This is not a shock for all of us that are married to a woman, women are smarter. Women also use their brain better when it comes to marathon running.
From the article:
In a field where everyone tried their hardest, finish times would be spread out evenly, say Dechow and Allen, respectively of the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Southern California. And that was the case with the female marathoners they studied. Male finishers, however, tended to bunch around whole-number times such as four hours. This suggests that their primary focus is finishing under a particular time, rather than running their all-out best.
Women also were likelier than men to achieve negative splits, wherein the second half of the race is run faster than the first, the authors found. By running the first half conservatively, a marathoner can avoid “bonking” or hitting a pace-slowing wall in the second half. In the last 2.19 kilometers of the race, women were significantly likelier to speed up and finish strong. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303471004579163672734229740
I didn’t read the source but from what you presented it doesn’t necessarily prove one way or the other.
All the research I’ve read say running even splits is generally faster than negative (or positive). If you start out conservative you’re leaving something on the table.
Also, the spread out times could just as easily show men are more goal oriented which could mean they are pushing themselves harder.
Now I’m not saying that women don’t run smarter, it just what you’ve quoted doesn’t show it.
women aren’t as primarily focus on finishing time as men? Tell that to all the women who are out there trying to BQ
This is not a shock for all of us that are married to a woman, women are smarter. Women also use their brain better when it comes to marathon running.
From the article:
In a field where everyone tried their hardest, finish times would be spread out evenly, say Dechow and Allen, respectively of the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Southern California. And that was the case with the female marathoners they studied. Male finishers, however, tended to bunch around whole-number times such as four hours. This suggests that their primary focus is finishing under a particular time, rather than running their all-out best.
Women also were likelier than men to achieve negative splits, wherein the second half of the race is run faster than the first, the authors found. By running the first half conservatively, a marathoner can avoid “bonking” or hitting a pace-slowing wall in the second half. In the last 2.19 kilometers of the race, women were significantly likelier to speed up and finish strong. http://online.wsj.com/...04579163672734229740
I completely disagree with their analysis.
If men were indeed just ‘trying to get under a time goal’, then I would predict that the bar just faster than 4 hours would be smaller than the bar just slower. That would indicate that a man could have ran a 3:50, but slowed down because he knew he had a 4 in the bag.
The graph shows the opposite. Since the 4:00-4:05 bar is much smaller than the 3:50-3:55 bar, it shows that the peak at the 3:55-4:00 came instead from guys who should have finished slower than 4 (if you assume a normal distribution).
Therefore, it looks like men were more likely to push for an even-hour goal that they may otherwise have deemed out of reach.
That is not to say that the same factors don’t motivate women. You could justify the argument that women push just as hard for milestone times, but that a sub-3:59 is just as worthy goal as a sub-4. (And indeed, it is a much better goal…1 minute faster!)
I also completely disagree with that analysis. Many years ago when I was on a team that had at least 5 women who could break 2:50 and all going for their olympic trials qualifier, they ran exactly the same as the team men. That is, some times they did well pushing early, some times big fades the last few miles.
Of the many many women I know who ran around the 4 hour mark, I never saw any really try to push to their limits. Most just happy to finish. The 3:30-4 hr men I know mostly were always trying to push to some time goal. In most cases, they weren’t really trained to push that hard for 26.2 miles so almost always a big fade down the stretch.
This is not a shock for all of us that are married to a woman, women are smarter. Women also use their brain better when it comes to marathon running.
From the article:
In a field where everyone tried their hardest, finish times would be spread out evenly, say Dechow and Allen, respectively of the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Southern California. And that was the case with the female marathoners they studied. Male finishers, however, tended to bunch around whole-number times such as four hours. This suggests that their primary focus is finishing under a particular time, rather than running their all-out best.
Women also were likelier than men to achieve negative splits, wherein the second half of the race is run faster than the first, the authors found. By running the first half conservatively, a marathoner can avoid “bonking” or hitting a pace-slowing wall in the second half. In the last 2.19 kilometers of the race, women were significantly likelier to speed up and finish strong. http://online.wsj.com/...04579163672734229740
Sweet, do you have a bunch of TV ads targeting women that portray their men as morons to go with this junk?
Yep, honey, I can’t even put on my own shoes without you. I have no idea how men invented basically… everything in the modern world.
This is not a shock for all of us that are married to a woman, women are smarter. Women also use their brain better when it comes to marathon running.
From the article:
In a field where everyone tried their hardest, finish times would be spread out evenly, say Dechow and Allen, respectively of the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Southern California. And that was the case with the female marathoners they studied. Male finishers, however, tended to bunch around whole-number times such as four hours. This suggests that their primary focus is finishing under a particular time, rather than running their all-out best.
Women also were likelier than men to achieve negative splits, wherein the second half of the race is run faster than the first, the authors found. By running the first half conservatively, a marathoner can avoid “bonking” or hitting a pace-slowing wall in the second half. In the last 2.19 kilometers of the race, women were significantly likelier to speed up and finish strong. http://online.wsj.com/...04579163672734229740
Sweet, do you have a bunch of TV ads targeting women that portray their men as morons to go with this junk?
Yep, honey, I can’t even put on my own shoes without you. I have no idea how men invented basically… everything in the modern world.
… it shows that the peak at the 3:55-4:00 came instead from guys who should have finished slower than 4 (if you assume a normal distribution).
Two things…
why do you make the assumption that those guys “should have finished slower than 4 hours”? i think the point is that many of them Could have finished in a quicker time, say, sub 3:50, if they had run their best. Ironically, I just saw a friend yesterday who is running NYC tomorrow, and he said “I’ll just be happy with sub-4” when I suspect he could go sub-3:45. Obviuosly a single sample, but it illustrates the point above.
And why would you say that of the athletes running 3:55-4:00, it’s a normal distribution that within that group, an equal number should have finished slower vs those that could have run quicker. That is unlikely to be a normal distribution. More likely within that group a greater number could have run faster if they were either a) smarter with their pacing, or b) cared to go as fast as possible vs just breaking a round numbeer like 4 hours
… it shows that the peak at the 3:55-4:00 came instead from guys who should have finished slower than 4 (if you assume a normal distribution).
Two things…
why do you make the assumption that those guys “should have finished slower than 4 hours”? i think the point is that many of them Could have finished in a quicker time, say, sub 3:50, if they had run their best. Ironically, I just saw a friend yesterday who is running NYC tomorrow, and he said “I’ll just be happy with sub-4” when I suspect he could go sub-3:45. Obviuosly a single sample, but it illustrates the point above.
And why would you say that of the athletes running 3:55-4:00, it’s a normal distribution that within that group, an equal number should have finished slower vs those that could have run quicker. That is unlikely to be a normal distribution. More likely within that group a greater number could have run faster if they were either a) smarter with their pacing, or b) cared to go as fast as possible vs just breaking a round numbeer like 4 hours
Thanks for the response!
My main assumption (and it’s a big one) is that if the group were sent out and ran a well-paced marathon, but without any idea what their current time or pace was, that they would make a very nice normal distribution (bell-shaped). This is almost what happens with the women, except there are small peaks at 4:00, 4:30 and 5:00. Like the article suggests, people are looking at that clock and that affects the distribution.
The biggest spike on either graph is at 4:00 for the men, . If you fit a normal, bell-shaped, distribution, I think you would agree that that spike scavenged more people from the next two slower columns more than the faster columns. That is why I determined that the sub-4:00 spike was from people that would have ran slower if they didn’t know the race time.
The 3:30 spike on the men’s plot is much less distinct, but may show the opposite effect. It looks like there were many should-be 3:20-3:25 people who slowed to make it in under 3:30. So even if you disagree with my analysis at the 4:00 peak, you may say that applies here!
Good luck to your friend! I hope the crowds fire him up and he goes under 3:45!
According to all of the advertising I have seen the past several years it is not surprising. We men (particularly us fathers) are as dumb as a post and incapable of even the most trivial of tasks without making asses of ourselves. No surprise we can’t do endurance sports properly. There is a very good reason I cancelled my cable TV service!
I think everyone would be better off if we quit trying to put everyone into a demographic box i.e. Soccer Moms, NASCAR Dads, Deadbeat Dads, Single Moms, Suburban Whites, Urban Blacks etc. Taking everyone ,including ourselves, on an individual basis allows us to not rob people of their own identity, accomplishments, and challenges.
“Do marathoners run 26.2 miles as fast as possible? Most finishers would probably say yes.”
And thus begins, and ends, the scientific rigor of this article. They never actually asked any finishers if they claimed to have run as fast as possible.
Absolutely. The longer the race, the better they pace. Just look at Kona.
I know 3 or 4 women who could barely run 39 min 10Ks BUT they ran 2:55-3:10 in marathons. I also know a few men (me included) who can run 37 flat but have yet to crack 3. Same for Ironman: Very few of the top Kona women can pull off a 36 min stand alone 10K (former short courses excepted). Yet look how many ran close to 3 hours. There’s no doubt most Kona men can run a 32 minute 10K yet they are barely faster out on the Ironman run than the women … (maybe the gals are all just sandbagging the bike relative to their abilities).
Absolutely. The longer the race, the better they pace. Just look at Kona.
I know 3 or 4 women who could barely run 39 min 10Ks BUT they ran 2:55-3:10 in marathons. I also know a few men (me included) who can run 37 flat but have yet to crack 3. Same for Ironman: Very few of the top Kona women can pull off a 36 min stand alone 10K (former short courses excepted). Yet look how many ran close to 3 hours. There’s no doubt most Kona men can run a 32 minute 10K yet they are barely faster out on the Ironman run than the women … (maybe the gals are all just sandbagging the bike relative to their abilities).
Or… the more purely aerobic and endurance based the race is the more women will excel relative to men. I was a swimmer and swam side by side with women my whole life. I might destroy them in a shorter race, but after a few hours of workout they turn into monsters that just never slow down.
So the argument is that woman race smarter than men and your evidence is that appears more men aimed for a certain time and finished at that time? Yes, I always consider it a dumb race if I hit a time I was aiming for.
Not to mention that this study mentions nothing about who raced smarter. It is also very flawed. It would be interesting to compare the mens and womans times to either the male or female world record or the finishing time of that year. So you may be able to see how close each sex comes closest to the optimum time.
What makes you say smarter?