Printable View
Well there are lots of reasons why in theory - but what I suggest is that one first identifies some robust data, and not just anecdotes or freak results, and then develops an explanation if one is necessary and don't generalise from the particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by ba-ba
But you will know that:)
This recent paper (abstract) from Feb 2023 uses a large data set to conclude
‘... that the gap between men and women shrinks when trail running distance increases, which demonstrates that endurance is greater in women. Although women narrow the performance gap with men as race distance increases, top male performers still outperform the top women.’
‘Running Endurance in Women Compared to Men: Retrospective Analysis of Matched Real-World Big Data’
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...World_Big_Data
Other recent papers of interest:
‘Sex Differences in VO2max and the Impact on Endurance-Exercise Performance’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105160/
‘Expanding the Gap: An Updated Look Into Sex Differences in Running Performance’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8764368/
Do Sex Differences in Physiology Confer a Female Advantage in Ultra-Endurance Sport?
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ndurance_Sport
Good. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feet In The Cloughs
There was an interesting discussion on this in the "ScienceOfSport" podcast.
According to Prof Tucker, the fastest male at any given distance will always be faster than the fastest woman at that same distance.
The interesting part is that he also says, "it depends who your comparing against". If you pick a male and female who are matched at the half-marathon distance. The female will probably be the faster of the two over marathon, while the male will probably be the faster of the two over 10k.
It's at about 1h20min in this episode:
Science of sport podcast, series.5 ep.19
Yes. It is "interesting" but Tucker admits it depends how you do the matching. The Comrades is a bit special and if a man and woman can complete a marathon distance in 3 hours clearly the woman is relatively a "better" runner than the man and arguably should beat the man at the Comrades over full distance - she is just "better".Quote:
Originally Posted by PiesAreGood
Presumably analysis could be made on the comparative male/ female "splits" of elite runners in say the London Marathon where conditions - nice flat tarmac - are comparable.
I can't believe these words have emanated from your keyboard :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Writing as a sub-3 hours marathon runner - everything is context.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I think that is pretty much what he was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
The best male marathoner will be faster than the best female marathoner.
The best male comrades-er will be faster than the best female comrades-er.
etc etc for other distances.
His slight nuance, was that if a particular male and female (pair) were matched at a distance. The female (of the pair) would probably be faster at longer distances but the male (of the pair) would probably be faster at shorter distances.
If that were true, it would seem to suggest that the gap between men and women would narrow as distances become longer. But that's not true:Quote:
Originally Posted by PiesAreGood
https://zigapskraba.com/2016/09/15/w...n-track-field/
Women's records are almost always about 10% slower than mens, across all distances: 100m to marathon. Which surprised me.
Tim Noakes in "Lore of Running" makes the same point - that women's performances do not approach those of men as the distance increases - the roughly 10% gap persists until the data becomes anecdotal.