perhaps a real solution is to offer more prize money for women at races. its just the simple fact, when money is on the line better competition comes out.. and time cash bonuses push the records. so who is going to start this up?

I don't think this will push the women records up. Right now, there are enough women participating that you're getting the cream of the crop for top female runners.

This prize money WOULD make a difference in triathlon, in which a monster purse would suck a few star athletes from other endurance sports who could shine in triathlon, but marathon and track and field is so popular that it's not an issue. In the US this might be a bit harder to comprehend since we're distracted by the ball sports, but the run-dominant countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, etc.) are totally running-centric, and the very best of the best continue to show up, for both males and females runners.

For sure as well, a bigger prize purse will do nothing for the masses of BQ-level amateurs in terms of bringing faster female participants to Boston. They couldn't care about marathon prize purses, since they'll never win them.

I think the reason why east African countries are so run-dominant is because they don't have well-paying ball sports. Anyone who wants to hit it rich in athletics turns to running. Whereas in the US and western Europe there are a lot of other sports where a talented athlete can hit it big. Not to mention they can also make a lot of money in any number of non-athletic professions.

I agree with synthetic that more money would bring out deeper female fields. Unfortunately, the current purses are enough to entice the Kenyan women to dope (Jeptoo and Sumgong being the most-prominent recent ones), but not enough to draw other countries' top talents into marathoning.

Don't the calculations take into account a lot more performances than the overall world record for the distance? See this analysis - http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade.html

Honestly, I think this is cultural in the US, and may fade over time.

My observations (as a US-resident woman in my 40s):

There was a time, not so long ago, when women were discouraged from participating in sports. We all know about that, right? Uterii falling out and all the rest.

And then there was an opening of doors (thanks to all the pioneers). And we're all aware of that.

But what I think less people have focused on was the nature in which women were encouraged to participate. When I was growing up, it was ok for girls to want to play sports. But we weren't supposed to care excessively about winning. Women's sports were about community and sisterhood and health. But not about beating other people.

It's an echo of something that still persists in some workplaces - men are "forceful" and "strong" while women are "bitchy" and "overly aggressive."

And honestly, it's still hard to overcome. I do think it's fading over time, and will hopefully disappear in another generation or two. But right now (especially for those of us who grew up in the 80s or earlier), it still feels slightly uncomfortable to admit that you want to beat others. That you care deeply about it. You'll hear many women downplaying how much time they spend training, and I think that's part of it - this reluctance to admit just how much they care about winning.

And that may be one factor at play here - the pointy end of the women athletes are those who have overcome this subtle cultural bias, while most are still subject to it.

Nope. Sorry, this is not true.

It is NOT just a matter of 'lack of interest in ball sports' that explains why east Africans are so fast.

Noakes has looked at this extensively.

These Africans were literal world-beaters at the Olympic level for distance running from the time they were 'discovered' by a European coach, who was amazed/horrified when he saw them basically crush any possible performance by his elite European runners during a routine African training run. Then they went on to dominate the Olympic marathon - immediately, with no special coaching, no special olympic training facilities or programs, and no shoes.

Some researchers have actually pegged it to specific tribes that have lineage overlaps in Kenya and parts of Ethiopia, who are so fast. And it's a HUGE disproportionate number of world-beaters from that tribal area - no possible way it could be statistically due to chance or mere 'lack of interest in other sports.'

My quick read of it is that the WR is always used as the anchor point, but then the age-specific handicaps are tweaked based on single-age WR's and how well they fit into the overall curve. It appears they will throw out single-age outlier WR's, but not the overall WR. But I'm not sure--I'll need to read it again more carefully.

Sigh. Sometimes I think my life would be a lot simpler if I could see the world with the same black & white certainty that you have about running.

BTW, have you ever come up with an opinion of if 8 x 20-second striders are drills, or "just more running"?

I'm black and white on very few things in life, contrary to what you say. Gray zones in almost everything.

There are, however, a few things that are obvious, clearly supported by evidence, and prove themselves time and time again.

And one of them is the fact that Kenyans/Ethiopians do NOT dominate running mainly because 'it's all they do.' There's soooo much evidence against that, that I will def take that stance. Countless nonKenyans have moved there for years to train and run with them, heck, to even live their lifestyle in hopes that the magic rubs off on them, and it doesn't.

It's very important in life in general, to acknowledge gray zones when they are there (which is most of life), but when there's info and irrefutable evidence about things NOT being gray, to take the correct hardline stance in those situations.

(I'm assuming the other situation you're referring to me is 'running technique'. I'll also add for my run-specific hard-line zones: 'lack of any particular sneaker significantly reducing injury'; 'lack of rigorous scientific evidence underlying all the newest running shoe models'.)

So still no comment on whether 8 x 20-second striders are drills, or "just more running"?

I honestly have no opinion on that.

Call it whatever you want and believe whatever you believe on those - they are so short and of such variable pace that I'd expect to have a nonmeasurable effect on distance-endurance running.

If you assume men are roughly 10% faster than women, then the men's 3:05 (185 minutes) would equate to ~3:24 for women (203.5 minutes). As it is, a 30 minute difference (3:35 vs 3:05) is 16% slower. Of course my math could be wrong.

I'm happy to pass judgment. Giving guys another 10 minutes would let a lot of people in that I know. My brother is 28 years old with a PR of 3:18 in three marathons. I want to go back, but doubt I will until he qualifies, so hopefully he does soon. However, he would agree that runners in his situation could run under 3:05 after a season of a good coach and diet.

Hopefully B.A.A. keeps it easier for the ladies to make the field closer to 50/50. They smell better anyway.

Strides/surges done correctly and systematically to improve running economy are one of the most important components of improving as a distance runner.

I just want to make sure no one is skimming this thread and decides that strides are not for them :)

---

------
David Roche
"The Happy Runner" book: https://www.amazon.com/...Longer/dp/1492567647
Coaching: https://swaprunning.com/

My dearest lightheir,

The next time you want to assert that drills are of absolutely no use in fixing biomechanics;
And you want to claim that the only way to run more efficiently is to "just run more";
And the next time you want to stridently, loudly and belligerently badger anyone who believes differently;
And when you want to do so repeatedly and insistently so that you get the last word in a thread because anyone else of sound mind gives up and leaves;
And when you want to feel self-gratified that you've somehow saved the world by preventing a productive conversation about running biomechanics:

Could you do me a favor? Could you post the above exchange amongst yourself, DaveRoche, and me? Maybe put it in your signature line? Here, something like this:

*****************************
AlwaysCurious: Do you consider striders a drill, or 'just more running?'

lightheir: Call it whatever you want and believe whatever you believe on those - they are so short and of such variable pace that I'd expect to have a nonmeasurable effect on distance-endurance running.

DaveRoche: Strides/surges done correctly and systematically to improve running economy are one of the most important components of improving as a distance runner.


Why do I want you to do that? Because I want everyone else to understand that you have absolutely no frickin' clue about running mechanics.

Is that too much to ask?

Yes, you have the right for everyone else to understand I have no frickin' clue about running mechanics.

But in reality, the (big) majority of folks on ST feel similarly about 'just run more', so it's not just me.

since this thread has derailed, i will bring it back on track. here are stats from 2017 marathon:

https://medium.com/running-with-data/the-runners-of-the-boston-marathon-2017-56d2db7326c1


now im wondering also with the women getting in easier... what % of men vs women are using cheater downhill races to get their time?

Its gonna be a fair amount. I'm sure that's a big reason why the BQ cutoffs have dropped some.

I don't care what people say about 'pounding on your legs' - running a 2000'+ net drop race is NOT a fair comparison by any stretch to a flat or rolling hill course. It's not gonna get you a BQ if you aren't at least close, but I think it's reasonable to expect anywhere from a 3-12 minute advantage depending on course, conditions, and one's training for the downhill.

But I don't expect BAA to change this, ever. There are established races like Steamtown and St George which have been doing the downhill thing for years and years, so it would be too much of a shock to disallow it or give time penalties for the downhill assist.

Bottom line - if you're on the cusp and can't get that BQ on a flat course but really want to do it, run a downhill course.

The differential between one of those megadownhills vs my PR marathon at San Francisco is nearly 15 minutes expected finish time!

  
now im wondering also with the women getting in easier... what % of men vs women are using cheater downhill races to get their time?


Count me among those using a downhill marathon to BQ. Did the Two Rivers Maraton in Lackawaxen PA. Point to point with first half downhill and flat for the second half. Was hoping for 3 minutes under my BQ time and ended up 11:34 under. First time I have qualified for Boston. I do feel a little guilt about it. Will try again next week at NJ State Marathon, which is flat and measured 26.7 on my garmin the last 2 times I did it. Wind can be a big issue also. I'll feel a bit more legit if I can BQ there also.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned a very significant detail about women: our prime running years also coincide with our prime childbearing years. Though there are outliers like Paula Radcliffe winning the NY Marathon 9 months after giving birth (and spending her entire pregnancy continuing with significant training) for the most part pregnancy and a significant chunk of time after it are a period of significant physical change, that even in the best of circumstances lead to drastically reduced training loads. As the saying goes, a woman's body changes more in 40 weeks of pregnancy than a man's changes in his entire lifetime, and that's beyond any weight gain. Not to mention the difficulty for many women in this period of life to maintain the training volume needed as the responsibility of caring for children tends to fall disproportionately on women even in households where both parents work.

https://medium.com/...on-2017-56d2db7326c1

Here's the link that another poster tried to post above (gave a dead end reddit link). At any rate, it shows a very clear pattern:

• The male histogram is a triangle, peaking at age ~45 and then falling off. This might suggested that this is where men find it easiest or hardest to qualify but is otherwise unremarkable.
  
• The female histogram peaks once in the late 20's, then drops off, then peaks again at 40+.
  

Three conclusions?

• There's a higher proportion of young women qualifying as a share of all women, than young men as a share of all men. This might suggest on a pure athletic accomplishment that it's easier for women (at least until you have kids)
• But then once kids come in to the picture (~28-40 is a clear drop off for women) and possibly after 45+ men once again have an advantage
  
• Some of this is also cultural / generational. The same link shows that the absolute difference in speeds decreases as both sexes age (women get slower slower). The fact that there are so many younger women but proportionally fewer (vs men) older women likely shows that there are just more younger women gunning for Boston. This is good news for the sport, but as they filter up the age brackets, it will also change the overall proportion of men vs women. Whether this is a feature or a bug for the BAA is another matter.... :)
  

There's definitely generational differences at play - don't forget that the Women's Marathon wasn't an Olympic event until 1984, and in the years prior to that even when it was determined that marathoning wouldn't not in fact make our uterus fall out, it was still considered an extremely unfeminine event.