So after recovering from the awesome flu of death, which sidelined me for 9 days (!), I started running again on Wednesday. Immediately after my little 4-mile jaunt downtown with Katie, she and I went to an inversion workshop at Lululemon. I can now totally do a headstand and a handstand, and yes, I would love to show you.
But then I went for my usual Thursday morning run and my hip HURT. Now, I've been having left hip/glute/hamstring problems for some time now--since about September of 2007. I've briefly seen a massage therapist and chiropractor about it, but mostly I just kept running and complaining. Hip pain that started at mile 9 played a big part in my MCM meltdown. But this is bad. I'm not sure what set it off--I don't remember falling on it when doing inversions, though I do tend to fall left. And for the record I do remember falling and hitting my back (twice, once on the door knob at home) and hitting my head once really hard. But my hip?
I thought I figured out the cause of the pain several times. I've certainly temporarily improved it, but now, after a year and a half, I've reached the point where all running hurts. And I just took 9 days off. Ibuprofen worked until it didn't (ahem, marathon day), weight lifting is making me jacked, but not in the right places, yoga has loosened me up, and all this has made me faster to the tune of a sub-47 minute 10k, but my legs still hurt. So I'm going to go to the doctor.
Of course I don't want any anti-inflammatories (very bad for your stomach) and God forbid a cortisone shot, and I'm not a huge fan of the natural remedy of not running, but maybe something can be done. Because I cannot crack 3:40 with this kind of pain, and if I don't do something now I'm not going to be able to run a marathon at all. Eight miles was torture this morning, and I'm supposed to do 14 tomorrow, but I highly doubt that will happen.
In other better running news, Jezebel had a post up about women marathoners, which led to some awesome discussion in the comments and a neato facebook group for Jezebel-reading marathoners. And at the risk of sounding like the creeper I am, Jezebel-reading marathoners are probably all my soul mates. So anyway, one of them writes a great new blog on running. Check it out.
Showing posts with label women's sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's sports. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Monday, August 18, 2008
Itsy Bitsy Bikinis
So, yeah, beach volleyball players wear little outfits.
The women who play are uniformly gorgeous, so I guess they feel no need to cover all that hottness up with, well, uniforms. I'm watching May and Walsh play the semi-final match, and so are Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. I doubt the outfits are lost on them.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by how good May and Walsh are. They are, by far, the dominant team. Last time I watched, their match count was something like 457-9. And right now they are trouncing the Brazilians 14-6. Make that 15-6.
I think it's a shame they don't play against men. I bet they could take on many of the best men's teams in the world and still come out on top. Sure, the net is higher in men's volleyball, and on average the men are probably taller, but Walsh is well over 6' herself. I'm not worried.
I read this book for a review I never wrote for the AAUW member magazine. It was about the idea that sex-segregated sports do a disservice to the best women, because they never have a chance to go up against the best competition--men. After reading the arguments of authors Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano, it's difficult to disagree with them.
As a former rugby player and now runner, I certainly see the arguments in favor of letting women win by separating them out of the men's competition. While Paula Radcliffe can beat her countrymen, she hasn't yet clocked a marathon time that would beat the male world record holder. And she probably never will. Winning is likely more rewarding than always coming in behind a handful of men, but Radcliffe still comes in ahead of the vast majority of men running marathons.
At the lower levels of sports, sex segregation might be a good idea, especially to introduce girls to their sport. Boys can be intimidating, and they therefore tend to dominate on the pitch. McDonagh and Pappano are in favor of voluntary segregation--they are protesting forced sex segregation. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. While the scrawniest, nerdiest, most athletically disinclined boy could try out for his school's football team if he wanted to, it's likely that the most athletic, talented girl at his school could not, simply because she's a girl. And when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem fair.
So May and Walsh might not have any interest in competing against the top men, but it might be good for their game. And it might also make for good tv. Provided the dudes wore correspondingly skimpy outfits.
The women who play are uniformly gorgeous, so I guess they feel no need to cover all that hottness up with, well, uniforms. I'm watching May and Walsh play the semi-final match, and so are Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. I doubt the outfits are lost on them.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by how good May and Walsh are. They are, by far, the dominant team. Last time I watched, their match count was something like 457-9. And right now they are trouncing the Brazilians 14-6. Make that 15-6.
I think it's a shame they don't play against men. I bet they could take on many of the best men's teams in the world and still come out on top. Sure, the net is higher in men's volleyball, and on average the men are probably taller, but Walsh is well over 6' herself. I'm not worried.
I read this book for a review I never wrote for the AAUW member magazine. It was about the idea that sex-segregated sports do a disservice to the best women, because they never have a chance to go up against the best competition--men. After reading the arguments of authors Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano, it's difficult to disagree with them.
As a former rugby player and now runner, I certainly see the arguments in favor of letting women win by separating them out of the men's competition. While Paula Radcliffe can beat her countrymen, she hasn't yet clocked a marathon time that would beat the male world record holder. And she probably never will. Winning is likely more rewarding than always coming in behind a handful of men, but Radcliffe still comes in ahead of the vast majority of men running marathons.
At the lower levels of sports, sex segregation might be a good idea, especially to introduce girls to their sport. Boys can be intimidating, and they therefore tend to dominate on the pitch. McDonagh and Pappano are in favor of voluntary segregation--they are protesting forced sex segregation. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. While the scrawniest, nerdiest, most athletically disinclined boy could try out for his school's football team if he wanted to, it's likely that the most athletic, talented girl at his school could not, simply because she's a girl. And when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem fair.
So May and Walsh might not have any interest in competing against the top men, but it might be good for their game. And it might also make for good tv. Provided the dudes wore correspondingly skimpy outfits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
