Available for the Kindle and also in the traditional paper back. It will make a great gift for the runners you know, and helps support our work here on The Science of Sport.
Introducing an upcoming series on Women vs. Men in the marathon: 4-part series
Last weekend, Haile Gebrselassie knocked 29 seconds off the four-year old marathon world record with a time of 2:04:26. As tends to happen after these performances, everyone began questioning what the limits to human performance might be? Is it possible to break 2-hours? Geb himself spoke of his own feeling that he would run 2:03 at
But another way to approach this “limits of performance” issue is to consider whether women might ever outperform men? Last week saw a debate around the men’s world record – well, when Paula Radcliffe ran 2:15:25 in
So with that question in mind, and stimulated by a question from one our readers, Jamie, we will run a series of posts looking at men vs. women in running. We’ll look at this issue in four parts:
- Women in running – a historical overview and the evolution of the marathon world record
- Performance differences between men and women in all running events, and a physiological discussion of why this difference exists
- Will women ever outperform men? And more interestingly, does it already happen!
- Finally, we look at a scientific paper published earlier this year examining American women in the marathon
This series will begin on Tuesday next week, so join us then, as we delve into this often controversial but interesting discussion!
Until then, the Chicago Marathon and race analysis takes preference!
Ross
2 Comments:
In Oct 2007 you did a four-part series on women vs. men and the marathon. Where's part four? It's described as: "Finally, we look at a scientific paper published earlier this year examining American women in the marathon."
Thanks!
Hi Julie
You've caught us out! What happened there is that we started with this plan of doing a 4-part series, and it was going well, and then what happened was the Chicago marathon.
One guy died, the race was HUGE news because it was so incredibly hot, and there was all this debate about dehydration and fluid, and we kind of veered off to cover that topic. So you'll see in our list of posts in October that we were covering Chicago and the Women series at the same time, but eventually it got to the point where we were getting ten mails a day on dehydration, so we had to leave the other series behind, unfortunately.
Also, that 4th post was a little weak, I must say. It was a study done looking at the American women's performance in the marathon, and it was actually difficult to link nicely with the other posts, so it kind of got left aside. I do apologize, and it's certainly something we don't plan to do, but just happens as we react to what was maybe the biggest news story of the time.
Regards
Ross
Post a Comment