i'm fascinated by women's empowerment in triathlon, and there's a move on called "strong at any size" that's kind of a call-to-action for women in multisport. against that backdrop:
if a man were to say, hey, i'm 20lb over my fighting weight, and i want to know what my best plan is for getting faster - disk wheel, bike fit session, blah blah - what would come back is: "lose the 20lb; best bang for your buck." and, that would be right, strictly speaking.
however, we all know that this is a much more nuanced discussion with women. so, my question is, how does one strike the right balance between a proper, thoughtful exhortation about morphology (if one is, for example, a coach) versus just leave morphology the fudge out of it. just don't talk about it. nothing good can come of it. the body will seek its own morphology.
but if the answer is the latter, then discussion of diet (for example) become tougher, because morphology is an end, a goal, an imperative, that's sitting back there unspoken.
beyond this, i wrote a couple of weeks ago about triathlon and the metrics that we have, as a group, compared to the metrics of a general population. in the poll currently up, only 15 percent of slowtwitchers are on BP meds, whereas more than half american adults are on BP meds, and our systolic BPs are pretty routinely in the 110 to 130 range (not nearly so the general population). but, this attaches to a particular level of fitness to which we endeavor to achieve.
how do we champion a strong at any size narrative while also acknowledging that for every woman - for best performance and health - there is an optimal morphology (even if that morphology "looks" 20lb over what might appear on the cover of shape magazine)?
let's say the goal is to fill up pool swim, women only, first timer triathlons. how does one talk to such an audience if optimal performance, mental health, physical health, continued engagement, sense of community, is the goal?