Ross Tucker and colleagues write about sports science, covering running, doping, performance limits, shoe technology and athlete testosterone debates.
HN commenters cite it as a detailed source on the Caster Semenya case, testosterone and performance, and as a view on the 10,000 hours claim.
> then it no longer makes any sense
Don't all the reasons you gave for having the separate category still apply? Why does it no longer make any sense?
> With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women)
This is where a gap in your understanding lies: the childhood experience of a closeted trans woman is not the same as the childhood experience of a cis man. If you can't resolve this gap yourself, my offer to find resources for you remains open.
Given that understanding, you could make the minimum viable alteration to your worldview, and it would then satisfy the "valid" criterion I mentioned earlier – but I don't think that's the intellectually-honest result of starting where you are now, and gaining the additional understanding. (There are people with similar opinions to you who do have the understanding you lack, but they've reached those opinions from a very different direction.)
> I've read their policy and […]
Thank you for explaining your position.
World Athletics C3.5A contains many inaccuracies and inconsistencies, including but not limited to:
• Eligibility rule 3.5.2(a) unconditionally allows SRY-positive XX-males to compete in the women's category, but C3.5A§3.3 allows them to be excluded by the Medical Manager. Which is it?
• Buccal smears can show false positives for SRY in the case of chimerism. The regulations have no provision for this.
• Blood tests can show false negatives for SRY in the case of bone…
It's the only one I'm aware of that has been shown to have any statistically significant link with sprint performance. It's discovery is comparatively recent though (I think 2003?). It is extremely likely there are other genes that contribute too.
Sure, we know there are lots of things we don't know yet. But we do know generally in almost every case every ethnic group has individuals whose genetic makeup overlaps with those from other ethnic groups.
It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting?
My point is that there is a lot more involved in sprinting (and high-performance generally) than just genetics.
One of the best examples of this is the cross country skier Eero Mäntyranta[1]. His family carries a genetic mutation called Polycythemia[2] which means they produce a very high proportion of red blood cells (basically like the EPO doping Lance Armstrong did, but natural).
Juvonen described lab-testing samples of Eero’s bone marrow cells, which produce red blood cells. The plan was to add EPO to the cells and track the creation of red blood cells. A typical human’s bone marrow cells won’t start making blood cells in the lab until EPO is added. But Eero’s bone marrow cells began the process of creating red blood cells before Juvonen could even stimulate them with EPO. Whatever tiny speck of EPO that was already in the sample was enough to keep the red cell…
"In 1954, Roger Bannister set a world record, running one mile in 3:59.4. The 4 minute mile had become a white whale, with medical experts arguing that the human body wasn’t capable of completing it. Prior to Bannister, the previous one mile record had stood at 4:01 for nine years. Less than a year later, someone else ran a sub 4 minute mile. Today, hundreds of American runners, and likely thousands around the world have achieved this feat."
This is often noted as a mental breakthrough, but what isn't told about this story is that Bannister had the advantage of a better running surface and pacemakers. Those that broke the 4-min mile after Bannister did it because they too took advantage of a better running surface and pacemakers.
http://sportsscientists.com/2014/12/2-hour-marathon-4-min-mile/
"The difference that track surface makes is enormous – biomechanists estimate that modern synthetic tracks are worth 1.5% compared to the cinder tracks that Bannister and Landy ran on (some cinder being better than others, of course). And that’s why, as my friend David Esptein so elegantly presented at TED, of the 1,034 men who have broken 4-min for the mile since 1954, only 530 would remain if you applied that “correction factor” that predicts that synthetic tracks are worth about 1.5% per lap compared to the cinder tracks of the 1950. It means only 10 men per decade have joined the club since Bannister created it, and that should give you some context to this argument that “Four…
So taking a step back, as you go about a day you are always getting some energy from sugar stores, and some from fat stores. Example graph:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Fat-and-CHO-use-with-ex-intensity1.png
Sitting still mostly fat. Normal person as you work harder, more and more come form sugar stores - as it can get you energy faster.
All this is separate from calories you are taking in. You could eat sugar (sports drink), fat (an avocado), or protein (bacon) while you exercise. Your body will turn all of these into "sugar" which will then fuel your muscles through sugar. Fat is the longer term storage mechanism in the body. So while you could fuel a race by eating avocados or bacon, most people would have stomach issues.. as your stomach starts to shut down the harder you work (blood is in muscles not in gut, etc.). So this why when we talk about fueling in a race fat vs sugar, it's not really related to the source we are taking in our calories from.
> If a random guy said “I’m a woman,” would that have to be enough?
The whole point of the "testosterone level below 10 nmol/L" was to provide a solid line on this so that the answer would be "yes, with caveats".
10 nmol/L of testosterone is right at the lowest level for a male and is WAY higher than normal for a female.
Quoting an article about the IAAF study (https://sportsscientists.com/2017/07/testosterone-performance-intersex-athletes-will-iaaf-evidence-enough/):
> Among the 1332 females, 24 had T levels above 3.08 nmol/L (remember this is the 99th percentile in a previous study).
Of the 24, nine were diagnosed as having a DSD. Nine were found to have been doping, and six were “impossible to classify”
Translate "impossible to classify" as "doping, but we can't prove it so we'll get sued if we say it."
Well, isn't it individual for every person? Firstly, someone who weighs 141 lbs does not lose weight with the same intensity as someone with 220 lbs. Secondly, if one wants to lose weight by doing sports, he should be reasonable about this and not eat a bar of a chocolate after a 50 min run.
As I already said, I'm not a professional and I do speak from my personal experience. I don't have exact statistics either, I'd like to try and search for it though and post it here. I've found an interesting series of articles which I read just now, if you have interest or time you might want to skim through it, too:
http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss/
http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-2/