Competitive Jerks Racing and Training - 2023 (Read 572 times)

Running Problem


Problem Child

     

    I'm quite familiar with Courtney The Long Shorts.

     

    I too, am of the Long Shorts.

    Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.

    VDOT 53.37 

    5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22

    Mikkey


    Mmmm Bop

      I am pretty proud of myself; after only ever running in 9-inch shorts, I finally bought some 7-inchers a couple months ago.

       

      I remember a family member once giving me a pair of “tempo” 5 inch shorts for Christmas.  It was one of those occasions when you have to pretend to really liking a present, but inside you are absolutely squirming.

      5k - 17:53 (4/19)   10k - 37:53 (11/18)   Half - 1:23:18 (4/19)   Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)

      darkwave


      Mother of Cats

        A question for the ladies…are you ok with a trans athlete winning the 1500m event in the 50-54 category in Canada…a year after breaking the 5000m 45-49 AG record in 18:02.  Is that acceptable?

         

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11799445/Trans-athlete-WINS-womens-1-500m-event-Canada.html

         

         

        I'm really late here, since it's taken me a while to compose my thoughts (and work has been busy).  The answer to your immediate question is "it depends."  Here's a brain dump of my thoughts in bullet points. 

        • The transgender athlete issue, the inter-sex athlete issue, the women's v. men's BQ standards issue, and the women's v. men's OTQ standards issue, are all different aspects of one big issue - what is the performance differential between men and women in competitive running, and how should the rules of competition reflect that differential?

        • I think many of our assumptions and rules in sports are grounded in the assumption that gender and physiological sex are the same thing, that gender/sex is binary - either M or F, and that it is easy to define M versus F.  We have learned in the last 50 years, and especially in the last 10 years, that it is much more complicated than that.

        • Gender and sex are different.  Gender is a matter of identity, and is a continuum, with many of us falling close to one pole or the other, but a large group also falling somewhere in between.  Sex is a matter of physiology, including chromosomes, hormone levels, and genitalia, among other things.  There is more clustering at the poles of M and F, physiology-wise, but still a small number of people who fall somewhere in the middle.

        • In sports, we usually split competition into groups based on physiological characteristics, and occasionally based on identity.  Age groups and weight classifications are examples of splitting competition by physiology; restricting competition to citizens of a certain county or region  (e.g.,. "top American" or "European championships") is an example of splitting competition by identity.

        • So do we divide sports based on identity or physiology? We do it primarily by physiology - e.g., by age or by weight. We also sometimes do it by identity ("top American") but that is secondary. And when we divide sports by physiology, we do it to ensure that groups that would otherwise be at a disadvantage because of physiology (age, weight, etc) get a chance to shine.

        • This raises the question - when we have a women's category in running, is that category a physiological category or an identity category? I believe that it is a physiological category, intended to acknowledge the roughly 10% difference in performance between men and women that we see at all distances and all age groups. We know that the 10% difference exists - we have a massive sample of all of the running performances over the last 40+ years of history in all distances to show it.

        • So if eligibility for the women's category is based on physiology (sex) and not identity (gender), then who qualifies as a woman (sex-wise) to compete? This is a surprisingly hard question to answer, and comes down to "what is it exactly that gives physiological men their 10% advantage." This question is also sport-specific. Men are generally taller than women, and this height can be an advantage in swimming, but a disadvantage in running.

        • Looking at running specifically, the research I've read indicates that testosterone levels are a surprisingly good proxy for sex-related differences in performance in running. Men who transition to women and meet the World Athletics standards for testosterone have the same level age graded level of performance as they did pre-transition.

        • For me, this is good enough to say that any person who meets the WA testosterone standards for competing as a woman should be allowed to compete in that division.  We're never going to get this perfect - we have to shoot for good enough - prioritizing fairness of competition but also keeping an eye on inclusion.

        • Of course, the kicker here is that not all competitive organizations enforce the WA testosterone standards. Until recently, the US's NCAA (collegiate athletics) had the looser standard of having taken hormonal therapy, with no guidance on the level of testosterone to be met and maintained. That's why you had transgender women athletes competing in the NCAA who were not eligible to compete as pro women. They had taken hormone therapy. They just hadn't taken enough. I don't think that's OK. There needs to be a clear standard to be met.

        • In this specific case, if this woman has indeed met the WA testosterone standard, then she's fairly competing. Those are very good times, but not impossible. And not even as improbable as the performances of Caster Semenya in the 800. I note the greater bulk that she has over the other women in a photo in the article, but I suspect that bulk was a disadvantage, not an assist.

        Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.

         

        And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.

        need2tri


          .

          • So if eligibility for the women's category is based on physiology (sex) and not identity (gender), then who qualifies as a woman (sex-wise) to compete? This is a surprisingly hard question to answer, and comes down to "what is it exactly that gives physiological men their 10% advantage." This question is also sport-specific. Men are generally taller than women, and this height can be an advantage in swimming, but a disadvantage in running.

          • Looking at running specifically, the research I've read indicates that testosterone levels are a surprisingly good proxy for sex-related differences in performance in running. Men who transition to women and meet the World Athletics standards for testosterone have the same level age graded level of performance as they did pre-transition.

          DW how about the impact of going through puberty as a male or family and it's lasting impact in overall pysiolology including bone structure/shape, larger lungs and heart ( better vo2 max), more muscle than fat, less overall hemoglobin.... Also training and laying the foundation through all this advantage has an additional listing impact. A testosterone treatment after puberty is not going to erase all these advantages. So, some studies point out that looking at purely testosterone level in a vacuum at a single given time/period doesn't tell the whole story.

          wcrunner2


          Are we there, yet?

            Looking at running specifically, the research I've read indicates that testosterone levels are a surprisingly good proxy for sex-related differences in performance in running. Men who transition to women and meet the World Athletics standards for testosterone have the same level age graded level of performance as they did pre-transition.

             

            Could you provide your reference?  I find this hard to believe because of at least two instances I've read:
            1) A 400mH runner who was ranked somewhere in the 200-400 range before transition, but was winning championships after
            2) The recent W50-55 Canadian who ran an 18:07 5K which is a 91% age-graded performance and I think was accepted as a Canadian record.

             2024 Races:

                  03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles

                  05/11 - D3 50K
                  05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour

                  06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.

             

             

                 

            flavio80


            Intl. correspondent

              RP - Looking Thick, Solid, Tight!

              No wonder you couldn't break 18, look at those shorts! Sub 18 in speedos for sure 😎

               

              me -

              My wife told me I'm doing too much elevation on my runs due to this obsession with CityStrides. She's right, of course.

              I gotta back out for a few days.

              We do behave like addicts sometimes, don't we? CityStrides is down this morning and I'm feeling withdrawal symptoms cause I can't see it up to date with today's run 🤦‍♂️

              PRs: 1500 4:54.1 2019 - 5K 17:53 2023 - 10K 37:55 2023 - HM 1:21:59 2021

              Up next: no idea

              Tool to generate Strava weekly

              flavio80


              Intl. correspondent

                DW - good points. I find that whichever rule gets applied, it will be trying to find the least worse option, as is often the case with complex issues.
                I'd like to point out that, however much I am against the status quo of allowing Lia Thomas to compete with women, this has little to no impact on me personally other than maybe my enjoyment of watching the 800's and shorter races at worlds or olympics. And to be honest after the latest CAS ruling which blocked Semenya from the 800's, not even that.

                You and DK, however, are the people directly impacted by this as it is you who could be losing a podium, an age group award, sub-elite entry discount, etc due to competition from them. And if you do not feel outraged by it, then it'd be silly if were to get offended/outraged for you.

                PRs: 1500 4:54.1 2019 - 5K 17:53 2023 - 10K 37:55 2023 - HM 1:21:59 2021

                Up next: no idea

                Tool to generate Strava weekly

                Running Problem


                Problem Child

                  flavio I've considered upgrading my phone for the sole purpose of seeing what streets I've covered instantly after a run. My phone seems to take forever, and maybe I should update the software. I'm on iOS (yes I have apple products) 15 and the current version is 16. I'm pessemistic on the upgrade changing anything for two reasons. first, I'd previously done an update and it killed support for an old app (the app also never kept up with the times. I still blame apple for making whatever change they made). Lastly, rumors/folklore/internet stories of older phones being made to work SLOWER with updated operating system versions.

                   

                  dave 7 inch short? This isn't a private beach you know. Might I suggest some additional sunscreen.....oh wait the PNW doesn't get any sun. 

                  Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.

                  VDOT 53.37 

                  5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22

                  CommanderKeen


                  Cobra Commander Keen

                     

                    I too, am of the Long Shorts.

                     

                    Insert "the problem with mountains, is that they are full of mountain runners" joke here.

                    5k: 17:58 11/22 │ 10k: 37:55 9/21 │ HM: 1:23:22 4/22 │ M: 2:56:05 12/22

                     

                    Upcoming Races:

                     

                     

                    darkwave


                    Mother of Cats

                       

                      Could you provide your reference?  I find this hard to believe because of at least two instances I've read:
                      1) A 400mH runner who was ranked somewhere in the 200-400 range before transition, but was winning championships after
                      2) The recent W50-55 Canadian who ran an 18:07 5K which is a 91% age-graded performance and I think was accepted as a Canadian record.

                       

                      Dr. Joanna Harper has done much of the work here.  Here's the reference I was specifically thinking of: Race Times for Transgender Athletes (cgscholar.com)  [and yes, the sample size is very small here, but that's always going to be an issue in studying this subject]

                       

                      More recently, Dr. Harper has done research showing that the increased strength that cis-male athletes retain lean muscle mass and strength above their cis-female counterparts after transitioning, but hemoglobin levels fall to cis-female levels. (How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation | British Journal of Sports Medicine (bmj.com)). 

                      To me, this illustrates how you have to have different standards for different sports.  In distance running, it is really hemoglobin that drives performance - the ability of blood to deliver oxygen (this is why EPO is so darn effective).  Strength and muscle mass is really not that important for distance running, though it's crucial to powerlifting.

                      The 400mH runner that you are referring to is Cece Telfer - correct?  She was an example of someone who met the NCAA's then very loose standards for "transition" but did not meet the stricter testosterone limits of World Athletics (CeCe Telfer: Transgender woman ruled ineligible to run in US Olympic Trials | CNN).  So she doesn't contradict my point at all - she's an example of someone who retained an advantage because they did not lower their testosterone levels to the required 5 nanomoles per L, and thus retained an advantage.  (there's also the point that sprinting is a bit different from distance running, which is my primary focus).

                       

                      As for the Canadian woman - since she didn't race pre-transition, we just don't know what her performances would have been pre-transition.  91% AG is obviously very high, but not impossible or even improbable.   There's simply not enough information here to draw any conclusion.   So my stance with her is that, assuming that she was complying with the World Athletics requirements for competing as a women, is that she's legit.

                      Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.

                       

                      And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.

                      darkwave


                      Mother of Cats

                        .

                        DW how about the impact of going through puberty as a male or family and it's lasting impact in overall pysiolology including bone structure/shape, larger lungs and heart ( better vo2 max), more muscle than fat, less overall hemoglobin.... Also training and laying the foundation through all this advantage has an additional listing impact. A testosterone treatment after puberty is not going to erase all these advantages. So, some studies point out that looking at purely testosterone level in a vacuum at a single given time/period doesn't tell the whole story.

                         

                        I'm not focused on overall physiology, but on distance-running specific physiology.    My understanding is that VO2Max is really driven by the blood's oxygen-carrying ability, and not lung or heart size.   And hemoglobin/hematocrit levels adjust to female levels when an individual transitions from male to female, assuming enough reduction in testosterone and sufficient passage of time.

                         

                        The muscle vs fat difference goes away with transition.  It's anecdotal, but based on the experience of my few female transgender friends...transgender women really struggle with body fat levels, since they aren't used to how much easier it is to gain and retain body fat, once you've got those pesky female hormone levels.

                         

                        Sure, height, strength developed as a kid, stronger bones - all of that may linger, but that's not all that relevant to distance running.  It may be more relevant to other sports, and mean that transgender woment can never be eligible to compete in the women's division of those sports (powerlifting might be the classic example here).

                         

                        Again, I think the criteria for eligibility to compete in the women's division needs to be sport-specific.

                        Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.

                         

                        And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.

                        wcrunner2


                        Are we there, yet?

                          DW: Thanks for that detailed explanation. I'm somewhat familiar with Dr. Harper's work, more through other people referring to it than reading her actual studies.  I've definitely seen differences between events, though I'm somewhat perplexed that World Athletics doesn't extend the criteria down to the sprints, since that's where I would expect testosterone to have the largest influence.

                           2024 Races:

                                03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles

                                05/11 - D3 50K
                                05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour

                                06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.

                           

                           

                               

                          JoshWolf


                          Part of TLC

                             

                            Could you provide your reference?  I find this hard to believe because of at least two instances I've read:
                            1) A 400mH runner who was ranked somewhere in the 200-400 range before transition, but was winning championships after
                            2) The recent W50-55 Canadian who ran an 18:07 5K which is a 91% age-graded performance and I think was accepted as a Canadian record.

                            I think you're referencing Tiffany Newell here, who ran an 18:02,30 to set a new Canadian indoor AG record for the 45-49 bracket at the age of 49. That's faster than I ever was, but still not that fast. It age-grades to around 86% (using the calculator from runbundle which doesn't take into account that times indoors are usually a tad slower than outdoors). The Canadian outdoor AG record for the 45-49 bracket stands at 16:51, set by Marylin Arsenault at the age of 47 - age-grading to around 92%, so there is room for improvement. You have to take age-grading with a grain of salt anyway: The German AG record for the W60-64 bracket stands at 17:59,xx, age-grading to 100,5% .

                             

                            About the notion that in distance running it's hemoglobin that drives performance and thus lean muscle mass and strength gained over many years, in Newell's case several decades, don't play a decisive role?  I'm not sure. Why then is it consensus that distance runners should strength train, too? There seems to be an advantage there ...

                             

                            Sorry for chiming in without invitation .

                            Don't hurry - next AG will start 2026

                            JoshWolf


                            Part of TLC

                              I'm somewhat perplexed that World Athletics doesn't extend the criteria down to the sprints, since that's where I would expect testosterone to have the largest influence.

                              +1

                              Don't hurry - next AG will start 2026

                              Running Problem


                              Problem Child

                                wcrunner thanks for the link to the race reports. I just finished the 6 day one. He must have been some type of elite in the sport if he was trying to get the record, and had as much planned out. He mentioned his crew involving a western states finisher which is awesome, but I don't know who it was. I don't know the winners of THAT race either.

                                Oh and I was thinking about you running with a timex yesterday. RB of mine is 'following hansons" and claimed he needed a newer GPS watch "because hansons uses miles for training." I told him to run for 15 minutes at a hard pace and he kept going back to "well it has to be a specific pace, and it has to be miles." I'm not sure how you trained for a marathon. The same person who previously mapped out runs and tracked the time it took to finish them.

                                 

                                I pulled out MY bible, and it turns out Hansons pretty much says if you're going to do a race while training for a marathon to ditch the Thursday workout, pick which one you WANT to do on Tuesday, and get back to it the following week depending on race distance.

                                 

                                I went out and HAMMERED Tuesday's run. The workout was 2x3 m at 6:30 (just below lactate threshold) pace. I had too much to do AFTER work, combined with 20 mph winds, and decided to do SOMETHING during lunch. I started out running easy and thought "hmm... feels like 7:10/mi pace" which turned out to be 6:55/mi pace. I decided, from previously running this route as part of marathon training, I could do a 2x3 mile at lactate effort/heart rate. It would have the bonus of including long hard runs up some longer hills so I could get a TASTE of how hard this feels. So I cut the warm up short (6:55/mi was the warm up) and went for the first 3 mile, knowing the second would be downhill. The hills killed me. I had to back off about 20 seconds from pace (10 seconds from goal marathon pace) to maintain the same effort. After doing some math on the first one I decided to just get 6 straight miles of "cruise interval/workout" pace because of time and "I'm already here" mentality and because I was going to stick with the heart rate/feel for the run since it's flat/downhill. The hard parts were the longer uphills and they're mostly gradual. I had to back off 10 seconds per mile for both of them, and it had me concerned about Newton Hills on race day. To a point I looked up segments on Strava and saw some 10% climbs (short, but steep) and mostly 4% climbs. It put into perspective the saying "if you don't have it at Newton your day is done" and I had to remember I'd PR'd the 5k just two days before and was now running 6:40/mi pace or faster. It had an added bonus of having me run DOWNhill at race pace/effort and seeing 6:15 put THAT into perspective for race day. I'm sure the "benefit" of the workout was something in the "threshold" world because I held the pace/effort for 7 miles. Oh and my shoe came untied a little before mile 7 which was an easy "just don't step on the laces" because NO WAY was I picking this pace back up after stopping to tie a shoe.

                                My stomach hurt WAY worse for this workout than the 5k. I was actually thinking on a hard downhill run "isn't THIS what a 5k is supposed to feel like."  The Daniels Tables spreadsheet says a 45 minute tempo run should be 6:35/mi. Splits were 7:44, 6:33, 6:37 (3% grade uphill to downhill), 6:41 (downhill to 2-3% uphill), 6:29 (final uphill to long downhill where the stomach hurt), 6:34 (flat to the finish), 6:31, 6:29. So nothing SUPER steep, and I'm sure effort has something to do with it. I was glad I did the workout, I think I achieved the PURPOSE of the workout while possibly doing too much at effort, and I'm kind of looking for some type of feedback. I had to remind myself I won't be running boston 2 days after a PR.

                                Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.

                                VDOT 53.37 

                                5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22