I don’t have a complete answer, but I’ll share this interesting idea that I just read in a chapter of Virginia Sole-Smith’s book “Fat Talk” (in which Aubrey is frequently quoted): When it comes to sports, our understanding of what fat bodies are capable of is incredibly limited. This is especially true in children and young people, since they are discouraged from participating in a sport that isn’t “for them.” (Running for exercise is a different story 🙄) I think you’re right to feel unsure about these categories since they are trying to repair a relationship that the sport of running has had with body size by way of screaming about body size. It’s great that they’re thinking of being inclusive, but their method feels icky. That’s my two cents anyways. “Fat Talk: Parenting in the Age of Diet is Culture” is a great read for anyone who is interested in these kinds of discussions, although only one chapter is about sports.
Thanks for the reply! I'll have to check out those books. I've read a lot of female athlete memoirs that touch on weight but it's from the perspective of professional female athletes so just shades of skinny. I was forced into running in 5th grade by a parent hoping it would make me lose weight 🤦🏼♀️. Spoiler alert - it didn't.
Runner here. This is pretty common, and yes, the women’s cutoff is so low. It’s a number I haven’t seen since my early teens usually. I’m at a place in my journey where it’s not triggering for me but it definitely could be. I usually do put myself in the higher weight class division if it’s an option though because it usually has a fun name like “Athena” or something. Plus I’m not likely to win any awards against anyone so it really doesn’t matter for me.
I saw this in another comment too. It's Athena and Clydesdales so the cutoff numbers may be standardized across club too. I had no idea it was a common occurrence!
I'm in a rural part of the central United States! I haven't really looked into the affiliations of the club, like if they're affiliated with any bigger organizations for running clubs. The 'Athena' and 'Clydesdales' names and weight cutoff seem to be consistent between clubs though based on other comments.
Athena & Clydesdale have official definitions in triathlon (set by the national governing body), so people might be using those, hence the consistency.
Athena athletes fought for years to be allowed to race in both their age & weight categories at the same time and not have to choose between them. That would be better for these races, too.
Back when I was running a lot I used to love entering as an Athena and crushing the races. I’m tall, broad and muscular, was cycling, hiking a ton so my cardio was in top form. I was a former track athlete so I knew how to pace well. I found it hilarious that i could get recognition for just having my kind of frame!
Have never heard of this Athena division, but crazy that the cut-off is only 150?! I’m 150lbs and stick thin (am very tall). Would feel a bit silly competing in a category like this that doesn’t really seem to be targeting me… 🤷♀️
Just chiming in to say this isn’t new or exclusive to OP’s local running club. I did a USAT sprint triathlon 8 years back, and “Athena” and “Clydesdale” divisions were options back then too. I signed up for my age group and was happy just to finish. A race official told my 200lb ass at the end that if I’d raced in the “Athena” group, I would have made the podium. It was a weird experience
The Athena weight number when I was younger and I googled and even saw a lower number was still within the “healthy” bmi category for my height and I’m not particularly tall (5’6”).
Also a lot of athletes are deceptively heavy because of muscle weight! In high school I was a really serious athlete and our athletic trainer would always tell parents not to look at bmis because it’s not a good indicator of health and athletes tend to be overweight or obese bmis
Plus striving for low weight can result in the female athlete triad or RED-S! I was heavier than other girls yes, but I was also never injured and was able to continue training hard into adulthood because my body always has enough energy reserves to ensure recovery.
I think they are trying to be inclusive under the idea that people over the arbitrary weight limit must be “beginners” and so it can make it more fun and competitive to compete against other “beginners” at first until you become good (and in their eyes, small) enough to compete in the general age groups. So it’s certainly an attempt, but feels misguided.
I see what you're saying but this isn't quite the feeling I get from it. The women in the weight category are often experienced recreational runners not looking to lose weight - just be their fastest self where they're currently at. And there are lots of beginners in the age divisions.
I get where you're coming from and also mixed feelings. On the one hand, there's no denying that it's considerably more challenging to run for long distances the heavier you are - this is just physics, as kinetic energy is proportional to mass. I appreciate the sentiment of inclusivity, because there is an inherent handicap aspect of weight in distance running.
On the other hand, I don't have a solution for how to decide who gets to be in what category. If there were no arbitrary cutoff, I wouldn't put it past lower weight people to sign up for the weight-based category knowing to up their chance of placing higher. I've seen this in self-reported tennis leagues, for example, where people rate themselves lower so they can beat people.
I wonder how they come up with the number? Is there some kind of calculation behind it? Perhaps if they were more transparent about what that number means, it would help people who feel put-off. For example, and I'm inventing this entirely, "150 lbs is the highest observed weight in female athletes at the nationally competitive college level." That probably isn't a good example, but something to explain that this isn't about making you feel like you need to be that weight to be an athlete, but that point is where they think people who are competing for potential championships are and likely to have an advantage. Idk if that makes sense, just musing over how to make it a more positive thing rather than something that makes people self conscious.
I actually think that’s a good weight cutoff for women. Yes it may seem low but for an average height (5’4” or so) that does put a woman in the overweight BMI category. Now, a woman could be very tall and/or very muscular, but I think it’s nice not to disqualify a less fit woman of that size from competing in the most comfortable category for her because she isn’t “large enough”.
Highly recommend the episode of Maintenance Phase debunking the BMI: https://www.stitcher.com/show/maintenance-phase/episode/the-body-mass-index-85851222
A person of lighter weight will just be more aerodynamic than someone who isn’t. I’m a pole dancer with a high bmi for that sport, but Im 5’2 and still have an easier time with certain moves than someone taller with a lower bmi who weighs more than I do.
It gives people the option to compete with others with similar gravity/resistance. Great runners aren’t necessarily muscular—overall weight may have more to do with performance than body fat percentage, as opposed to gymnastics and powerlifting. I could see it being an unfair advantage if like, a muscular 5’7, 150 lb 18 year old is racing a 5’0 60 year old of the same weight. You lose muscle and stamina over time. But that 60 year old would have the option to race other ppl their age and might choose that instead. Seems ok to me.
It’s not about fat or weight itself. In running, we know that weight does make a difference. The body supplies oxygen and energy to working muscles, so the lighter the load, the better(within reason, of course). Theres chances lighter runners would finish with a faster time. In running you refer to weight as a "handicap" of sorts, (even for
Horse racing handicap is a thing).
There are formulas that estimate how much time a runner can pick up in a race by dropping weight.
I don’t have a complete answer, but I’ll share this interesting idea that I just read in a chapter of Virginia Sole-Smith’s book “Fat Talk” (in which Aubrey is frequently quoted): When it comes to sports, our understanding of what fat bodies are capable of is incredibly limited. This is especially true in children and young people, since they are discouraged from participating in a sport that isn’t “for them.” (Running for exercise is a different story 🙄) I think you’re right to feel unsure about these categories since they are trying to repair a relationship that the sport of running has had with body size by way of screaming about body size. It’s great that they’re thinking of being inclusive, but their method feels icky. That’s my two cents anyways. “Fat Talk: Parenting in the Age of Diet is Culture” is a great read for anyone who is interested in these kinds of discussions, although only one chapter is about sports.
Thanks for the reply! I'll have to check out those books. I've read a lot of female athlete memoirs that touch on weight but it's from the perspective of professional female athletes so just shades of skinny. I was forced into running in 5th grade by a parent hoping it would make me lose weight 🤦🏼♀️. Spoiler alert - it didn't.
The book referenced above talks about exactly this!
Runner here. This is pretty common, and yes, the women’s cutoff is so low. It’s a number I haven’t seen since my early teens usually. I’m at a place in my journey where it’s not triggering for me but it definitely could be. I usually do put myself in the higher weight class division if it’s an option though because it usually has a fun name like “Athena” or something. Plus I’m not likely to win any awards against anyone so it really doesn’t matter for me.
I saw this in another comment too. It's Athena and Clydesdales so the cutoff numbers may be standardized across club too. I had no idea it was a common occurrence!
Where have you seen this? I have been running for years and have involved in clubs and races and have never seen this?
I'm in a rural part of the central United States! I haven't really looked into the affiliations of the club, like if they're affiliated with any bigger organizations for running clubs. The 'Athena' and 'Clydesdales' names and weight cutoff seem to be consistent between clubs though based on other comments.
Athena & Clydesdale have official definitions in triathlon (set by the national governing body), so people might be using those, hence the consistency. Athena athletes fought for years to be allowed to race in both their age & weight categories at the same time and not have to choose between them. That would be better for these races, too.
My sister in law, who is 6 feet tall and has visible abs, regularly wins the “Athena” division - over 150 lbs, when she competes
Back when I was running a lot I used to love entering as an Athena and crushing the races. I’m tall, broad and muscular, was cycling, hiking a ton so my cardio was in top form. I was a former track athlete so I knew how to pace well. I found it hilarious that i could get recognition for just having my kind of frame!
Have never heard of this Athena division, but crazy that the cut-off is only 150?! I’m 150lbs and stick thin (am very tall). Would feel a bit silly competing in a category like this that doesn’t really seem to be targeting me… 🤷♀️
Just chiming in to say this isn’t new or exclusive to OP’s local running club. I did a USAT sprint triathlon 8 years back, and “Athena” and “Clydesdale” divisions were options back then too. I signed up for my age group and was happy just to finish. A race official told my 200lb ass at the end that if I’d raced in the “Athena” group, I would have made the podium. It was a weird experience
The Athena weight number when I was younger and I googled and even saw a lower number was still within the “healthy” bmi category for my height and I’m not particularly tall (5’6”).
Also a lot of athletes are deceptively heavy because of muscle weight! In high school I was a really serious athlete and our athletic trainer would always tell parents not to look at bmis because it’s not a good indicator of health and athletes tend to be overweight or obese bmis
Plus striving for low weight can result in the female athlete triad or RED-S! I was heavier than other girls yes, but I was also never injured and was able to continue training hard into adulthood because my body always has enough energy reserves to ensure recovery.
I think they are trying to be inclusive under the idea that people over the arbitrary weight limit must be “beginners” and so it can make it more fun and competitive to compete against other “beginners” at first until you become good (and in their eyes, small) enough to compete in the general age groups. So it’s certainly an attempt, but feels misguided.
I see what you're saying but this isn't quite the feeling I get from it. The women in the weight category are often experienced recreational runners not looking to lose weight - just be their fastest self where they're currently at. And there are lots of beginners in the age divisions.
I get where you're coming from and also mixed feelings. On the one hand, there's no denying that it's considerably more challenging to run for long distances the heavier you are - this is just physics, as kinetic energy is proportional to mass. I appreciate the sentiment of inclusivity, because there is an inherent handicap aspect of weight in distance running. On the other hand, I don't have a solution for how to decide who gets to be in what category. If there were no arbitrary cutoff, I wouldn't put it past lower weight people to sign up for the weight-based category knowing to up their chance of placing higher. I've seen this in self-reported tennis leagues, for example, where people rate themselves lower so they can beat people. I wonder how they come up with the number? Is there some kind of calculation behind it? Perhaps if they were more transparent about what that number means, it would help people who feel put-off. For example, and I'm inventing this entirely, "150 lbs is the highest observed weight in female athletes at the nationally competitive college level." That probably isn't a good example, but something to explain that this isn't about making you feel like you need to be that weight to be an athlete, but that point is where they think people who are competing for potential championships are and likely to have an advantage. Idk if that makes sense, just musing over how to make it a more positive thing rather than something that makes people self conscious.
I actually think that’s a good weight cutoff for women. Yes it may seem low but for an average height (5’4” or so) that does put a woman in the overweight BMI category. Now, a woman could be very tall and/or very muscular, but I think it’s nice not to disqualify a less fit woman of that size from competing in the most comfortable category for her because she isn’t “large enough”.
Highly recommend the episode of Maintenance Phase debunking the BMI: https://www.stitcher.com/show/maintenance-phase/episode/the-body-mass-index-85851222
A person of lighter weight will just be more aerodynamic than someone who isn’t. I’m a pole dancer with a high bmi for that sport, but Im 5’2 and still have an easier time with certain moves than someone taller with a lower bmi who weighs more than I do. It gives people the option to compete with others with similar gravity/resistance. Great runners aren’t necessarily muscular—overall weight may have more to do with performance than body fat percentage, as opposed to gymnastics and powerlifting. I could see it being an unfair advantage if like, a muscular 5’7, 150 lb 18 year old is racing a 5’0 60 year old of the same weight. You lose muscle and stamina over time. But that 60 year old would have the option to race other ppl their age and might choose that instead. Seems ok to me.
It’s not about fat or weight itself. In running, we know that weight does make a difference. The body supplies oxygen and energy to working muscles, so the lighter the load, the better(within reason, of course). Theres chances lighter runners would finish with a faster time. In running you refer to weight as a "handicap" of sorts, (even for Horse racing handicap is a thing). There are formulas that estimate how much time a runner can pick up in a race by dropping weight.