove me wrong by answering my question directly. Which race had an elite field of men that she beat. Not just one runner, because by that definition I have beaten sub 2:05 marathoners who DNF-ed.
Again I can't prove a elite field of men in the races she won, because I don't know you definition. Only you know your definition of elite ultra runners, so why don't you look at the fields instead of having me guess?
I can tell you plenty of the runners are ranked in the top 10% for their group (age/sex) overall, but something tells me that being a top 10% ultra runner in your group doesn't qualify one as Elite under your definition.
Yes, my definition is more generous. But it also comes from the industry itself, in my experience marathons/races generally will have "Elite runner" applications/registrations. Like regular registrations/corrals the Elite Runner registrations are time based, and generally waive %'s of the race fee based on prior qualified race times. These are elite runner's in my mind, but in no way do most of them stand a chance of winning any given race on any given day.
And yes sort of by default I would place the top 10 finishers in a 238 mile race like Moab in the Elite category, they all appear to be top 20% of their group in overall Ultra rankings, so they are not the best for sure and its fine we disagree on their status of elite. I certainly wouldn't (and not saying you are, but others are) diminishing Courtney's accomplishments by saying she won niche races against untrained runners...I think its fair to say untrained runners don't run 50/100/238 mile races.
You can see that the top man ran 433.095 km in 48h, while the top woman did only 401.000 km in that time, so he was about 8% faster. Compare that to 100m where the men are 9% faster, so the male advantage is basically constant with respect to distance.
Of course the worlds fastest women will beat any man who doesn't practice, so dedicated women have no problem beating men in smaller races.
No the men's speed advantage is lost over greater distances. Yes, less people run utlra's but also of those who do run them, they are higher caliber runners on average (professionals/elites).
>Of course the worlds fastest women will beat any man who doesn't practice,
She is beating professionals in these ultra's, people don't just roll out of bed and run 240 miles without practice. And she has beat them by as much as 10 hours. She even holds the record for longest run in a 24 hour period and its not because men don't run that race, hell David Goggins has done 24 hour races and she beats him by over a half marathon.
No she doesn't, she held the womens record for that category but never the mens.
Men record 24h: 303.5 km
Women record 24h: 262.2 km
Dauwalter record 24h: 250.0 km (155.391 miles)
> She is beating professionals in these ultra's
I highly doubt that, there are extremely few professional ultra-marathon runners. She might beat professional marathon runners, but that is another sport so isn't really comparable. It is like beating a 100m runner in a marathon, women can do that easily.
>there are extremely few professional ultra-marathon runners.
That is generally fair, but there are extremely few professional runners period. But per capital, you will find the the runners of 100 mile/240 mile races are going to be more elite on average than your average marathon runner. Are there less ultra runners sure, is the average ultra runner more likely to be elite than a casual runner? I still don't consider Ultra runs niche, and by default I think its wrong to say if a women runs a race, by definition that race is niche.
It's time to give up on this throwaway account, you're just spewing garbage now. The 24 hour record is held by someone who has a penis attached to their body, and the women's record is not held by Courtney. And a woman didn't win the NYC Marathon in 2018. Three strikes...
I call them niche races because as one who dabbles in the occasional ultramarathon, I had to go look up most of the races she's won. She wins Western States, then we have something to talk about. Your overweight neighbor has heard of the New York City Marathon, not so much Run Rabbit Run (a race Courtney has won outright).
>Courtney Dauwalter dominates men in Ultra races
She will sometimes beat them, if that's what you mean.
>you can call them niche races if it helps your ego, but lets call those races what they really are...the longest and most grueling races, stacked with elite and professional runners.
Even the most competitive ultra is a niche race. If the award money for ultras increased 10x overnight then east africans would be dominating in 5 years (the most competitive ultra in the world, UTMB, has a reward of €35,000).
And competition wise, races in america are a far cry from european ultras which will often have thousands of runners. Not to mention thousands of meters of elevation.
The fact that this woman's many extraordinary achievements are buried under titles like "Women are better then men in ultras" is disgusting to me.
EDIT: Oops east, not west africans.
Yes, by as much as 10 hours in the MOAB 240, she set the record in a 100K race, she won another 100 miler by 75 minutes. She set another record in a 24 hour run.
>Not to mention thousands of meters of elevation.
Like the MOAB 240 in Utah she won by 10 hours with 29,467 feet of elevation?
>The fact that this woman's many extraordinary achievements are buried under titles like "Women are better then men in ultras" is disgusting to me.
Where did you get those quotes? Maybe you should consider you are "disgusted" by the woman's accomplishments and frame them as "She will sometimes beat them," without being able to acknowledge the degree of her victories over 2nd place male runners. Does she win every race she enters? No, of course not, but when she wins, she sets records and we are not talking seconds or minutes.
>Does she win every race she enters? No, of course not, but when she wins, she sets records and we are not talking seconds or minutes.
You literally made my point.
In that case it's possible to rest in agreement and there's no need to keep fighting a flamewar. Please don't do the latter on HN.
Yes, she dominates...when the 2nd place male athlete isn't even close that is domination. 10 hour victory from her 1st place to 2nd place, 75 minutes from 1st place to 2nd place...that is domination in running.
She is THAT, for women. She is not that for men. Case closed, or at least it would be with anyone who actually runs ultras, or runs at all.
If you can't understand that breaking a record by 10 hours means that the previous record was shit, then I don't how to help you understand that.
In any case I don't like discussions with people who hide behind throwaways. Because I have a feeling you're just trolling me.
Push your weirdo agenda as hard as you like, I don't care. People like you are ruining this forum.
>If you can't understand that breaking a record by 10 hours means that the previous record was shit, then I don't how to help you understand that.
I get it you don't like women, and their success threatens you and your identity. What were you saying about weirdo agenda? You can't seem to acknowledge the few hundred men who have been unable to break her record (or come anywhere close for that matter).
>Case closed, or at least it would be with anyone who actually runs ultras, or runs at all.
I look forward to watching you compete against her in a future Ultra and showing us all how she is shit and her records are shit. In fact, as your accusing me of using a throwaway, tell us all your real name and these Ultra's you have competed in and lets see if we can find a single race where a women didn't beat you.
> I get it you don't like women, and their success threatens you and your identity
> You really seem obsessed with penises
> you can call them niche races if it helps your ego
We ban accounts that make a habit of posting in the flamewar style, so please edit such swipes out of your comments here, even if another commenter is wrong or annoying. They degrade discussion badly—it's notable how much worse this comment is than where things started out—and I'm sure you can make your substantive points without them.
Also, most of the East Africans are actually from the same tribe/town in Kenya, Kalenjin.
But your overall point, agreed. The only reason these races are not dominated by African runners is because of the low prize money involved.
E.g. if Eliud Kipchoge ran a 2:01 for the first 42K he could have walked the remaining 8K and still beaten the winner of this race by an hour.
Nothing against her or the other ultra pros, but the facts are as you describe.
Anyway, yes, any race longer than a marathon is basically niche when analyzed based on the prize pool, media exposure, number of professional and recreational practicioners.
Seeing the rise of US skill in football (soccer), we in Croatia like to joke that the only reason we can win a world championship here and there in waterpolo, handball etc., is because americans still don’t find the sport interesting.
The speed advantage men have, and I never said they didn't, is lost/leveled over distance, so to dismiss these longer races where women can and will filter to the top is odd when making a point about men's superiority. Do less people run them, sure, does that make them niche? No, thousands of people still run Ultra's, its not like we are talking about 1 trained woman and a bunch of untrained men.
>It seems like a bad-faith argument to assume the person you first responded to is belittling the races just because women can and do win them, rather than because they get MUCH less publicity/interest.
"And that only happens in niche races (niche being every race longer than a marathon..."
I don't think it is bad-faith to interpret the post as saying, men are better than women, but acknowledge women do sometimes beat men (statistically more likely in longer races), but then broad brush stroke those wins as "only in" niche races. But I'm not going to get stuck in debating what is niche, especially when it has now devolved into "more niche than marathons."
Nothing wrong with remaining objective that men do
have a clear speed advantage over women, but that advantage diminishes over long distance, but maybe I am wrong, maybe we should disregard women's wins automatically as niche races.
>No reasonable person is going to suggest a 50K marathon isn't physically way harder than a standard marathon.
People in this thread have.
He did, however, pointed to some interesting things and areas which should be explored and debated but your comment, on the other hand, is really aggressive and does not open the conversation to a positive discourse.
Instead of saying “vague pseudo-facts”, why not find some and post as counter point?
And who said HN is better than Reddit? Perhaps more moderated but we’re all human which means we have shitty opinions rooted in nonsense. This doesn’t stop if you register on HN, we just have shitty HN opinion instead of shitty Reddit opinion.
And most importantly, you buried the whole point of your comment because of your anger: the winner of the race did something amazing and should be 100% celebrated. She beat the competition, regardless who was there (male vs female). She can’t control who she runs against. Hence, she deserves to be a champion without an asterisk.
Downvoted were for your tone (I didn’t down nor up vote), not the content of your comment.
This entire paragraph.
From googling for a few min, I found some interesting stuff; For example, women were not allowed to compete in Boston marathon until 1970s . And times within the some groups of runners, since women began competing, is displaying a trend that men vs women times are getting closer (same article).
So this begs the question: since women haven’t been allowed to compete in sports for thousands of years, what will happen to their bodies when they are allowed to compete? In other words, on a long enough time scale, I believe that certain sports will have equal competition (running is one).
There are also clear cases and valid reasons for men being stronger/more fit but the main culprits, in at least endurance sports, is total body fat and hemoglobin . I’m not 100% certain these factors cannot, over time, be diluted into equilibrium.
I’m not a scientist and don’t study such things but my guess is that male dominance won’t always be as pronounced as some folks think. One totally unscientific reason for my hypothesis is that there are just too many edge cases in sports that proved people wrong. The most famous ones, I can think of are: sprinters shouldn’t run standing up (Bolt). NBA players not shooting Free Throws underhand (Berry).
I believe the effect here would be mainly in terms of training, recovery, and nutritional science targeted specifically for women evolving over time to increase the caliber of female talent overall.
You also need the recruitment programs, marketing, and prize money to more successfully identify the potential number 1 top females for specific sports, and convince them to devote a lifetime to training for it.
It’s not an evolutionary (gene pool) thing, it’s an environmental thing.
I would assume certain sports lend themselves more toward selecting for physiology that both men and women are equally likely to develop (e.g. hemoglobin) and others will tend to benefit from testosterone or muscle mass that men will always hold an inherent biological advantage, meaning the sports should maintain distinct biologically male and female playing fields.
I am not sure I get it. Are you suggesting that the reason men dominate almost all sports is not due to their undoubtedly greater physical capacity, but due to some societal discrimination?
Also, are your suggesting that evolution works such that appreciable biological differences show up in just a few thousand years?
I’m making a statement based on data not a weak held opinion.
My opinion that in some cases, I do believe that with time, women and men will compete at the same level. Will it be boxing, American football, or Rugby? Most likely not. Other sports, however, may converge on a unified field.
With regard to biology, again based on the data, it seems that women and men are converging to a level playing field.
Also, if you took the time to read both articles, I did try to have a balance view showing there are physiological superiorities in male athletes.
In endurance sports, it seems fat and hemoglobin are the male superiority (less body fat + larger bodies and hemoglobin count). Question I pose is will this trend continue into eternity or will there be a time when such differences are mitigated via sports science?
Which sport? I know that they can compete in shooting and some other dexterity based competitions, but other than that men outclass women in every sport I know. Men just have more energy and power per body mass in addition to having more body mass, so for everything where you have to move around yourself or something else men have a huge advantage.
If most men die, we can repopulate if there is a large population that is able to birth young. If most women die, resources are diminished because of time consideration.
Men go to war because they’re expandable. Why are you bringing in gender norms into the equation?
On another note I'm always amazed how confident HN posters are about any subject, even when they admit all their knowledge comes from a few minutes of google searches and articles.
Sexism of low expectations. Race director wanted to be sure to include a best in class trophy for women, which is fine, but assumed (incorrectly) that there wouldn't be a need for a best in class trophy for men. Assumed that they'd just get the 'best overall' trophy.
> “It’s tricky, because in the world we live in now, people would think I was being sexist if I just gave out overall awards and didn’t have female-specific awards,”
Ironically, it seems that the race organizer had first set out not to have gender-specific awards at all, but they chose to add the female-specific award to avoid accusations of them marginalizing women's achievements (and being labelled "sexist").
I am wondering if this is part of the reason why women are able to compete just as well as men on equal footing.
At the shortest distance, 100 meters, Flojo still has the world record at 10.5 seconds, a full second behind Usain Bolt's 9.5. Whether long or short races, women cannot physically compete with men.
In the ultra world Sierre Zenal was just recently run where Killian Jornet set a new course record, and Pike's Peak Marathon is in a few days. Most of the serious ultra runners are doing those events, not this one.
That being said, very cool for her.
Earlier this year Jasmine Parris won the Spine race (the UK's best known very long ultra: 400km along the Pennine Way in January). Not only did she break the overall course record by 12hrs, she also beat the previous year's winner (Eugeni Sole), who was evacuated off the last hill, 6km from the end, while in 2nd place.
Allez les filles!
"Mrs Paris did the race during a week-long break from writing her PhD thesis"
It would be interesting to see what the androgen receptor density is between males and females; if by some weird quirk, the receptor density is higher in females, then "doping" with anabolic steroids could theoretically be more effective for women. But at that point you are blurring the line and violating almost all principles of fair sport.
Note, there is one sport where doping is essentially permitted, and that is professional bodybuilding. And we have yet to see women with bigger, denser, thicker muscles than men. So I think even with unlimited doping, men still have some kind of innate advantage.
In essence this means that women carry 10% dead weight throughout their whole life, not a big deal in daily life but in competitions it will slow you down by about 10% given that everything else is equal.
[Citation really seriously needed]
Edit Haha, love the downvotes for asking for evidence for an unsubstantiated claim.
Male elites do not run every single ultra race out there, obviously. Why should they? A course record is not a world record, and there is not a single world record a woman holds over a man in running at any distance, from 100 meters to 100 miles.
Your refusal to admit the obvious makes you seem like you're just trolling people in this thread.
As others have stated, elite women can best nearly all hobby jogging men. But they can't compete with top ultra runners like Jim Walmsley or Killian Jornet.
So if you define "competing" as "having a legit chance to win" then no, elite women cannot outrace elite men.
But always cool and good to see a woman win overall, hope it helps publicize the sport more. The fact that it has people here on HN talking is a good sign.
Look, I am all for empowering women and as far as personal politics goes, I think we're on the same page. However, nobody is doing anyone any favors by wishing away biological differences present in sapiens, and many other species too. This is a stone fact of our biology, it's up to us what we do with it.
I'm wondering about your personal reasons also.
That's an ad hominem for something you clearly did not properly check yourself.
- "Edit Berces, 24 hour treadmill world record holder; holds several Hungarian records". She actually had the overall when she got it, broken by men since then. (http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/treadmill.html)
- "Frith van der Merwe, set Comrades Marathon records for both directions". Female records. When she ran the 5:54 down record in 1989, the men's record was at 5:24 from three years before. When she ran the 6:32 up record, the men's record was at 5:27 from two years before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrades_Marathon#Winners_and_...
- "Elena Nurgalieva and her sister Olesya Nurgalieva have won a total of 10 Comrades Marathon titles between them; Elena holds the uphill course record (6:09:24)." They both won the _female_ editions. The lead man finished 30+ minutes ahead of them. The record is a female record (see previous).
- "Camille Herron, first ultra athlete to win 2 World titles in the same year (2015- 50K and 100K); 2017 Comrades Marathon Champion; holds the World Best for 50 Miles (5:38:41), 100 Mile Road and Trail World Record (12:42:40), 12 Hour World Record (149.193 km, 92.66 Miles), 100 Mile Track World Record (13:25:00), and 24 Hour World Record (262.193 km, 162.919 Miles)". Women's world titles. Women Comrades Marathon Champion. Women's World Bests. Just scroll up in the wikipedia page you linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon#IAU_World_Best_P...
What you linked is a list of very impressive ultrarunners, male or female. The women you then linked from that list _are_ incredibly impressive runners in their own right. They would beat nearly any man that shows up. They are still outcompeted by their elite male equivalents though and it is not even close.
For an obvious example, Katherine Switzer, who entered the Boston Marathon in 1967 and got chased down for gasp being a woman.
Historical exclusion from competition doesn't make sense as a reason for modern under performance.
I'm talking about races today where women must compete for a Woman's-trophy because they are generally not able to compete with the male athletes. That is exactly the reason for having a Woman's trophy in the first place. Which is how this sub-discussion started.
Even though black runners were excluded from early races, there was no need to create a special trophy for them. When the ugly practice of excluding them ended, they tended to dominate.
My point is the very existence of a Woman's trophy is an admission that, generally speaking, they can not compete on equal footing with men. Obviously there are fun exceptions like in this story where a woman wins the overall race, and all credit to her for doing so.
Running with some intensity is tiring, even if the pace is slow enough, also I think marathoners manage to deplete their glycogen supplies in the race
However, focusing on running for the entire time is something I personally (and I guess a lot of people) wouldn't be able to do.
Not only will it be non-sexist it will half the cost of staging it letting poorer countries do it too. A win for everyone.
EDIT: POTENTIALLY better obviously, not ACTUALLY better, since currently these events are generally won by men.
These factors came together in the 1970s to produce a rapid improvement in women's marathon times, while no corresponding drop happened for men's times. While they never caught up to men's, the women's record in 1985 was better than the men's record in 1950.
Are there any scientific studies confirming this?
50k could refer to 50km, yet, ultra usually refers to longer runs like 100km - 50 miles are 80km, so what would make more sense.
Judging by the time per mile they state in the article, it's 50km.
> After the race, Hardy ordered a first place male trophy to be made for Ellsworth. When asked whether the race might offer first place male trophies in the future, Hardy said probably not. Instead of giving out more awards, he is more interested in awarding the top six finishers, regardless of gender.
> “It’s tricky, because in the world we live in now, people would think I was being sexist if I just gave out overall awards and didn’t have female-specific awards,” he said. “But I think a race is a race, and the best women can beat the men on a given day. And that’s awesome. Other times, they don’t make the podium. What we don’t want to do is water down the prestige of placing on the podium, no matter if you’re a man or woman.”
So having female award is sexist and not having that award is also sexist.
> Unfortunately, while there was an award made for the first place female, there was no award prepared for the first place male. Instead, there was only a trophy for the overall winner, which was predicted to be a man.
What the heck? This confusing logic is all throughout the article.
So the article is clear enough, I think, given that most runners know this already.
Edit: I haven't commented on if I think this is a good thing or not, just explaining the article.
While it's always cute when people pretend that human sex is simple and things only get complicated when gender identity is considered, chromosomes aren't genes, the Y chromosome isn't the “testosterone gene”, XY females exist, XY females with a normal copy of sex-determining region Y (SRY) exist, and, as was discovered recently, XY females with a normal copy of SRY who have borne children exist. Also XX females have testosterone at various levels.
It's true that recently was part of how to deal with the evolving understanding of gender in the context of sport, a number of governing bodies have redefined the criteria for competing as a woman to be based on a combination of identity and serum testosterone levels, but that's also not about a “testosterone gene” and at best imperfectly correlates with any particular gene.
I didn't mean for this to come across as correcting you, I just thought it was neat, and it seemed worth sharing.
I’m not sure what role testosterone plays in ultra endurance sports but there are other considerations besides only testosterone.
there have been quite a few articles lately explaining the situation
If there were it wouldn't have been given to a woman, it would have been given to the fastest male (even though he didn't come first).
There is a winner trophy, and a fastest-female trophy. She won both.
I don't think it was a male trophy per se, just the organizers expected a male to win.
Usually in these races, there are two trophies, one for the overall winner and one for the female winner. This time, since a woman finished first overall, she got both trophies.
If someone wants to cheat, there's easier ways to cheat (doping) than taking on a whole pile of societal judgements in every facet of one's life, constantly, and trying to push against it in affirmation of one's own identity. Including accusations of lying about it for the win.
EDIT: Of course there's no way to objective prove a gender. We don't even have 'objective' ways to prove someone's gender even when they fall upon the binary. We have cis women who have been disqualified for having the wrong chromosomes even though they have qualifying secondary sex characteristics (which athletes have also been recorded needing to be subjected to invasive exposing of their bodies to verify the category).
Having a 'special' female winner while assuming a male will be the 'real' winner is implicit/transparent sexism to me.
Men are more physically performant than women, so if there weren't two leagues then in the overall majority of sports women would just lose.
They probably added the female winner trophy to be more inclusive towards women even.
The situation is kind of stupid but does not seem malicious to me, just happened to be like this.
What system would be better, here? A single award? That's just the same system as now, minus the female award - now women almost never take home a prize. Separate but equal "mens" and "womens" awards, labeled as such? Now you aren't recognizing the "overall" winner at all. Perhaps three awards - mens, womens, and outright? Might be a good idea for cases like this where the best man gets nothing, but for the majority of cases all you've done is hand another award to the man.
Remember, this is a headline because it's an edge case. Edge cases are a poor guide for good policy.
> “Obviously there’s a lot of great women runners, but you don’t see them winning ultras outright a lot. When it happens, they get two awards.”
Sounds as though it’s infrequent, but not unprecedented.
> Edge cases are a poor guide for good policy.
Consider this situation to have been a bug in a production environment. Would you advise your junior developers not to patch it, or write unit tests for it? Edge cases are where the rubber meets the road.
HN readers upvoted it. That's literally all there is to something being on the front page.
From the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."
A woman winning a race is not a new phenomenon. A quick google search produces:
EDIT: Added this link for some examples: https://www.runnersworld.com/trail-running/a20803612/why-wom...
Sierre Zenal was just run and Killian Jornet posted a 2:25. The top woman, someone who'd previously been caught doping, ran a 2:49.
Or take Comrades, probably the most prestigious ultra, an 89K race in South Africa. Men's record is 5:18, women's record is 5:54.
This race was sandwiched between Sierre Zenal and the upcoming Pike's Peak Marathon, most serious ultra runners are doing one or both of those.
Not to take anything from Ellie Pell, great accomplishment winning Green Lakes, but it is not accurate to suggest that men and women are "quite close" in ultra running, despite what that RW article suggests. Just take a look at the times for any major event.
I'm not sure that I'd agree that most serious ultra runners are doing one or both of these two. UTMB is next week, and most of the trail world elite will be there. They will all be tapering right now!
Also, Comrades is a road race, and these are very different form the trail ultras - a lot flatter for starters.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get a female outright UTMB winner in the next 10 years - hopefully 5.
For most amateur sports, the numbers will be all over the place. But for pro sports or things like marathons with huge number of participants, you're getting the top of the curve. A pro-woman athlete could dominate most of us average peeps (male and female), but when going against career athletes, we're hitting the limits of how we happened to evolve.
Human males are still larger on average than women when it comes to muscle mass, which is the driving factor for a lot of sports. There are mammals where the females are larger than males on average. Somewhere in out universe, such a species could be sentient like us. It's be curious to see how their own culture of sports, societal roles and dominance evolved compared to our own.
edit: Should have read the link in the above article. Women's smaller average size helps a lot on the downhills apparently.
Those are a few of my guesses.
In most sports pro womens’ performance is achievable by trained amateur males, which is why there is controversy around biological males competing as women
The men's time for a standard marathon is 2:01, vs 2:15 for women. While I wouldn't be surprised if most a lot of amateur men could get to ~3:00 with a lot of work, 2:15 is extremely fast.
Women have less strength, for endurance they're close (if not better):
I'm genuinely undecided as to whether that's a good thing or not.
Or why do I think that's the most plausible explanation for an unlikely event?