Ultramarathon Daily News | Tuesday, May 29

Justin/IRF disabled spellcheck and runs down the top trail and ultramarathon results from this weekend. Tip of the hat to Justin for some pretty challenging spelling/names!

Leslie takes the first proverbial step and admits that she’s injured. I’ve certainly been in her position…pushing off the pains and niggles until your body revolts and let’s you know that in no uncertain terms that YOU NEED TO HEAL UP.

ultramarathon training trail — When you live at sea level, levee access roads are “hills.”

Stephanie writes about the differences in registration rates for men and women in ultramarathon distance events. I disagree with much of her article, but appreciate her measured and respectful responses in other forums. This is a tough one because I know that she and I are looking at this through vastly different lenses. She’s a human rights attorney focusing on girls sports in a country where females civil rights are severely limited, if non-existent. I’m seeing the issue from progressive Northern California in a culture where there are literally more running opportunities/programs for girls than there are for boys. I suspect many Daily News readers and runners are somewhere in the middle.

Sarah has made good arguments for the mathematical problems of certain lotteries and Stephanie mentions those issues in her post. They have good points about those specific events and the challenge of “breaking into” veteran lottery status, which will allow more female representation. Without digging too deep into the lottery rules, I get that.

However, road racing gender participation over the years show a pretty good split (56/44), so I’m not sure how the idea that women are socially engineered to stay away from running makes sense. While most females in my family and group of friends like to get dirty and run trails and ultramarathons, more seem to want to stick to the roads. And that’s fine.

Encouraging more girls to run–specifically trails and ultras–is something we should all be doing, but trying to force an outcome by compelling inclusion through contrived participation will not create actual equity, only the false illusion of it.

I’m sure you have some thoughts and like Stephanie, I’d love to hear them and consider what I’m missing. Weigh in below.

The importance of back strength for runners.

Speaking of that, here’s the ultramathon runner’s guide to stretching.

Provocative: Everything you know about running shoes is wrong.

Last time I was in Corfu (early 20s), I spent my time riding a motorcycle around and doing peyote with a Greek Shepard for four days. If I were to go back, I’d probably hit the trails and get some beautiful miles in like Tom did.

Mario covers many of the highlights from the Prefontaine Classic and probably a lot more, but I’m not reading it. I recorded the meet and will be watching later tonight and don’t want any spoilers.

Science: Why “easy” and “hard” days make a difference in your workouts.

I first had a gruit ale at Sonoma Springs Brewery a few years ago and haven’t been able to find one since. Nice to see they’re making a comeback now that I’ve stopped drinking. /sarcasm

More science: Why 15 minutes of running really does improves kids’ lives. I coach a before-school running program each Friday for my kids’ elementary school and hear consistent messages from the teachers: Yeah, the students come in a bit more energized (and dirty…), but then are able to focus and sit still better after their runs. Helps prevent the massive change in the BMI scale as they move up in grades, too.

14 Responses to "Ultramarathon Daily News | Tuesday, May 29"

Bruce Cyra says:

May 29, 2018 at 10:23 am

I am not a sociologist, so I will not comment on the “why”, but up here at our relatively small trail runs, we are at 60/40 male/female ratio for the 50k, and the opposite for the 10 mile – 40/60 male/female. There are no barriers to entry, but this ratio holds up just about every year. Our 50k has 20% ultra newbies, and only one quarter of those are female – portending an even smaller female ratio in the years to come.

Reply
Charle Anne says:

May 29, 2018 at 10:44 am

I do agree that not as many women are interested and/or participating in ultramarathons, you can see that in the results. However, I’m not sure the argument that ‘we don’t all have the same opportunities to get to the start line’ is a good one, with the focus seeming to be on lotteries. There are a lot of ultramarathons out there, with more being created every year. And only a small percentage of those have lotteries to get in. Most you can just sign up for, female or male. This op-ed seems to focus on the need to get more women into the “big” races with lotteries. I think if you start tinkering with lotteries in order to allow more women entry, you’re likely to cause unnecessary animosity. I know men that have been applying for WS for years and haven’t gotten in. I don’t think we should give women a higher chance of getting selected just because not many women choose to run ultramarathons.

Reply
scott says:

May 29, 2018 at 10:51 am

Re: Stephanie Case
If female participation isn’t representative of the ballots in a lottery, something should be done immediately. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand someone suggesting someone should be rewarded for finding their way into a hobby.

Reply
Wilk says:

May 29, 2018 at 12:02 pm

“Encouraging more girls to run–specifically trails and ultras–is something we should all be doing, but trying to force an outcome by compelling inclusion through contrived participation will not create actual equity, only the false illusion of it.”

That quote pretty much nails it. Unless I’m naive every runner, regardless of gender, has the same chances of getting into say WS or HR via their lotteries. We should definitely be encouraging women to take up the sport, but giving them an advantage or weighted entry into lotteries is not an acceptable solution in the name of equality.

Reply
1. scott says:
  
  May 29, 2018 at 1:00 pm
  
  “every runner, regardless of gender, has the same chances of getting into say WS or HR via their lotteries. ”
  
  HR actually does circumstantially favor men since they have a veterans lottery which is predominantly men.
  
  Reply
  1. nasmorn says:
    
    May 30, 2018 at 3:48 am
    
    The Spartathlon discriminates pretty heavily based on time because they want to close their checkpoints. The women have a bit laxer requirements for some distances but overall they need to run at a higher level than a man to get in. There is zero accommodation for older runners. If you are German, Greek or Japanese you face a much harsher lottery.
    
    On the other hand the most selective event of all, the Olympics is a tiny bit easier to get into for the individual woman who only needs to have a 93.58% of WR instead of mens 94.04% (5k example).
    
    A bit more US centric, getting into the Olympic trials marathon is worlds easier for women who only need a 2:37 while men need a 2:15. That is a full 6% points closer to the WR than for men.
    
    Reply
Valerie Long says:

May 29, 2018 at 12:32 pm

I just want to comment on your point that road racing sees a higher number of women partcipants, in response to Stephanie’s article. That one seems easy. Trail races usually involve more miles than road racing which makes it more difficult for women to take the extra training time if they are raising a family. Also, road running is likely more safe as opposed to running out on remote trails and women need to be more vigilant about their safety.
Valerie

Reply
1. scott says:
  
  May 29, 2018 at 12:58 pm
  
  Both of those points are actually in the article and are used as examples of opportunities taken away from women and why RDs should give women more opportunities with lottery races.
  
  Reply
Paul S says:

May 29, 2018 at 1:48 pm

Interesting discussion. I have a couple points to add.

1) Plenty of hobbies have uneven participation rates between men and women. Quilting, car restoration, scrap booking, home brewing. it’s easy to think of dozens of others. This makes sense because men and women are different and have different interests. I don’t see anything bad or wrong that men happen to participate in ultrarunning in greater numbers than women.

2) Looking at the 2018 WS entry list I see that runners over 50 are under represented, yet I don’t see anyone call for extra lottery tickets for the over 50 crowd. I think the reason the over 50 group is under represented is obvious, the older one gets the harder it becomes to complete a tough 100 mile race like WS so it is completely expected that fewer runners over 50 enter the race. If you believe the age-grading tables a woman in her prime running 100 miles in a particular time is about the equivalent performance of a man around 50 running the same time. As long as the qualifying races and cut-off times are the same for men and women, I think it will always be the case that more men than women participate.

One final point, one could reasonably argue that the elite entries for men and women into WS are more favorable to women. Men must finish higher, percentage wise, both to get a top 10 automatic return, or a Golden Ticket.

Reply
Nick says:

May 29, 2018 at 6:53 pm

If you have a lottery that enforces 50/50 participation, and the pool of male entrants is greater than 50%, it penalizes men’s chances of entry purely by virtue of them being men. I actually cannot imagine someone seriously arguing for it.

I am all for equal opportunity. It maximizes our ability to discover talent and elevate the human condition. I think it’s the ideal to which we should hold all of our institutions. Equal outcomes? Solzhenitsyn said it best: “if they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

Reply
pogo69 [Pat Janes] says:

May 29, 2018 at 8:58 pm

Almost every comment here regarding (the lack of) gender diversity in ultra trail running, is indicative of why slow progress is made in ALL areas of diversity inequities in society.

** Status quo biases **
To the entitled, equality feels like oppression.

Equality means a loss to those in privilege. To wit, someone has to give something up.

** A complete misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of what it means to lack opportunity **
It is not that women are unable to enter UTMB, HR, etc. It is that the overwhelming burden of responsibility for keeping the wheels of domestic life running, falls to women. This reduces the “opportunity” for an overwhelming majority of women to effectively train for such events. Those so affected are not even making it to the “entry line”, much less the “start line”.

Stephanie’s article very eloquently makes this clear, but respondents are conveniently ignoring it.

Reply
1. Pat says:
  
  May 30, 2018 at 7:09 am
  
  The arguments supporting Stephanie, Koop, etc are just absurd to me. So how should I be treated as a stay at home Dad who keeps the “wheels of domestic life spinning”? Should I be given an advantage in the lottery too? Where does it end? I run more miles in the morning or at night with a head lamp on than with natural lighting. There is plenty of time during the day to do the work if somebody wants to. Do the work, enter the gender blind lottery and live with the results.
  
  In the case of Hard Rock, this is a private organization who established lottery rules to create continuity, community and family. Some of the many reasons so many people want to run in it. Who are we to tell them how to run their event? Again, enter the gender blind first timer lottery and get on with it.
  
  Reply
  1. wilk5280 says:
    
    May 30, 2018 at 8:35 am
    
    Right on, Pat. I’m just not buying what a lot of people are selling right now. We live in a society where it’s never been better to be a women. There are more successful business women, executives, CEO’s, Presidents, you name it and that’s great!
    
    “It is not that women are unable to enter UTMB, HR, etc. It is that the overwhelming burden of responsibility for keeping the wheels of domestic life running, falls to women.”
    
    That quote above makes absolutely no sense to me. My apologies, but I just don’t get it. Are we living in the 1960’s here? I say let that pendulum swing, just don’t let it swing too far.
    
    As a husband of over 25 years to a successful business women and the father to a beautiful daughter I am all in on equality for women, believe me. Giving preferential treatment because less women sign up in the first place doesn’t sound like equality to me. If we want to talk about the real issue, let’s talk about how we get more women into the sport.
    
    Reply
nasmorn says:

May 30, 2018 at 2:45 am

In my country Austria you can see even in road races that women are way less competitive. To participate in the national championship (as in being allowed to even start) you need 15:45 for 5K as a man but only 20:00 as a woman (that compares at 81% vs 72% of WR). The reason is that there are simply not as many women interested in competing even at this level. There is a cream of very competitive women since they obviously set the records and win the races but there is just not as deep a field of semi elites pouring their lives into being 8th best Austrian 5k runner of 2018. The overall win seems to motivate women quite a bit too but the Golden Flowerpot as we call it here doesn’t seem to hold the same allure.

In my opinion the women that do enter these races be it Hardrock or the Austrian 5k national championship have much more in common with their male competitors than with the 99% of women (and of course also the 98% of men) that would never even consider it. We cannot forget that our silly sport appeals to only the tiniest slivers of the population as a whole and I am not so certain we should favour a sliver of that based on chromosome distribution.

The sport as a whole seems pretty open and meritocratic to me. I have heard interviews of gays and lesbians here, Afro Americans, people dealing with severe mental health issues and probably other societally disadvantaged groups I forgot to mention. They all seem to be doing fine in our community and that is certainly something to celebrate. Each of these groups can probably make a pretty convincing case that they are not given equal opportunity to get to starting line, just as Stephanie has so correctly argued for. I can accept that my position of privilege makes me a bit unqualified to speak on this but it is interesting to me on what basis gender is the primary lens through which to see the runner, especially given the current realisations of cases like Caster Semenya or the whole non binary gender identification movement (I realise it was a thing before the current movement too but no-one cared) that shows it is not as well defined as some would like.

Personally I can only promise to support my daughters and wife at their athletic pursuits and not throw a hissy fit if I don’t qualify for some race because a woman got more lottery tickets than me. But just remember nothing is ever simple and Caitlyn Jenner might come and steal all the female age group records with those easy to get lottery entries.

Reply

Please use real name. Anonymous comments will be deleted. Thanks. Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.