"contrary to my fundamental beliefs as a husband, father and deeply devout Catholic." Well, that settles it - no devout Catholic has never committed a sexual offense.
I love that you respect Kara and empathize with what she's gone through. While some women can be snotty in the elite, upper-crust, white world of distance running, Kara seems normal and down to earth. She's the last woman (along with Des) I'd ever accuse of being fake.
It sucks for Desi and Kara that they had books published at the same general time as Desir and Fleshman, not just because these books all target the same demo and therefore mutually compete for sales, but because they're all being categorized as "Books by women runners" when Desir doesn't count as even a pack runner, much less ever elite, and when Fleshman is a demonstrably unreliable witness while Desi and Kara, as you say, have been around for a while without leaving any buttsmudges of significance on whatever they've touched.
Mar 20, 2023·edited Mar 20, 2023Liked by Kevin Beck
I'll never understand how coaches of elite runners can't seem to understand how fuel partitioning works, especially in women - mediated by hormones, not over-eating/under-exercising once you get below fertility levels of bodyfat. Female bodies prioritize reproductive fitness over muscle repair (not to mention muscle mass), tendon repair, hair growth, etc. Only a moron thinks women's bodies are dumb fat storage machines rather than a "what do I do with this incoming nutrition among its many possible uses" choice architecture mediated by hormones. Just give people exogenous hormones and see how that algorithm changes without any change to the energy balance. But why would I expect a "devout Catholic" coach to understand natural selection pressure or parental investment theory.
The amazing thing is that your comment could--with some expansion and a few modifications to suit a general audience--replace basically any article about nutrition in any of the current mags and "mags." Women want to be recognized as having different machinery (per Fleshman, as well as a lot of serious people) but when it comes to stuff like this that is scientifcally relevant but seems to get to close to "Women are fundamentally baby-generators by design, if not by modern necessity," people balk balk BOCK BOCK BOCK like hesitant fowl.
A lot of common knowledge among running coaches at all levels is draconian and outdated in general. Their grasp on science is typical of one who slept through those classes in college because they were there on a track scholarship, and like most serious college athletes they didn't exactly prioritize their studies.
Agree with you on this! I'm a devout Catholic but also know science is science--I feel God created it that way for a reason--and a lot of the religious types fail to appreciate it. You need to understand science to understand other things in life!
"contrary to my fundamental beliefs as a husband, father and deeply devout Catholic." Well, that settles it - no devout Catholic has never committed a sexual offense.
I love that you respect Kara and empathize with what she's gone through. While some women can be snotty in the elite, upper-crust, white world of distance running, Kara seems normal and down to earth. She's the last woman (along with Des) I'd ever accuse of being fake.
It sucks for Desi and Kara that they had books published at the same general time as Desir and Fleshman, not just because these books all target the same demo and therefore mutually compete for sales, but because they're all being categorized as "Books by women runners" when Desir doesn't count as even a pack runner, much less ever elite, and when Fleshman is a demonstrably unreliable witness while Desi and Kara, as you say, have been around for a while without leaving any buttsmudges of significance on whatever they've touched.
I'll never understand how coaches of elite runners can't seem to understand how fuel partitioning works, especially in women - mediated by hormones, not over-eating/under-exercising once you get below fertility levels of bodyfat. Female bodies prioritize reproductive fitness over muscle repair (not to mention muscle mass), tendon repair, hair growth, etc. Only a moron thinks women's bodies are dumb fat storage machines rather than a "what do I do with this incoming nutrition among its many possible uses" choice architecture mediated by hormones. Just give people exogenous hormones and see how that algorithm changes without any change to the energy balance. But why would I expect a "devout Catholic" coach to understand natural selection pressure or parental investment theory.
The amazing thing is that your comment could--with some expansion and a few modifications to suit a general audience--replace basically any article about nutrition in any of the current mags and "mags." Women want to be recognized as having different machinery (per Fleshman, as well as a lot of serious people) but when it comes to stuff like this that is scientifcally relevant but seems to get to close to "Women are fundamentally baby-generators by design, if not by modern necessity," people balk balk BOCK BOCK BOCK like hesitant fowl.
A lot of common knowledge among running coaches at all levels is draconian and outdated in general. Their grasp on science is typical of one who slept through those classes in college because they were there on a track scholarship, and like most serious college athletes they didn't exactly prioritize their studies.
Agree with you on this! I'm a devout Catholic but also know science is science--I feel God created it that way for a reason--and a lot of the religious types fail to appreciate it. You need to understand science to understand other things in life!