Anyone who thinks that this is a controversial take is simply deluded. There is no evidence at all that women are faster than men at any running distance at all. The only 'evidence' are anecdotes or one-off examples, predictions, or incorrect interpretations of data, as outlined very well in this post.
I myself did a very similar analysis with a greater focus on scientific research and presenting further evidence from races where participation between sexes was similar, and we still get the same results.
There is still absolutely a social factor, with women not being supported in their training and racing, especially at a younger age, and while I hope that the increased support and understanding continues, I don't think that it is enough to topple to biological limitations, and that is ok.
I would very much love for the constant comparison to disappear when talking about sporting achievements. Even if an article doesn’t compare but talks about a woman’s achievement, the comment section will be filled with ‘yeah, but men are better’. We can argue all day about biology, or support and funding or even the types of sports we decided to make, but at the end of the day, it would be so much nicer if we could all just tip our hats to incredible achievements and encourage each other to get out and be active! Thanks for another great article Steve :)
This is a great article and needs to be repeated over and over. A few years back, Nick Tiller published a paper on this in the scientific journal Sports Medicine, debunking the myths that due to a select few potential physiological advantages, women would not soon be outcompeting men in ultras. Here is the link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33502701/
It's important to note that this does not mean women should be viewed as inferior socially, etc. but rather that there are inherent physiological differences that preclude the very best women from ever beating the very best men.
We got to see this with Faith Kipyegon when she attempted to run here Sub4 mile. The very best woman in the world, with every single advantage provided to her could not run as fast as dozens of high school boys did this year alone. That's not an insult, it's just biology.
As others have said, we need to recognize those biological differences and let women shine, not keep trying to compare them to men. I wrote more about that specifically in Slate (https://slate.com/technology/2025/06/faith-kipyegon-four-minute-mile-woman-nike-science.html). These elite female athletes are amazing as they are, they shouldn't have to be breaking arbitrary men's milestones to be viewed as great.
And, in my opinion this matters beyond sports. When we see headlines that science has shown that women will soon outrun men and then it doesn't happen, it spurs distrust in science... To many, it's just one more example of something that science "got wrong" - when in reality it was just bad science (inappropriate extrapolation, etc.).
Despite this great article debunking these claims about men vs. women in ultras, I am certain we will see these false claims arise again year after year in the media.
I read this and it’s like the words have been taken from my mouth ( in a good way ) . I have been saying this on many forums for years and often coped a lot of flack because of it . This argument is not putting down women, it’s recognising the genders are different and we should not be making comparisons . We don’t in any other endurance sport . It does women no favours . I have already seen races offer either one winner take all prize or prize based on beating a certain time ( no allowance made for women ). Media tend to report more when a women beats all the men vs when she wins and breaks a course record which is obviously unfair - the merit of a women’s performance should have zero to do with how men did in the race .
Unfortunately the BYU fraternity continues ( in most not all ) to perpetuate this myth despite the gap in men’s and women’s distance records in BYU being wider in most other ultras .
Not really on subject of the article but you did mention distributions :) When you talk about average times, is the distribution normal or is it log-normal with a higher average than median. In a well populated field the lower half cluster bringing down the 50th% relative to the fewer faster runners pull up the average. This doesn't affect your article nor the conclusions.
A good read, and well written article. We need to celebrate women's performances on their own merit. The performances of the top athletes are incredible!
I think it is difficult to compare road based records with multi terrain multi day races which require a greater variety of skills but as you say the point shouldn't be about comparing men and women. This is essentially what we concluded in our book Ultra Women. We should be celebrating and encouraging female endurance, and not looking through endurance sport via a male lens. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultra-Women-Trailblazers-Defying-Sexism/dp/1914487109
Sorry Steve. If you find that female ultra runners are ON AVERAGE faster than male ultra runners the conclusion is exactly that "Female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners". If you consider "selection bias" then you cannot conclude that females (in general) are faster than males at ultra races. But, it is still true that female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners.
It might be important to compare median times, as well. But, I think most people would consider average times when determining whether one population is faster than another.
No that's not what you conclude. That's akin to selecting an elite womens 5k race and comparing it to the park run, and saying look "Women on average are faster than men at 5k!"
It's a selection bias that doesn't reflect reality. If we had a normal distribution of men and women running 100 milers, for example, then on average men would be much faster than women over that distance.
It's an erroneous conclusion. Again, many studies have pointed this out. And it's common sense.
The person who meticulously sees race and consumes a lot of endurance events can't even say this because they see on their own that there is rarely women in the overall TOP-10 which simply tells the whole narration that women aren't faster than men un ultra marathons. There is on paper difference b/w the results of both genders. People just need something to talk about & it goes on but hope the narrative around this said thing changes.
Some results here & there pop up where Courtney was 6th or 7th at UTMB.
But Steve what happened at this year's Backyard was quite mind bending as there were 4 women & 68 men. The first women took her DNF was after 52nd loop(Jennifer Russo) and till 52nd lap 23 men had took the decision of DNF. It is quite mind bending considering all the men who DNFed were experienced and no slouch in this format(whatever the reason might be).
Using records does limit it to comparing only a very small number of people and as you point out the female pool of talent is still pretty small above a marathon. I don't think you are wrong but until there is more equal participation it's never going to be an apples to apples comparison.
Motorsports have this problem too where I think women are more often able to match the physical requirements. There just aren't enough of them doing it to make a comparison so you wind up comparing the rare women that races a motorcycle or car against a much larger pool of men that do it. If more women were doing it then there would be more to choose from to find the most suited for it.
Maybe. But the same can be said about men. Some of the best men aren't doing ultras, they are racing the marathon. It's a more niche sport.
I think all the data points in the same direction here. If there was a real downwards trend going from say the 5k/10k to the marathon, you could at least make a case it might continue. But there's not.
The real test would be to take 500 random men and 500 random women and make them run 100 km…
I do a local 8K that has more women than men and even then men do finish better on average. I don’t disagree but it’ll be sometime before there’s a really good data set.
No. That'd be too small a sample size. You'd run into the same problem above.
I mean, basically, to have your theory proven correct, you'd need the top ultra women to be significantly inferior to the talent of the top men for the past 40+ years or however long.
And I just don't see that. Are they exactly equal? Maybe not. But you've had former elite marathoners like Magda Boulet take on ultras and do well. So I'm inclined to say the elite give us the best comparison we can get and tell most of the story.
I don’t really have a theory to be proven correct. My observation is that men are faster, that’s almost obvious. The challenge is actually agreeing on the data used to prove or disprove that assumption.
Anyone who thinks that this is a controversial take is simply deluded. There is no evidence at all that women are faster than men at any running distance at all. The only 'evidence' are anecdotes or one-off examples, predictions, or incorrect interpretations of data, as outlined very well in this post.
I myself did a very similar analysis with a greater focus on scientific research and presenting further evidence from races where participation between sexes was similar, and we still get the same results.
There is still absolutely a social factor, with women not being supported in their training and racing, especially at a younger age, and while I hope that the increased support and understanding continues, I don't think that it is enough to topple to biological limitations, and that is ok.
If you want to see me evidence-based piece, feel free to read it at https://bornonthetrail.substack.com/p/are-women-better-ultra-runners-than-men
Thanks Steve. I always appreciate your data driven, thoughtful analysis aimed at truth.
I would very much love for the constant comparison to disappear when talking about sporting achievements. Even if an article doesn’t compare but talks about a woman’s achievement, the comment section will be filled with ‘yeah, but men are better’. We can argue all day about biology, or support and funding or even the types of sports we decided to make, but at the end of the day, it would be so much nicer if we could all just tip our hats to incredible achievements and encourage each other to get out and be active! Thanks for another great article Steve :)
This is a great article and needs to be repeated over and over. A few years back, Nick Tiller published a paper on this in the scientific journal Sports Medicine, debunking the myths that due to a select few potential physiological advantages, women would not soon be outcompeting men in ultras. Here is the link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33502701/
It's important to note that this does not mean women should be viewed as inferior socially, etc. but rather that there are inherent physiological differences that preclude the very best women from ever beating the very best men.
We got to see this with Faith Kipyegon when she attempted to run here Sub4 mile. The very best woman in the world, with every single advantage provided to her could not run as fast as dozens of high school boys did this year alone. That's not an insult, it's just biology.
As others have said, we need to recognize those biological differences and let women shine, not keep trying to compare them to men. I wrote more about that specifically in Slate (https://slate.com/technology/2025/06/faith-kipyegon-four-minute-mile-woman-nike-science.html). These elite female athletes are amazing as they are, they shouldn't have to be breaking arbitrary men's milestones to be viewed as great.
And, in my opinion this matters beyond sports. When we see headlines that science has shown that women will soon outrun men and then it doesn't happen, it spurs distrust in science... To many, it's just one more example of something that science "got wrong" - when in reality it was just bad science (inappropriate extrapolation, etc.).
Despite this great article debunking these claims about men vs. women in ultras, I am certain we will see these false claims arise again year after year in the media.
I read this and it’s like the words have been taken from my mouth ( in a good way ) . I have been saying this on many forums for years and often coped a lot of flack because of it . This argument is not putting down women, it’s recognising the genders are different and we should not be making comparisons . We don’t in any other endurance sport . It does women no favours . I have already seen races offer either one winner take all prize or prize based on beating a certain time ( no allowance made for women ). Media tend to report more when a women beats all the men vs when she wins and breaks a course record which is obviously unfair - the merit of a women’s performance should have zero to do with how men did in the race .
Unfortunately the BYU fraternity continues ( in most not all ) to perpetuate this myth despite the gap in men’s and women’s distance records in BYU being wider in most other ultras .
Not really on subject of the article but you did mention distributions :) When you talk about average times, is the distribution normal or is it log-normal with a higher average than median. In a well populated field the lower half cluster bringing down the 50th% relative to the fewer faster runners pull up the average. This doesn't affect your article nor the conclusions.
A good read, and well written article. We need to celebrate women's performances on their own merit. The performances of the top athletes are incredible!
I think it is difficult to compare road based records with multi terrain multi day races which require a greater variety of skills but as you say the point shouldn't be about comparing men and women. This is essentially what we concluded in our book Ultra Women. We should be celebrating and encouraging female endurance, and not looking through endurance sport via a male lens. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultra-Women-Trailblazers-Defying-Sexism/dp/1914487109
Sorry Steve. If you find that female ultra runners are ON AVERAGE faster than male ultra runners the conclusion is exactly that "Female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners". If you consider "selection bias" then you cannot conclude that females (in general) are faster than males at ultra races. But, it is still true that female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners.
It might be important to compare median times, as well. But, I think most people would consider average times when determining whether one population is faster than another.
No that's not what you conclude. That's akin to selecting an elite womens 5k race and comparing it to the park run, and saying look "Women on average are faster than men at 5k!"
It's a selection bias that doesn't reflect reality. If we had a normal distribution of men and women running 100 milers, for example, then on average men would be much faster than women over that distance.
It's an erroneous conclusion. Again, many studies have pointed this out. And it's common sense.
The person who meticulously sees race and consumes a lot of endurance events can't even say this because they see on their own that there is rarely women in the overall TOP-10 which simply tells the whole narration that women aren't faster than men un ultra marathons. There is on paper difference b/w the results of both genders. People just need something to talk about & it goes on but hope the narrative around this said thing changes.
Some results here & there pop up where Courtney was 6th or 7th at UTMB.
But Steve what happened at this year's Backyard was quite mind bending as there were 4 women & 68 men. The first women took her DNF was after 52nd loop(Jennifer Russo) and till 52nd lap 23 men had took the decision of DNF. It is quite mind bending considering all the men who DNFed were experienced and no slouch in this format(whatever the reason might be).
Using records does limit it to comparing only a very small number of people and as you point out the female pool of talent is still pretty small above a marathon. I don't think you are wrong but until there is more equal participation it's never going to be an apples to apples comparison.
Motorsports have this problem too where I think women are more often able to match the physical requirements. There just aren't enough of them doing it to make a comparison so you wind up comparing the rare women that races a motorcycle or car against a much larger pool of men that do it. If more women were doing it then there would be more to choose from to find the most suited for it.
Maybe. But the same can be said about men. Some of the best men aren't doing ultras, they are racing the marathon. It's a more niche sport.
I think all the data points in the same direction here. If there was a real downwards trend going from say the 5k/10k to the marathon, you could at least make a case it might continue. But there's not.
The real test would be to take 500 random men and 500 random women and make them run 100 km…
I do a local 8K that has more women than men and even then men do finish better on average. I don’t disagree but it’ll be sometime before there’s a really good data set.
No. That'd be too small a sample size. You'd run into the same problem above.
I mean, basically, to have your theory proven correct, you'd need the top ultra women to be significantly inferior to the talent of the top men for the past 40+ years or however long.
And I just don't see that. Are they exactly equal? Maybe not. But you've had former elite marathoners like Magda Boulet take on ultras and do well. So I'm inclined to say the elite give us the best comparison we can get and tell most of the story.
I don’t really have a theory to be proven correct. My observation is that men are faster, that’s almost obvious. The challenge is actually agreeing on the data used to prove or disprove that assumption.