OT:Mom becomes fastest American woman to run a marathon

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by marciero

I dont get the mom thing- "mom does this", "mom does that". Not only is it irrelevant-esp in the context of elite athletes, but it perpetuates a stereotype.

On the contrary, her achievement deserves even more respect.

Have you raised a family? While being a world class athlete?

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

On the contrary, her achievement deserves even more respect.

Have you raised a family? While being a world class athlete?

If you're suggesting that his opinion is invalid because he's not a world class athlete with children, then so is yours.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

If you're suggesting that his opinion is invalid because he's not a world class athlete with children, then so is yours.

All opinions are valid.

Just trying to understand the thinking. If he has not raised a family, I am not interested in why he made such a stupid comment.....see that is called an opinion.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

She may have still won, but she beat the pre-hypershoe era record by 24 seconds, which is 0.28%. The benefits of teh shoes have been obviously highly scrutinized, and statistical analysis of marathon results have estimated the benefit around 4-5%.

.

AND with anything involving a person doing anything, when 'some' claim the "4-5%", it assumes 'all things being equal", and with people, it never is.
Kinda like a bike in the wind tunnel..'it'll be this or that, blah, faster"..then put a person on it..and oops, it isn't.

And for this-

I dont get the mom thing- "mom does this", "mom does that". Not only is it irrelevant-esp in the context of elite athletes, but it perpetuates a stereotype.

I don't think you realize how having children wrecks a woman's body...plus the lady was 37yo..that is more amazing than having kids, IMHO.

My 'peak' when running marathons was in 1984..Maine Coast Marathon..I was 33..and down hill, time wise, every other 'race' I ran after that. I realized I was never gonna qualify for Boston either..but got injured and quit anyway..1985..

[marciero]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

All opinions are valid.

Just trying to understand the thinking. If he has not raised a family, I am not interested in why he made such a stupid comment.....see that is called an opinion.

Whether motherhood is exceptional or not among elite distance runners is not a matter of opinion. It can be checked. If it is exceptional, its causal effect, if any, on success can be studied. These are not matters of opinion.

You can choose to have "even more respect" for whomever you choose, but
if you are only interested in insights from those who have experienced personally the things they observe, you are going to be discarding a lot.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

I don't think you realize how having children wrecks a woman's body...plus the lady was 37yo..that is more amazing than having kids, IMHO.

37 years-old is still prime age for a marathon runner. One of the women's world record holders set the record at age 35, and the mens world record holder set the record at age 34. Despite the media stories, her age really isn't much of an issue.

[duff_duffy]

Well 35 is not 37. Between 20-35 female marathon world record times historically hold steady but increase in time slightly at 35 then increase from 35 to 40. 37 is close to prime time but is not. This is looking at elite runner female times. Avg female running times follow similar trend. Give her some props

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

37 years-old is still prime age for a marathon runner. One of the women's world record holders set the record at age 35, and the mens world record holder set the record at age 34. Despite the media stories, her age really isn't much of an issue.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by duff_duffy

Well 35 is not 37. Between 20-35 female marathon world record times historically hold steady but increase in time slightly at 35 then increase from 35 to 40. 37 is close to prime time but is not. This is looking at elite runner female times. Avg female running times follow similar trend. Give her some props

Prime age does not have sharp cutoffs - a 2 year difference is insignificant. FYI the world record for men was set by a 34 year-old man. The second fastest (+2 sec) was a 37 year-old man.

[Spoker]

There are several instances where Olympic level speed skaters came back stronger after childbirth. Hormonal effects were suggested.

[p nut]

OP, can you please rename this thread as “Buzzkill?”

Have a good weekend, everyone

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by notlance

Not true anymore. In Championship events and WR ratification process, athletes - top performers anyway -must submit their shoes/spikes for inspection.

Thermal imaging? X-rays? Surely there's a tiny motor in those shoes somewhere. Review the race footage and I'll bet you'll see she pressed a secret button, ala Cancellara!

[duff_duffy]

A 2 year difference may not seem significant until you see the multi year almost flat line in marathon times until you go into the 35 to 40 age range where the times increase for females (at elite and amateur status - it’s been a while since I tracked it so if trend changed recently oops). That is significant to me! I was just giving this athlete props, you don’t have to.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Prime age does not have sharp cutoffs - a 2 year difference is insignificant. FYI the world record for men was set by a 34 year-old man. The second fastest (+2 sec) was a 37 year-old man.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by duff_duffy

A 2 year difference may not seem significant until you see the multi year almost flat line in marathon times until you go into the 35 to 40 age range where the times increase for females (at elite and amateur status - it’s been a while since I tracked it so if trend changed recently oops). That is significant to me! I was just giving this athlete props, you don’t have to.

Indeed and not see some whine about her shoes...Yeegads..

And for 'some' who decide to criticize her accomplishments..have any of ya trained for and then run a marathon? I have, 7 of them and training for and finishing one was NEVER easy. ..'Some' compare it to a century on a bike and no..a century is MUCH easier..IMHO..

[marciero]

Originally Posted by duff_duffy

A 2 year difference may not seem significant until you see the multi year almost flat line in marathon times until you go into the 35 to 40 age range where the times increase for females (at elite and amateur status - it’s been a while since I tracked it so if trend changed recently oops). That is significant to me! I was just giving this athlete props, you don’t have to.

I do think this is interesting but note that it is a population trend- an average. Its always problematic applying population averages to an individual, though this is done all the time. (Your chance of prostate cancer by age 70 is ...") Or at least care must be taken. Even when margins of error are reported they typically also apply to the population mean. There is greater uncertainty or bigger margin of error when applying to an individual.

But whether this racer is peaking later than average (significant or not) and had a good day or is past peak but had a really good day she deserves props!

[Ralph]

Originally Posted by Spoker

There are several instances where Olympic level speed skaters came back stronger after childbirth. Hormonal effects were suggested.

I wanted to ask about this.