In mountain biking there is a division called "Clydesdale" for people over 200 pounds (really, it's just the guys). Some of the guys are "fluffy" but many are 6'2" and buff.
buffaloeggs.blogspot.com 2016 Races: Hop Hop Half Marathon 2:05:09 Pac Crest Half Ironman 7:13:40 9/10 Aluminum Man Oly Tri 11/27 Space Coast Half Marathon
GRRRRR......horrible. My "healthy but heavier" body could probably outrun, ride or lift the person that thought that was an acceptable category name. Asshats.
Wow. What's the purpose of the division?? Prizes / results / ranking? I don't get the purpose of it. Also, I'm 140lbs. Go to my London Marathon re-cap post to see what that looks like and tell me if I'm verging on heavy.
I don't know what I disagree with more, the term they're using (WTF is wrong with using Athena?) or the weight minimum that doesn't seem to take anything else into consideration. Ugh.
I just found this article: www.runnersworld.com/for-beginners-only/why-do-athenaclydesdale-categories-exist Honestly, I have never heard of Athena/Clydesdale category until this thread but the article claims it is optional and exists to encourage participation via the incentive to win/place in new categories. Some races actually weigh you when you pick up your race packet! WTF?
I just found this article: www.runnersworld.com/for-beginners-only/why-do-athenaclydesdale-categories-exist Honestly, I have never heard of Athena/Clydesdale category until this thread but the article claims it is optional and exists to encourage participation via the incentive to win/place in new categories. Some races actually weigh you when you pick up your race packet! WTF?
Because what would encourage me, as a heavier athlete, to participate and feel included is having to label myself as heavier/different from everyone else.
I'm 5'7" and me, with 0% body fat, would weigh 143 pounds. I'm not anywhere close to that and I never will be. Hell, I'd be happy at 200 at this point. But yeah, they need to rethink that "category".
I just found this article: www.runnersworld.com/for-beginners-only/why-do-athenaclydesdale-categories-exist Honestly, I have never heard of Athena/Clydesdale category until this thread but the article claims it is optional and exists to encourage participation via the incentive to win/place in new categories. Some races actually weigh you when you pick up your race packet! WTF?
Because what would encourage me, as a heavier athlete, to participate and feel included is having to label myself as heavier/different from everyone else.
I hate the entire concept.
I'm here. I have never heard of even Athena even and the entire idea of it makes me ragey. Who the fuck cares what you weigh as long as you are doing the event? I dislike this very much.
Post by sweetptater on Apr 26, 2017 8:28:14 GMT -5
This makes me rage. I'm 5'4", between 150-155, and do CF and run half marathons. I was finally to the point where I was accepting my body for its strength vs. the number I see on the scale. It's taken forever to get to this point. Now I feel like I'm back to square one. I didn't consider myself "heavy" at 150. Now I suddenly do. I hate this.
This makes me rage. I'm 5'4", between 150-155, and do CF and run half marathons. I was finally to the point where I was accepting my body for its strength vs. the number I see on the scale. It's taken forever to get to this point. Now I feel like I'm back to square one. I didn't consider myself "heavy" at 150. Now I suddenly do. I hate this.
I mean, you certainly don't have to register in the category regardless of your weight. And *LOVE* your body - it can do amazing freaking things!
I'm 5'10ish and fluctuate a little below and above 150. I'd feel kind of like a jackass registering for a category that probably isn't meant for me. I mean shoot, if that means I can get on the podium or whatever, fine I guess. It just seems weird. I'm taller than most people, men included (sigh) but not necessarily bigger.
Um ... we've done this before. There's nothing wrong with having Athena, as a separate category. It's not a personal attack. I think people, especially in the racing community, get too wrapped up in the connotation of the word, personal image issues, and are sensitive about weight. It happens in the H&F world.
The Athena category is just another way for competitors to medal, win prize money, etc.. No one is forcing anyone to register for that category. A person can still decide to place themselves in an age group category instead. It's a strategy decide by the person in question.
And, yes, when you look at the field and build ,historically at most endurance events, 150 lbs, give or take a few lbs, is different. It's not shocking or offensive, but it is uncommon for lack of a better term. There shouldn't be personal value judgment because of it.
This is where I'm at. It's unlikely that under 150 will ever be a healthy and sustainable weight for me. I long ago embraced the non-petite body I was given and don't fight it anymore. I know I will never be as fast as my lighter counterparts when it comes to running just based on my build and weight, and I'm ok with that. I still do it. My H would also always be a "Clydesdale" - he's a non-lanky 6'5" and will never weigh under 200 lbs. He also understands that while he is very strong and athletic, he's not cut out for long distance endurance. He sticks with what he's good at and where his size is an advantage (like basketball and weightlifting). I don't feel like anyone is saying that women who weigh over 150 are in poor shape, but offers them an option of competing against similarly built women. 150 IS "heavier" than the typical fast "runner build", and that's ok.