And yet women seem to be defeating men at ultramarathons. I think more research is needed.

Women aren't better at ultra marathons they are just more competitive as the distance increases.

Speed is mostly a matter of muscle mass and maintaining speed over time and distance is related to lung capacity and ability to manage lactate build up and men usually have more muscle mass, which means they can maintain more speed.

Women usually weigh less, have less muscle and have more bodyfat so they are ultimately more efficient in overall energy use which starts to become more important as the distance and time increases and the outright speed becomes less important.

Ultramarathons are not really like an marathon where everyone is running at their maximum sustainable speed, there are usually rest stops so women being efficient need less time to refuel on calories compared to men can keep or get going quicker. It's like having a more fuel efficient car that doesn't need to stop for fuel as long or as often compared to a faster car that needs to stop more and for longer at refueling stops.

▲

_--__--__ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I doubt there was much evolutionary selection for the ability to run more than 50 miles at once (my understanding is that the female advantage in ultra endurance has to do with muscle/fat composition and lower total skeletal mass, which is a major tradeoff to make for other areas).

▲

toss1 a day ago | parent [-]

The evolutionary adaption to running ultra-distances is persistence hunting, and it was one of the keys to human survival and evolution.

In persistence hunting, over great distances, humans can outrun game animals as long as they pick one animal and track it. Deer, antelope, etc. all run faster in short bursts, but overheat and reach exhaustion after long distances whereas humans can just keep going. Eventually, the human can just walk up to it and make the kill with a knife or rock.

▲

ksymph 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Persistence hunting likely wasn't a major driver of those evolutionary changes.

The hypothesis is really only supported by the fact that we have adaptations that make it theoretically possible, but the times and places those adaptations came about doesn't really match up with the times and places it would have been effective (i.e. woodland where the ground would be too hard for effective tracking [0]).

There are some other things that point away from it, too; it's worth doing some googling.

It's certainly possible that persistence hunting happened to some degree, and it's a fun idea so it really caught on in popular consciousness, but the actual evidence is limited.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

	▲	antisthenes 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Consider this: Persistence hunting isn't just running 25km to catch 1 deer. It may also involve multiple scout runs (perhaps 50km or longer) to find where the deer are after the current local deer supply is exhausted. It may also involve moving the entire tribe unit to a location 100-200km away from the current one, which would involve people less fit than tribe hunters. > It's certainly possible that persistence hunting happened to some degree, and it's a fun idea so it really caught on in popular consciousness, but the actual evidence is limited. Well, the problem is that evidence for just about everything related to our existence from before the glacial period ended is very limited due to a population bottleneck. But there's no reason to assume that our ancestors did not use every tool available at their disposal to survive, one of the tools being persistence hunting, which we are still very good at, despite there not being evolutionary pressure to be selected for for the last 7-8 thousand years.

▲

bryanlarsen a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Persistence hunting a deer takes 20-25 km, according to wikipedia.

	▲	cma a day ago \| parent [-]
		So an ultramarathoner could hunt three back to back instead of one, or maybe two without being an elite athlete with modern hydrocarbon gels. Or get through part of a failed hunt midway and pursue another, etc.

▲

mcmoor 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm still curious on how much this is an artefact of less participants that run >150km marathons. The link in the other comment compiles data over lots of runners from lots of marathons, but I still haven't found data about how much actually runs the >150km marathons.

▲

jtari3333 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems like men hold every ultramaathon record. What event are you referring to where women do better than men?

▲

bryanlarsen a day ago | parent [-]

A quick google shows several ultramarathon course records held by women, like Rachel Entrekin on the Cocodona 250, Sophie Woods on the Via Alpina, et cetera.

▲

pitched 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Sophie Woods moved herself 2000km in 28 days and the scope of that battle is something I’m having trouble with. That’s 70 km/day for a month. There are no land animals I know of that can hit that.

▲

roshin 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Jason Arday claimed to have run a marathon every day for a month.

	▲	bryanlarsen 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Candace Burt ran an ultra marathon distance every day for 200 consecutive days.

▲

dyauspitr a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s been like 2 times.