8 ms·

From what I've observed running those ultras are just as much of a mental task as they are physical. Granted you need to be in extreme physical shape to do one

From what I've observed running those ultras are just as much of a mental task as they are physical. Granted you need to be in extreme physical shape to do one of these. I feel that if you were to take a bunch of people that are physically capable and enter them, those with the mental fortitude are going to be the ones coming out on top and/or finishing. I am wondering if this is part of the reason why women are able to compete just as well as men on equal footing.

raverbashing 7y ago
Definitely 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.
ordinaryperson 7y ago
Nothing against women but they are not able to "compete just as well as men on equal footing" in ultras. Her time of 3:58 is more than an hour behind the men's record, suggesting the men's competition at this race was not strong. 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.
- steve_gh 7y ago
  Sierre Zinal is a pretty short race - it's only 31km. Serious ultra runners run a variety of distances, including the very long ones such as the UTMB (160km) and the Tor des Geants (340km). 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! Steve (edit: spelling)
  - arethuza 7y ago
    A BBC article about Paris: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46906365 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-4... "Mrs Paris did the race during a week-long break from writing her PhD thesis"
    - ourmandave 7y ago
      I'd love to see her reaction to a naive reporter asking, "Congrats on your record finish. So, are you going to be taking some vacation before your next race?"
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  > Whether long or short races, women cannot physically compete with men. [Citation really seriously needed] Edit Haha, love the downvotes for asking for evidence for an unsubstantiated claim.
  - tux1968 7y ago
    The fact that there is a separate trophy which only women compete for, is a pretty good indicator that its generally true. Why else would a female trophy exist?
    - EdwardDiego 7y ago
      Historical preponderance of male competitors is an easy explanation off the top of my head. For an obvious example, Katherine Switzer, who entered the Boston Marathon in 1967 and got chased down for gasp being a woman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGXvBAmTsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGXvBAmTsY
      - tux1968 7y ago
        Organized races in America were predominantly white in the early days and yet when other ethnicities started to join (in small numbers at first) no special trophy was needed. They were able to compete immediately for the overall trophy just like all the other men. Historical exclusion from competition doesn't make sense as a reason for modern under performance.
        EdwardDiego 7y ago
        Did you watch the video I linked about how women were explicitly discouraged/banned from entering long-distance running? The now infamous image is from 1967.
        tux1968 7y ago
        How is that the least bit relevant? I'm not arguing about the quantity of female victors historically (which obviously is affected by their unfortunate exclusion) 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.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  I wonder how long that will last, when people chemically "optimize" their bodies for winning. At some point, wouldn't the genetic advantage men have be lost among the testosterone supplements?
  - joncrane 7y ago
    Men can take the same testosterone supplements as women, so men will continue to win this arms race. 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.
  - username90 7y ago
    A healthy woman have 10 percentage points more body fat than an equally healthy man, and it isn't not available energy since the body will go into starvation mode as she gets close to 10% body fat. 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.

raverbashing 7y ago

Definitely 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.

ordinaryperson 7y ago

Nothing against women but they are not able to "compete just as well as men on equal footing" in ultras. Her time of 3:58 is more than an hour behind the men's record, suggesting the men's competition at this race was not strong. 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.

steve_gh 7y ago
Sierre Zinal is a pretty short race - it's only 31km. Serious ultra runners run a variety of distances, including the very long ones such as the UTMB (160km) and the Tor des Geants (340km). 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! Steve (edit: spelling)
- arethuza 7y ago
  A BBC article about Paris: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46906365 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-4... "Mrs Paris did the race during a week-long break from writing her PhD thesis"
  - ourmandave 7y ago
    I'd love to see her reaction to a naive reporter asking, "Congrats on your record finish. So, are you going to be taking some vacation before your next race?"
EdwardDiego 7y ago
> Whether long or short races, women cannot physically compete with men. [Citation really seriously needed] Edit Haha, love the downvotes for asking for evidence for an unsubstantiated claim.
- tux1968 7y ago
  The fact that there is a separate trophy which only women compete for, is a pretty good indicator that its generally true. Why else would a female trophy exist?
  - EdwardDiego 7y ago
    Historical preponderance of male competitors is an easy explanation off the top of my head. For an obvious example, Katherine Switzer, who entered the Boston Marathon in 1967 and got chased down for gasp being a woman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGXvBAmTsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGXvBAmTsY
    - tux1968 7y ago
      Organized races in America were predominantly white in the early days and yet when other ethnicities started to join (in small numbers at first) no special trophy was needed. They were able to compete immediately for the overall trophy just like all the other men. Historical exclusion from competition doesn't make sense as a reason for modern under performance.
      - EdwardDiego 7y ago
        Did you watch the video I linked about how women were explicitly discouraged/banned from entering long-distance running? The now infamous image is from 1967.
        tux1968 7y ago
        How is that the least bit relevant? I'm not arguing about the quantity of female victors historically (which obviously is affected by their unfortunate exclusion) 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.
StavrosK 7y ago
I wonder how long that will last, when people chemically "optimize" their bodies for winning. At some point, wouldn't the genetic advantage men have be lost among the testosterone supplements?
- joncrane 7y ago
  Men can take the same testosterone supplements as women, so men will continue to win this arms race. 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.
- username90 7y ago
  A healthy woman have 10 percentage points more body fat than an equally healthy man, and it isn't not available energy since the body will go into starvation mode as she gets close to 10% body fat. 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.