Nikki Hiltz Is Only Fast On The Track

**Trigger warning for mentioning suicide**

In my last post, I said that Nikki Hiltz, an American 1500-meter runner, is a mean girl. This is because she publicly belittled a woman for having the temerity to speak up about fairness for women in the Boston marathon, an event Hiltz doesn’t run. I’m not saying a middle-distance runner shouldn’t comment on longer events, but the way she went about it was cruel. She really comes off as arrogant in her approach.

Though Hiltz demands others use they/them pronouns when referring to her, I won’t because she is biologically female and races in the women’s division. Cutting off her breasts or other body parts doesn't change her sex, so she is allowed to continue racing in the women’s division. And I’m allowed to call her “she” regardless. 

After she claimed she was a transgender individual and then changed that to nonbinary, probably to avoid addressing any backlash for not wanting to compete in the men's division if she felt so strongly about being a man, it's hard to believe much of what she says, though she could just be confused and suffering from body dysmorphia or gender dysphoria. At one point, she claimed she was both, which isn’t possible unless you live in make-believe land. 

In addition to being a standout on the track in middle-distance events, Hiltz is outspoken about transgender and non-binary rights. In other words, she promotes biological men racing against women, even though she has the luxury of competing and profiting by running in a protected category for her event. She’s OK if other women don’t have that right, is how that translates.

Regarding biological men in the women’s division, Hiltz claims that nonbinary and trans athletes aren’t winning and seems to suggest they’re not even competing at the elite level at all, but, contrary to her claims, it does happen, more than she thinks it does. Here’s an ongoing list of events that, according to Hiltz, don't happen: The Lists - search by category. Apparently, she forgot about what happened in the Olympics in Rio in 2016, too. There, three biological men took top honors in the 800. These three are DSD athletes, but what follows and her comments address that as well. 

None of this affects her directly, though, so her attitude is one of not giving a shit. The only thing she seems to care about is spewing rhetoric. But why doesn't she care about younger athletes? As a top athlete, shouldn't she be concerned about the future of women's sport and providing girls and young women with the opportunity to compete on a level playing field? I sure want that. I hope young girls and women get a chance to feel what it’s like to break the tape and confidently toe the line knowing they stand a chance to win.

In a recent interview, if you want to call it that, Hiltz complains about the new policy World Athletics has put in place to protect the female category. This policy includes a one-time cheek swab or blood test to detect the SRY gene for anyone competing in the women's field. It is an extremely accurate, non- invasive test and is correct in determining testes 99.99 percent of the time. An anomaly would require further investigation and a conference with the athlete and his or her trainers. The point is to prevent what happened at the Olympics in Rio in the 800 from happening again. This policy is designed to protect women and the women's category in sports.  

In the interview, Hiltz admits that she doesn't have a clue what she’s talking about, and it’s unlikely she has any interest in learning more about DSD conditions or genetics, or the actual test put in place by World Athletics for that matter. I will add more information on this at the end of the post for anyone who is interested. 

Hiltz basically babbles the equivalent of, "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS TEST IS FOR, BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY!" Imagine not knowing what the test is, yet acting all high and mighty, and then speculating about what it means for the test to be in place. It's utterly absurd. Her arrogance is truly stunning here. 

What’s most shocking is how freely and loudly she spews complete horseshit. The lies just roll off her tongue, and it’s clear she doesn’t give a crap about facts or about others. She comes off as someone who only wants to hear herself talk. She just loves that spotlight. 

In what might be considered the dumbest response of all time, Nikki Hiltz claims that the World Athletics policy is a "slippery slope." She falsely claims that, even though this test is harmless, it could set a precedent and lead other organizations to conduct more invasive testing, only it doesn't and wouldn't. 

These spooky organizations Hiltz created in her own head wouldn't be able to successfully use invasive methods to test sex if World Athletics won't recognize these make-believe investigations as valid. There is zero evidence that any kind of invasive testing would happen. If it did, it wouldn't be because of the policy. But Hiltz has an agenda. Truth doesn't really matter as long as she gets her message out, that non-binary and trans athletes' rights trump everyone else's.

As one reader already pointed out, Hiltz established herself as a liar when she posted incorrect information about a non-binary teen, claiming this person was murdered when the cause of death was actually suicide. She never addressed the issue again, even after major publications and the media as a whole clarified what had happened, that the death was self-inflicted. In this particular tragedy, the young teen threw water at a group of individuals, and then there was an altercation that did not result in the teen's death. Sadly, the teen later committed suicide. If Hiltz meant that possible bullying may have contributed to a suicide, that's not what she said. Hiltz outright claimed the teen was murdered. Words matter. Accuracy matters. Hiltz does not care. 

Continuing with the interview, Hiltz grabs all kinds of fake statistics out of her own ass. She claims that two percent of the population is intersex and that it's as common as red hair. It's not. The correct statistics state it's closer to .018 percent and not nearly as common as having red hair. Again, she shows her ignorance, yet is so unbelievably confident in her fabrications. 

In another jaw-dropping moment of stupidity, she then claims that some people may have been "growing a Y chromosome" at some point, and then it POOF just goes away, disappears, just like that. This is so ridiculous it's hard to know how to address the claim, but no, chromosomes don't suddenly disappear like that. Sex is fixed before the birth of the baby. 

Perhaps realizing that she's flailing around in unfamiliar territory, Hiltz then uses whataboutism after stumbling through her clownish explanation of genetics and claims that abusive coaches and doping (lol) are more important to consider than women having their category erased. The whole thing is cringy to watch. I almost feel bad for her for being so naive (or is she cunning?), but, sadly, there are fans of hers who will stand behind her, no matter how ridiculous her claims.

It's unfortunate that so many podcasters, journalists, and fellow athletes support her, even when she is lying or intentionally being unkind. I think with this latest video interview, though, at least more people will realize she shouldn't be taken seriously. 

For those interested, below are some links that are helpful when discussing the topic of biological men in women's sports:

Male advantage in sports

DSD conditions and sex

World Athletics policy and testing

SRY gene

Swyer Syndrome

Imane Khelif boxing kerfuffle 

Nonbinary and gender dysphoria

Burn It All Down

The other day, a friend of mine sent me a link to Allie Ostrander's latest YouTube video. Whenever I look at anything she does, it's always in the back of my mind that she's a cheat. I don't understand her fans and their enthusiasm for her "content", but she has quite a few diehard groupies constantly cheering her on in whatever she does, be it racing or reveling in sorrow. Unless someone points out something she has done or said, I tend to ignore her. 

It's not that she doesn't occasionally bring up something worthwhile; it's that she doesn't appear to give a shit about her audience. And she’s a cheater and a liar. I don’t respect her, and that won't change, unless she suddenly starts telling the truth and apologizes for taking shortcuts and for knowingly producing triggering videos after claiming she is raising awareness about eating disorders. 

As I was watching her complain about her training and not feeling right, a common theme in her posts, I wondered what direction her video might take. The title was something about reaching a breaking point, and she hinted at knowing she was possibly overtraining. Where has her coach been in this? 

This isn't the first time she has discussed these low moments throughout her career, and I don't usually find talk about overdoing it and continuing to do so, digging an already deep hole deeper, helpful. However, when she moved toward possible solutions after having fallen into the trench, I thought maybe she had something of value to offer her viewers after all. 

Admitting she needed to take a step back, either for emotional reasons or physical or both, seemed not just sensible for herself but a great suggestion for anyone who's feeling off in training. It's not new or earth-shattering information, but it beats some of the "LOOKIT WHAT I EAT" type videos she makes. Then all of a sudden, I could have sworn I dropped into the first episode in season seven of Black Mirror. I actually had a WTF moment when Allie, with a straight face, went from talking about athletes needing enough rest straight into a full-blown advertisement for a mattress. 

It's one of the most bizarre things I have ever witnessed on a runner's channel. What a turn-off and how strange, but this is the world we live in now, like it or not. Having promos as part of (not separate from) a serious conversation is jarring, and that's the nicest thing I can think of to say about her plug or her channel.

On so many levels, Allie is a huge disappointment. I question why she decided to work with David Roche and have suspicions about him and several individuals associated with the whole Some Work, All Play cult, too. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Because I suspect these types of people are not as kind and easy-go-lucky as they pretend to be, I'll make it clear that I'm expressing an opinion, speculating, wondering aloud, not accusing, exactly. Wink wink. I have questions, though, and I scratch my head a lot when thinking about these types.

People say sprinting is the dirtiest sport in running, but ultras are as close to unregulated as possible while still implementing some testing -- only in the big races, though. Most races that actually bother to have testing of any kind, the Leadville 100 and Western States included, mention on their websites that they might implement testing at the race site. In other words, do your doping with enough time before and after so that you don't get caught. And with microdosing and new methods of cheating, it's harder to catch scammers anyway. 

A weird study regarding ultrarunners and doping was conducted in 2024. Basically, pee samples were collected from urinals at ultra races and tested for drugs. This doesn't really prove anything because, again, runners are warned about possible testing at the race sites of the more well-known races; however, in what amounts to the equivalent of a blind sample, tests showed the following:

Among 412 individual urine samples, 205 (49.8%) contained at least one substance, and 16.3% of the samples contained one or more prohibited substances. Substances detected in urine included nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (22.1%), acetaminophen (15.5%), opioids (6.6%), diuretics (4.9%), hypnotics (4.4%), glucocorticoids (2.7%), beta-2 agonists (2.2%), cannabinoids (1.9%), and stimulants (1.2%). None of the samples contained erythropoietin-receptor agonists or suspicious testosterone. Drug use was not associated with the participants’ characteristics or ranking. Respondents to the questionnaire reported using acetaminophen (13.6%) and NSAID (12.9%); however, no prohibited substances were declared.

The study draws some interesting conclusions based on this result. While only 16.3 percent of the samples contained something fishy, something other than non-performance-inhancing substances, diuretics should be a red flag since that's often a mark of a masking agent. Additionally, if someone is using opioids, and, according to these findings, over 6 percent are, isn't that a concern? 

But none of these results really point to much because of the way and where the samples were collected. It's like a Baltimore cop announcing that she's going to be patrolling for illegal street gambling at 9 p.m. on Friday, September 25th, and then being surprised she didn't catch anyone throwing dice on a street corner. And yet, in 2024, a few random cheaters in the ultra-running community didn't get the message.

I can speculate all I want, but it would be great to see better regulation, better testing, and life-long bans for those caught, even if what's uncovered is a masking agent commonly found in acne medication. Nobody believes a pro athlete wouldn't get a TUE for any medication containing a diuretic or a metabolite of a diuretic when WADA is extremely clear on these and other drugs that are prohibited at all times. Well, people who like to play make-believe might fall for some bullshit about not getting an exception because ---insert ridiculous explanation here, but most rational people are aware of who's lying. And don't trust all the new training fads. Those are red flags, too. 

If you have read the last few posts I've made, it's probably obvious that Allie rubs me the wrong way. It's not just that she's a cheater and not just that she lied; it's her whole narcissistic approach to social media. I really tried to have sympathy for her when she cried on a video about her unspecified eating disorder and made the decision to get treatment. I truly wanted her to get well and still do. Whatever demons are in her head, nobody deserves that. 

Having been at some incredibly low points with my own illness, I feel for anyone deep in the muck and the mire, however, I think a content creator who responds to an individual asking if her videos might be triggering by insisting something along the lines of, "It's my journey!" maybe shouldn't be an advocate for recovery. It's OK to simply post content without trying to be an advocate or without claiming it's about raising awareness when there are better ways to do so. Her channel is not about helping. She's making a living, selling shit and racing. That's all. 

I'm sure there are super fans of hers who will claim Allie is heroic and offers inspiration, but that's not what I see. Again, how do you take a person's "honesty" and "openness" at face value when you know she's a liar? I'd like to know how far back the cheating goes. Admit it and talk about that, and then I might have some respect. 

On a side note, but speaking of courageousness, I've mentioned that I work in a vet clinic, and the other day an older woman called about her dog that was attacked by a mountain lion. She told me that she kicked the mountain lion after she came into her yard and saw the wild cat with the dog in its mouth. I said, "You did what?" and she repeated, " I kicked it. It was facing away from me, so I kicked it." And she rescued the dog. Now, that is heroic and badass! The dog is fine, and the mountain lion ran away. She's fine, too. But I digress …

Someone who's far more intellectual and thoughtful in her approach on social media is Amelia Boone. Despite her ties to David and Megan Roche, she seems at least a little more trustworthy and real. Though she admits she worries about what others think when she addresses sensitive topics, she's far more helpful in offering solutions and admitting she, like most of us, doesn't have it all figured out. 

My biggest criticism of her blog is that, like many others who write about recovery, the focus is on eating in order to run, not recovery itself, even though the two are not entirely separate. I understand how big or even little victories around eating more in order to train and race harder are stepping stones, but recovery is about so much more than that. 

Runners tend to focus on outcome, finishing a race, training, or finding success in a specific workout, but eating disorders take away from overall health, not just running-related achievements. 

So often, advocates neglect simply living and focus entirely on the athletic aspect. Oh, but look at me, all judgmental and critical of others when I don't have my own shit together. Far from it. And I feel bad that people like Amelia and Ellie Pell are so often injured. As am I, as am I. Ellie has at least moved away from her godawful, potentially damaging and triggering “What I eat in a day” videos, so that shows some growth.

I also understand Amelia’s concern when she says even cautious writing can anger some readers, but at least she's not intentionally belittling her audience like Lauren Fleshman, Nikki Hiltz, and others in the running community often do. God, Hiltz is a mean girl. 

I appreciate Amelia's willingness to be honest, and her content is far more useful, even if it is self-absorbed. Any blogger, myself included, has at least a little bit of a narcissistic streak, some more than others. I won't even mention influencers because they're in another stratosphere when it comes to being egotistical. I think it's the nature of the beast for those of us with eating disorders to become navel gazers. I often have to force myself out of my self-preoccupation. That's not to deny how often those with eating disorders are too selfless, a strange contradiction. 

As much as I complain, audience members can usually find tidbits of good information in most of the blogs and videos I mentioned. I worry that the triggering, unnecessary, and sometimes even harmful content outweighs the informative material, though. 

Tabitha Farrar is one of the few recovery advocates I admire. It helps that she shows herself living more freely and fully, but she's also not afraid to say what she feels or believes about recovery. I think Rachael Steil does a good job promoting recovery as well. I used to admire several advocates who associate themselves with the body-positive movement. That was until it became more of an angry, anti-thin, pro-fat group instead of a coterie of individuals who support all bodies. 

But, really, who am I to tell others whom they should admire or follow? I mean, if following a liar and cheater or someone who shits on others brings you happiness, go ahead and indulge yourself. I'm not going to stop you. 

Oprah Is At It Again And Other Disappointments

I've seen a lot of talk online lately about normalizing ideas and behaviors, mostly when it comes to mental health. It used to be that people equated normalizing with removing the stigma around a topic, and, in most cases, it’s beneficial to avoid negative stereotypes that tend to come up when this type of approach isn't used. Normalizing when it comes to talking about mental health is generally seen as beneficial. It helps people feel less ashamed and less alone for struggling with any kind of disorder or illness.

Because of the way social media and the media have evolved, normalizing now has both pros and cons but probably more cons than pros. It should be obvious that normalizing violence is not constructive while helping an individual who perceives emotions as negative or bad normalize his or her feelings can be helpful. 

The problem these days is that frauds, extremists, and insincere individuals attempt to gaslight others into thinking that certain actions they're engaging in are OK when these actions could be dangerous, deadly even. Trying to rationalize continuing a risky behavior under the guise of normalizing this particular conduct is despicable, yet influencers and actors do it all the time. There's a not-so-fine line between sharing struggles and promoting a soothing yet unsound coping strategy. More and more, individuals are crossing this line in order to rationalize their unhealthy obsessions.  

I see this type of conduct a lot in eating disorder communities. Allie Ostrander is a good example of someone crossing the line from sharing to self-indulgence. I have to preface this by admitting I lost any respect for her when she was outed as a liar and cheater. What a disappointment she turned out to be. 

For anyone who doesn't know, Allie is a runner who was busted and served a four-month ban for using canrenone. In her failed, "It's my acne medication! I didn't know!" defense, she admitted googling the drug to see if it had an effect on performance. It doesn’t, but sometimes it’s best to shut the fuck up if you want others to believe you. In trying to cover her tracks, Allie accidentally over-explained and outed herself as a liar. 

You see, when you google this drug in relation to performance or anything remotely sports-related, the very first thing that pops up is that it's a banned substance. There is no way she didn’t know about canrenone being on the banned list, absolutely no way. There’s a reason why she didn’t elect to get a therapeutic use exemption, and it’s not because this drug doesn’t improve performance. Canrenone is actually used as a masking agent, so god knows what else she was and probably still is taking. There’s no doubt in my mind that she’s a flat-out fraud, and any coach who would take her on as a client at this point is suspect, too.

Cheating in sports aside, Allie is also blasting her audience with questionable content under the facade of promoting eating disorder recovery. In one of her cringe-worthy videos that I won't link to because it truly is upsetting, her boyfriend suggests that the content she’s putting out might be triggering, but Allie doesn't give a fuck about other people. This is about HER. She's part of the ME ME ME ME ME! generation after all. 

I have to ask, though, what good does it do others if she mentions the crazy calorie totals she's consuming for a particular video take? Who, exactly, does it help when she shoves what she eats in a day in her viewers' faces, many of whom are struggling with eating disorders of their own, and what good comes of her posting videos of herself training hard while admitting she's not fully recovered from bulimia? The answer is that it benefits her. Her YouTube channel and social media accounts are for profit. She's creating content, and it doesn't matter who might be affected negatively as long as she gets paid. 

I'm all for honesty when it comes to recovery, but what Allie is doing isn't honest. This is narcissism on full display. And it helps no one. Anyone claiming the videos and posts she creates benefit others probably thinks other fads and online scams are helpful. There is a big difference, a huge one, between admitting you're struggling and going into the gory details that can traumatize and negatively influence others. If she wants to pretend she's edgy and post garbage like that without offering much, if anything, in terms of actual recovery, she should stop lying about promoting recovery. She’s posting content to continue her sponsorships and to attract rubberneckers and those who will be fans no matter what she does. She's posting for money at her followers' expense is what she's doing.

I’ve written about Oprah Winfrey being a huge disappointment before, and this year, she has proven herself to be even more of a scumbag. Back in 2015 when I created a blog post detailing her shenanigans with Weight Watchers, I didn’t think she would stoop any lower, but her recent actions only prove how obsessed this woman is with being thin. You would think that someone as accomplished and successful as Oprah, a billionaire and the owner of her own production company, would focus on other things or at least leave other people out of her neurosis, but she can’t seem to be OK unless she lets everyone else in on her rationalizations and excuses. 

In 2023, Oprah was still a board member of Weight Watchers, a company she bought stock in before she joined. In 2024, she admitted that she started using a drug to help lose weight, and by the time she made this confession, she had been taking it for several months. Oprah didn’t step down from her position on the board of Weight Watchers back in 2023 when she started taking the drug; she waited until this year to do so. Once she was outed, she threw some money at the problem by donating to charity, a common action frauds take to make themselves look less corrupt. 

That was bad enough, deceiving individuals by losing weight on a drug without disclosing this to any Weight Watchers members, but because, underneath all that sham confidence and real success, she’s an insecure woman, she decided to host a dishonest television special called “An Oprah Special: Shame, Blame, and the Weight Loss Revolution." She claimed this special was about normalizing talking about weight loss. What she should have titled it is, “An Oprah Special: I Want to be Adored.” Oprah doesn’t want to normalize talk about weight loss; she wants approval from her audience to take drugs in order to look a certain way, though she will probably tell you the drugs are for health. 

I didn’t watch the full special and have no desire to do so. Watching Oprah justify taking these kinds of drugs is like watching an active anorexic talk about the benefits of taking speed. These drugs she's taking and promoting are prescription drugs designed and approved by the FDA to treat diabetes. Some doctors provide them to individuals who are obese or who meet other criteria. The drugs were not meant to be given to people who simply want to lose weight and have money to buy them, but some shady healthcare professionals will sell them to willing customers. 

In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for Oprah. To be that much of a powerhouse and still be caught up in an illusionary beauty image that's circulating in her own head is depressing. In her special, she stated, "I come to this conversation with the hope that we can start releasing the stigma and the shame and the judgment, to stop shaming other people for being overweight or how they choose to lose -- or not lose -- weight, and most importantly, to stop shaming ourselves." But how is taking a potentially dangerous drug in order to lose weight and conform to society’s warped beauty stereotypes removing the shame around anything? 

For obvious reasons, Oprah didn't go too deeply into the side effects and dangers of these drugs in her little special. From what I gather, Ozempic and other related drugs are medications used primarily for Type 2 diabetes. They’re used off-label for weight loss as well, meaning this isn’t the suggested usage. The common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, belching, stomach pain, fast heartbeat, and constipation, to name a few. Severe side effects of these prescription drugs include gastroparesis, allergic reactions, changes in vision, kidney failure, gallbladder issues, and pancreatitis. Also, Ozempic carries an FDA warning on the box for the risk of thyroid C-cell tumors.

Ultimately, Oprah is and already was free to do whatever the fuck she wants. She’s so desperate for approval that it’s mind-boggling, though. The fact that she had to hold this televised rationalization fest shows how stuck she is in obsessing about her weight. I agree in part that society did this to her. The public has never been kind when it comes to her or anyone else's weight, but maybe if she hadn’t made it such an issue by promoting fad diets like Slim Fast and flaunting her slim body and then hiding it when she gained weight, people would have lost interest. I don’t blame her for being a product of our society, but I will call her out on inflicting her unhealthy obsessions and behaviors on all of us. 

Good Intentions Don't Always Equal Good Outcomes

**Possible Triggering Content***

The body positivity movement started out as a campaign with good intentions. For years before anyone took a stand, even slightly overweight individuals were mocked, ridiculed, and discriminated against, but in the 60s, a group of fed-up residents in New York held a sit-in to promote fat acceptance. In the 70s, fat became a feminist issue, meaning female writers like Susie Orbach and later Geneen Roth were letting their followers know that body size is less about food and more about protection, power, hidden emotions, sexuality, and even politics. These concepts helped many people of all sizes feel more comfortable in their own skin and more at ease being themselves. It also helped a lot of them lose weight, once they better understood the root cause of their overeating. 

At the time of this great fat-acceptance awakening, the movement wasn't outright ignoring men or lean individuals who supported the cause. In fact, many men were part of the crusade, but by 2012, with the founding of the actual Body Positive movement, there was a shift to celebrate specifically fat women and later fat women of color. All of this seemed like a necessary and even good outcome, a backlash to the years of suppression and discrimination fat women, especially fat African American women, had endured, but sometime after 2012, the entire body-positive movement jumped the shark. 

In more recent years, advocates for body positivity have gone past the concept of acceptance into the arena of defiance, which sounds somewhat reasonable but not when it's more of a "I'll cut off my nose to spite my face" gesture. This also includes members of the movement excluding anyone who's not fat, even those who were formally fat because that just means those now thin creatures have sold out and must be shunned. 

In the past, any form of eating that caused harm or was done out of sheer emotion such as spite, anger, sadness, or even joy was seen as an issue that needed to be addressed. Yes, accept yourself, but work on understanding what drives a potentially unhealthy or excessive behavior and try to modify it in order to move toward one that's healthier to truly honor your body and its needs. That was considered a healthy approach to understanding food and its effects on the human body. Eating to satisfy an emotional craving is OK, healthy to a degree even, if you're aware you're doing it and doing it within the realm of what's reasonable. Now, eating to excess or as a rebellion is celebrated. It truly has nothing to do with health anymore and is all about protest or pouting, really.  

Before I move forward, I want to make it very, very clear that this post is not about how fat people aren't athletic or "shouldn't" eat as much or anything even close to that. Obviously, fat shaming can be as damaging as supporting eating in defiance. I'm 100 percent not here to shame anyone. The individuals who are promoting a healthy lifestyle no matter their size really are inspirational, and I fully support them and their efforts to reach others. I'm addressing more a concept of eating or overeating in response to "haters" or to anyone who makes a comment not fully in line with what an influencer wants to hear. That's unhealthy and tends towards disordered eating.

I always try to look at this from the opposite standpoint. What if, for example, I promoted compulsive exercise and restrictive eating, and then claimed I was content with my body. Then, if anyone called me out for putting my unhealthy habits on display, I told the world I was going to skip even more calories throughout the day. Imagine if my readers encouraged me, cheered me on, and claimed I was heroic for taking a stand against all these bullies. That's the Internet. You can find examples similar to this in any arena. The eating disorder world is rife with them.

The Internet has a way of making certain behaviors and even some extreme forms of mental illness seem acceptable, even when these disorders cause harm. Pretty much anyone can find support and the wrong kind of encouragement for destructive or self-destructive conduct. There are pro-ana groups, support for people who want to be over 500 lbs, and online communities that encourage participants to believe in group or gang stalking. There's actually a podcast episode on Sword and Scale about a man who was in such a group, believed he was being gang-stalked, got validation from other unwell individuals, and then ended up murdering several people because the Internet fed his paranoid delusions. 

When it comes to echo chambers online, I look at the absurdities, lies, and misleading content some liberal running journalists have promoted, especially regarding both transgender athletes and DSD athletes, and feel disgusted I ever associated myself with both running and the left. It's funny how quiet most of them have been regarding Caster Semenya's recent comments about her testes. If you want to listen to a very good analysis of Caster's situation, one that's fair, respectful of her, and honest, The Real Science of Sport addressed the issue in this episode. 

What I've noticed is that at some point, encouraging self-expression became supporting a new form of women's oppression. Women on the left, race directors, and anyone afraid of being canceled were so worried about hurting anyone's feelings, they didn't think or care that they were degrading women's sport by insisting biological men compete against them. 

They also didn't think about how it would look to offer influencers, some who run 22+ minutes per mile, prime spots in the elite corral at major marathons. Hey, as long as they look good to their peers for supporting this mess, keep at it, right? Fortunately, I see that the majority of women on both sides are in agreement that biological men competing in women's sport is, indeed, unfair, and most people are like me in that they support anyone at all running a marathon but prefer elite corrals stay reserved for those running elite times. Honoring excellence does not mean disregarding everyone else. 

At no point do I expect to see any of these so-called journalists or loud pundits on the left admit they might have been wrong or offer any new commentary. That's typically the way cowards operate: ignore any confrontation or even civil conversation, and keep the blinders on as much as possible. 

In news closer to home, I was relieved to see that in a local election, a certain individual didn't get elected to city council. I specifically voted, just so that I could vote against Waylon Lewis. I didn't care who won seats in his stead; I just didn't want him in charge of or anywhere near any policies for this city. 

One of the reasons I was so adamant that this individual not be voted into office is because I've heard and read too many off-putting stories about him. There have been rumors about his alleged abuse and mistreatment of women - I met a lady who worked for him and heard some shit - and blog posts detailing his online abuse of them. My own interactions with him are limited. I reached out to him once regarding an interview for a radio station and got an arrogant reply that made me decide to drop the whole thing. I had a feeling, one of those gut instincts that told me to stay away, and I'm relieved I did. 

But the very concrete reason why I don't like the guy is because of the way he treated his older dog. I may have told this story once before, but for those who don't know it, I was walking to work one day and noticed he was ahead of me with his dog. The dog appeared to be old and wasn't walking fast. As I got closer, the unleashed dog veered slowly toward the street. Mr. Lewis, not aware I was behind him, growled, "GET BACK HERE,' and with a grand gesture, raising his hand up first, swung his whole arm down and grabbed the dog's collar and some of the scruff of his neck, and then yanked the dog toward the sidewalk. I let out a gasp so loud (I really was shocked) Mr. Lewis turned slightly and, I'm sure, noticed me, at which point he loosened his grip on the dog and acted like nothing had happened. 

I kept thinking if this asshole does this in public, what must go on behind closed doors? But maybe it was just a bad moment. Who knows, but given the rumors, the outright accusations, and the incident with his dog, I simply can't find any reason to like the guy. Hooray that he didn't get the votes and is not on Boulder's city council. He lost, he lost hard.

Since I haven't been writing creatively much lately, I'm afraid it shows. But after a long layoff, I have to start somewhere. Maybe this post is a bit disjointed, but I felt compelled to write, something I haven't felt the urge to do in a while. On the other hand, I got this bizarre idea even more recently to write a book of short horror stories. The novel will have to continue waiting, even though I'm coming closer to formulating an interesting ending in my head. I'm just not there yet and have many thousands of words yet to write. God, I'm lazy when it comes to that. 

As far as running, I haven't been doing a lot of it. Just when I have a fun, harder workout, my hamstring/butt tears again, and I have to back off for a while. So I'm doing a little jogging here and there and trying to accept it. Work is still hard, but my coworkers are incredible and very, very inspiring. At times I'm completely overwhelmed, but each day I make it to the closing hour is a victory. And, fortunately, there are some very competent people there to guide me. 

Running and Identity

I've told this story before, but I still wrestle with my identity. Who am I? Why am I here? None of these questions are new. Running always gave me a sense of purpose. Few things in life have replaced that feeling since I gave up pushing myself in sport. 

An essay in two parts.

When I started running way back in junior high -- I'm giving away my age by admitting I went to junior high, not middle school -- I very quickly earned the nickname "the runner," and I certainly identified as such. It felt like running wasn't just something I did; it was part of me. The activity was who I was back then. I ran everywhere, to and from school, up and down the street, around the track, or up in the mountains, and it didn't matter if it was with or without company. I felt compelled to run. I had to run. More than a compulsion or maybe in addition to being a compulsion, it was a challenge. Whereas many people look at running as a chore or task they do at some point during the day, running was an event in which I partook because I both needed and, at least on some level, wanted to, at least for a time. 

Back then, I looked forward to running in a way and was excited to race. Despite the usual nerves that everyone faces before a big event, I had a hunger to compete, and I had the energy, even though I wasn't getting the nutrients my body needed. Grace period. It was nearly impossible to hold me back, though a few people tried with words of wisdom. 

There was some concern that I was doing too much too soon, but I felt like I had found my right path, my passion, and a sport in which I could excel, unlike so many activities I had tried in the past. I had dreams, big ones, but at every turn, there were my eating disorder and my compulsions that still plague me even today, though I'm no longer deep in the throes of it all, at least on the surface. Deep down, it's hard to tell. 

Eventually, it all fell to shit, but not all at once. The love for and eagerness to engage in the sport that I experienced would eventually give way to fear and then dread. At some point along my miserable journey, love turned to outright hate and remained that way for a long time, but I still laced up my shoes and got out the door to both train and race. 

Oddly and somehow, the identity of being a runner seemed separate from all the heavy baggage that landed on my shoulders later, at least somewhat. When I excelled at the sport, I was able to engage more fully in other activities, so while I was "the runner," I was also a student, a sister, and a daughter and had hobbies like baking, art, and reading. 

Once the injuries lined up one after the other, I felt more like "the former runner," and it became easier to spiral the more depression darkened my world. Same shit, different day now. I go through the motions with no real exercise goals or satisfaction but to get through an arbitrary routine. Outside of that, fear causes me to get almost like a form of paralysis, not fully able to accomplish much but several forms of distraction outside of the habitual activity, Netflix and such. It often takes me forever to write a simple blog post when darkness clouds the days.

After battling several major injuries over the last few years, a few so severe they required surgeries, and then coming down with an absolutely merciless case of long-lasting COVID (mentioned again below), I've been thinking more and more about running and identity. <--- one of the better Trail Runner articles.

For me, running hurts now. It's mostly unpleasant, and I don't feel like a runner, not even close. I can no longer say I have a passion for the sport and wonder why I even try most days. More often than not, I don't look forward to it; it's just something I attempt to do. I'm compelled, for whatever reason, to run/hobble/limp around, even if it's only for 10 minutes, like somehow if I do that little amount, I'm still hovering around the title of a runner and connected to other runners in some small way, even though I would never call myself one at the pace I propel myself forward these days. 

I miss it, being able to challenge myself on a more mental level when the physical limitations are so severe. It's hard not being able to run on trails or get lost in the moment and let my mind wander while I move outside for an hour. Biking isn't the same nor is walking, and lately, I'm just not able or willing to push myself all that hard like I used to, even on the bike.

It's such a strange experience to be this limited by my previous and current injuries. Little things like crossing the road when it's icy can be such a struggle. Last year or maybe it was the year before, I got stranded on an ice patch because my left foot can't feel how it touches the ground. This is due to several neurectomies. As a result, I'm unstable. Even if the road looks icy when it's not, like when it's wet, my brain tells me I'm slipping. This is not the same condition Kara Goucher has, but I can relate to what she's experiencing. 

In my case, it's more a lack of feeling that leads to uncertainty. My brain defaults to the worst-case scenario, and I end up feeling out of sorts, really like I am slipping, even if my foot is firmly planted on the ground. But the limitations aren't just related to feeling unsteady. I'm also dealing with physical imbalances, old injuries that didn't heal properly, and restrictions in my range of motion. Despite all this, I force myself to mix in some hobbling with my usual stationary bike routines. 

It seems impossible that I could find something else that calls me or makes my soul sing the way running once did. Horseback riding might, but it's too expensive and time-consuming, and it never reaches the same kind of intensity as running does when it comes to exercise. After my sister's recent fall from her horse that resulted in three fractures in her vertebrae, I'm not so sure I want to take any risks around a large animal anyway. 

Throughout this transition from athlete to someone who sort of exercises, it has been difficult to calm my critical mind, and because someone recently made a comment about my appearance, I’ve been feeling more insecure. 

Oddly, when people describe me in unflattering ways, all it does is make me feel bad. It doesn’t encourage me to do anything differently, which is common for most people like me. In the past, I have been approached by friends in a very loving and supportive way, and I did manage to get help or make changes. For example, after one surgery, I was looking a little undernourished, and a friend of mine pulled me aside to ask if I was OK. We talked, and I ended up seeing a nutritionist. With some expert guidance, I was able to build back some muscle I had lost throughout the ordeal. I really do have some incredible friends. 

*****

I wasn't going to write about this but changed my mind. 

The following is probably where this post should have started. I’m breaking it into two parts and, for several reasons, presenting it backward. 

I have actually written and deleted much of the content because I'm having a hard time expressing how I feel and don't want to go into too many details. I'm far from perfect and make mistakes. We all do, and when a situation that's incredibly upsetting unfolds, writing helps me process it. It helps me see my errors as well as the wrongdoings of others. 

Obviously, there are two sides to every situation. That being said, it's difficult to have any resolution when the world is full of people who project and manipulate, and I don't just mean in situations related to me. The world is a mess right now, but my personal journey is on my mind after an incident that occurred earlier this year left me floored. 

It was a long and brutal winter. After battling COVID and then some kind of Long Covid, I ended up with the flu that led to vertigo and pulsatile tinnitus in my right ear. When I went to urgent care for vertigo, the treatment nurse sent me to the ER, and just as I was beginning to feel a little bit better a few days after being in the hospital, I was fired from/quit (it was a case of mutual dissatisfaction) my job where I had worked for almost 20 years. This is all while suffering from issues related to a torn tendon in my hip area and dealing with some very intense family matters. In short, October - February sucked.

I'm not good with getting out of a routine. Not having a sense of control, even if it's a false sense of one, scares me, but now I see just how unhealthy an environment I landed in or perhaps put myself in for so many years. I'm not sure if it was a blessing in disguise (actually, I'm pretty sure it was) that I was pushed out of a stressful situation and into a different kind of stress, that of being jobless, but it happened and there's no turning back now. Lines were crosses that can never be uncrossed. 

The good news is that almost immediately after things ended in one area, I was offered a very part-time but ongoing position elsewhere, and this was followed by another, and shortly after that, something else opened up that actually excites me. I took this as a sign that getting away was meant to be, and the people close to me, thank whatever deity in the sky may or may not exist for these individuals, expressed relief and genuine happiness that I was trying something new. Sometimes you don't realize just how bad things are until change is forced upon you, be it exiting a relationship, moving to somewhere new, or altering a routine that no longer serves you. 

While I was applying for jobs during a period of almost a week of waiting for any sign of contact from my (now former) employer, I realized anew how shitty a lack of communication is, but this period gave me an opportunity to self-reflect and admit just how compulsive I still am and how my mental health inhibits progress forward. It wasn't until I got the more recent opportunity to do something in a field working with animals that I felt like I could even think about a different way of organizing my life. 

Struggling with OCD, there are very few instances in which I could see myself attempting to change, even though I have in the past to some extent, but working with animals is one of them. Every time I volunteer in a vet clinic, I think, "I wish I could be more a part of this kind of meaningful work." An article on Shannon Kopp came to mind as I was writing this. 

Previously, I had no real incentive to do things differently (I'm still not quite there yet but am attempting and on a different schedule, at least.) And while much of my winter weight loss was related to being sicker than ever -- even my boss admitted to losing a substantial amount of weight while he was sick with COVID and other illnesses shortly before I was. He also snapped at me and made unflattering comments about my looks and health in front of others right before I left, which was the final blow -- eating disorders along with ODC and other kinds of unhealthy coping mechanisms are often a way to take some kind of action when feeling depressed, overwhelmed, criticized, or unheard, something I have battled for years. 

Why is it that so many people just don’t listen or don’t hear? I'm probably guilty of this on some level, too, but not when it comes to the big picture. It's worse when individuals not only don't hear but then attempt to shove words in the mouths of others. That I really, really can't stand. 

I'm not sure how much my subconscious being aware of my distress could have played a role in things coming to such an ugly head, but there's more background to this story that I'm not sharing, except to say that it's much more difficult for me to take care of myself in certain environments. 

It might seem funny after reading the above complaints to know I actually loved my job, at least for the most part, and was very good at it, the top employee right up until the time I left, but the way I was treated the last few weeks or even months leading up to my departure, you would have thought I was stealing from the company or something. Seriously, I'm still reeling from the unsavory way things went down and probably won't come to terms with it for a while longer. And because individuals can be vindictive and you never really know what they will do, though I have an idea, I will reiterate that this is my perspective on a shitty situation. 

Obviously, I liked what I was doing and the people there well enough to stay a long time, but this last year was rough for all kinds of reasons. The bottom line is that I wasn't being heard and should have either found a way to address this or left a lot earlier. That's on me. I stayed because I was grateful to have a job and was dedicated to it, probably to a fault. 

I'll add that there were outside factors at play that also made being an employee over the last few years difficult. Maybe my perspective is somewhat skewed, but there's a difference between those who say they appreciate you and those who actually do. As the saying goes, actions always speak louder, and when you truly care about someone, you at least hear them out without projecting or making patronizing comments in front of others, even if it's just to end things, especially if it's to end things after so many years.

When it comes to the perhaps puzzling reasoning of those of us who deal with eating disorders or disordered eating patterns, the thought, "Why work on my health when I feel invisible and can't make a right move in the eyes of certain individuals?" is often at play, though I have to say that I was doing what I could to manage under the circumstances this winter. I was just really, really sick. Again, my problem, not anyone else's. But, on the other hand, because simply eating can lead to uncomfortable feelings for those of us who have lingering issues, being in a physically uncomfortable (cold, messy) or emotionally unpleasant (stressful, negative) environment makes taking steps to consume meals or snacks that much more difficult, and I say this as someone who has no problem munching on protein bars while volunteering (and soon to be working) in a vet clinic.

In the end, just like when ending an unhealthy relationship or a connection to a sport in which you can no longer participate, there's a grieving process to navigate. Things are never all good or all bad and I’m very grateful for the positives. I really am, but some endings are so rotten, so vile, they permanently taint any previous nicer moments. And, the worst part is that these types of messy and ugly situations shake a person's confidence. They really are awful and can so easily be avoided. In some cases, though, cutting ties completely is best for everyone involved. 

In a strange way, my fear and past hatred of running don't cloud my ability to see that way deep down inside, I still love it. It's like a friend or relationship with many ups and downs. Things will never be the same again regarding my former place of employment, but at least I'm not alone... in more ways than one if you catch my drift. The good news is that life has a funny way of working out if you can be open to it. I'm still learning.

I start my new job training tomorrow. I'm nervous and excited. I haven't felt this way since I was preparing for a big race. I'm so grateful to the people who supported me through this experience. Thank you doesn't seem like enough. 

Kara Goucher's The Longest Race

I recently finished reading Kara Goucher's new book The Longest Race. Setting aside the more shocking details described in the book for a quick moment, I was touched by the story she told about her family, the unconditional love they share, and the support they continually provide for each other. 

If one thing stands out, it's that Kara is tough, not just as an athlete but as a survivor. She mentions struggling to find her voice at times, especially after her coach, Alberto Salazar, touched her inappropriately and ultimately sexually assaulted her while giving her a massage, but she eventually did find and use her voice in the best ways possible. 

Many people, especially women in situations involving older men, can relate to being confused, scared, and unsure of what to do in a moment when something doesn't feel right. During traumatic events, humans don't always know how to process what's happening and might use disassociation or even try to normalize the situation as a way to cope. We question whether or not our experience is accurate, if it happened at all, or if it happened exactly the way we remember. 

I'm reading Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow, the story that helped uncover Harvey Weinstein’s abusive escapades in Hollywood, and the author stresses that it's not uncommon for women to be intimidated with methods of gaslighting or worse after a man in a position of power takes advantage. Sometimes it doesn't take threats, and the fear of reaching out for help or even verbalizing what happened comes from within. We are products of a society that doesn't encourage victims expressing themselves, and sometimes when those who have been abused do come forward, there can be harsh consequences. 

There's so much shame associated with sexual assault, and quite often, judgment is misplaced to the point where the victim feels guilty. In the end, Kara, despite facing various threats and lawsuits over the years, stood her ground and told her story, one that is bound to help others in similar situations find the courage to speak up. 

It's encouraging to see the support Kara is receiving after coming forward and exposing the underbelly of our corrupt sport. That underside is not pretty. Today's female athletes are a new kind of pioneer in the running community, true heroines of the sport. No longer are they trying to prove that women can run (they have already demonstrated this); they are fighting for equal or better salaries, a better environment, and a healthier future for younger girls moving up the ranks.  

In 2017, Alysia Montano brought attention to the difficulty of competing as an elite female athlete when she showed up for the 800 at the USATF Outdoor Championship and ran while she was not just pregnant but a very noticeable 34 weeks pregnant. It was a standout moment when people were slapped with the reality that something needed to change. Had she not toed the line, her Nike contract and, as a result, her income, would have been suspended. This was a turning point. Just as much of the world was beginning to accept that women shouldn't be forced to choose between their careers and becoming a mother, we learned that this applies to being a professional athlete, too. 

Kara wasn’t alone in facing similar situations when she was injured or recovering from giving birth. In her case, she was even pressured to prepare for a race shortly after her son, who was an infant at the time, had been operated on and was still in the hospital. The situation eventually pushed the new mother to leave his side in an effort to restart her salary that had been suspended because she was, in Nike terms, "absent from the competition" due to her "medical condition" i.e. being pregnant. Fortunately, her husband, Adam, was there to take care of their son, but it doesn't take away the heartbreak of a mother being forced to make such a painful choice. 

Because Kara's book describes so many obstacles she had to overcome, it's easy to forget what a decorated and outstanding athlete she truly is, and because of her many accomplishments, it's easy to forget how young she was when she was running so well. Running isn't as extreme as gymnastics when it comes to youngsters being on top, but kids just out of high school, or newly in or just out of college often compete on an international stage. 

Kara started doing well in running when she was just a child, and by the time she was in college, she was a champion several times over. Her list of personal bests and wins is impressive, jaw-dropping, even. She comes across as down-to-earth, self-reflective, compassionate, and at times a little bit insecure in her book, and she doesn't boast about the many accomplishments she achieved. Any wins that are mentioned are stated in a matter-of-fact way, but there's no doubt about how hard she worked for her goals. I've always admired Kara as both an athlete and a person, and reading her book only made that admiration stronger. 

One other issue Kara addressed but not deeply is her troubled relationship with food. She didn't go into tremendous detail, but it sounds a lot like what Lorraine Moller experienced, dancing on the edge of an eating disorder without falling completely into the abyss. Such is the case with many athletes. I was glad to see her bring it up, though, and she acknowledged that forming healthier eating habits wasn't as simple as eating a fucking Dorito. In fact, when she ate a Dorito that her husband encouraged her to consume while they were waiting to get dinner, it made her uncomfortable, even if it was the best choice for her hungry body at the time. It was good to see that she didn't discount the very real emotional aspect of these illnesses or imply that simply eating is an easy fix. 

As I moved through Kara's book, I spent a lot of time reading between the lines and speculating about drug use, not just in professional running but in the sport itself, and how many coaches and their athletes are guilty of outright doping violations or use more subtle forms of cheating, thyroid medications or asthma inhalers, for example. It would be almost impossible not to speculate given what she implied and outright stated. I have questions that went unanswered and may never be addressed. 

It's so easy to find ways to get an unfair edge these days, and so many results seem incredibly far-fetched, right down to those found at the high school level. I suspect and have said it before that I think most people at the elite level are, at minimum, using methods that aren't kosher, and I'm 100 percent sure these questionable practices ooze into the trail and ultra-running scene.  

What does it all mean now that Nike has once again been exposed as a shitty company that takes advantage of its athletes, supports dopers, and protects abusive coaches? Probably not as much as everyone had hoped in terms of overall change, but that doesn't discount Kara's efforts as well as those who really are working to try to change the running environment. People, even those who claim to support Kara, will still get excited about wearing shoes with a swoosh. On the other hand, already, thanks in large part to Kara, one less abusive coach is able to inflict harm on other athletes. 

I think chipping away at megacorporations and bringing to light their ugly, dark side (and Nike's nadir is exceptionally grotesque) can eventually generate small changes that may, in turn, lead to larger ones. 

Regarding people who are working toward the betterment of the athletic community, I don't include individuals who are simply trying to be seen and boast about being advocates; I'm talking about those who have taken actual steps, shared heartfelt personal stories (not ones that fit a narrative), and have been honest and continue to be upfront about who they are. Even those who are not at an elite level but get out there and encourage others to do the same can be incredibly inspirational and good for the sport. 

Both Kara and Lorraine Moller did a really great job of bringing their books to a nice conclusion. Each one had a way of coming full circle. Kara brings the reader back to her message of the love and support she received from friends, family, and fans alike. There are a lot of people in her corner, but a small coterie of individuals close to her really stepped up to back her through her hardest moments. 

One of the reasons I admire Kara so much is her ability to adapt and change. Both she and Lorraine have this skill in common, and I'm not sure people outside the running community can understand how difficult this can be for some of us. I'll save my more involved thoughts about identity and being a runner for a separate post. 

In conclusion, The Longest Race is an easy-to-read book that's hard to put down, especially if you happen to like and look up to the author. As much as it's Kara's story about her career as a runner, it's about addressing a deeply flawed system that allows athletes, especially women, to be abused. Thank goodness Kara came out the other side of all of this and can continue to feel the love and support she deserves. 

In other more personal news, I'm not going to say much about why I'm no longer employed where I was recently and for many, many years. My job was something I rarely discussed, and I plan to keep it that way. Unlike a lot of people, it seems, I'm not vindictive or malicious so will hold my tongue, even though I think it would do me good to write about it. Suffice to say that I finally expressed my needs and attempted to set some boundaries going into a meeting, and the response was about the biggest fuck you I have ever experienced from any employer, ever. 

What's that saying, though? When a door smacks you hard on the ass on your way out, a window opens? Something like that. I'm pretty sure everything worked out for the best. 

I don't remember where I saw the quote below, but I do like it. I'm not into wishing others any ill will, but sometimes I hope there's a little poetic justice in the world. The best revenge, though, is being able to let all the grisly shit go and move the fuck on without looking back. 

"Karma is a bitch? Oh no, honey....Karma is a classy wise elder who will calmly sit you down and serve you a tea you later realize was laced with the same poison you served others for years."

Expect The Predictable

Back in 2020, Lindsay Crouse tweeted and apparently later deleted a comment about the popular miniseries The Queen's Gambit, claiming that the actress who plays the lead role, Anya Taylor-Joy, got the part because she's pretty. There's no doubt the actress is beautiful, but she's also very talented. In fact, as a young actress, she won the Trophee Chopard in 2017. Anya started acting in 2013 with her breakthrough role occurring in 2015 in the film The Witch, one of the more underrated movies of our time. It's best to watch this one with subtitles since the language is not authentic even though it's a well-done period piece and the accents are thick. Before landing the role of Beth Harmon, a fictional character loosely based on Bobby Fischer in the Queen's Gambit, she played Emma Woodhouse in Emma, Casey Cooke in Split, and Allie in Marrowbone, just to name a few of her standout roles. 

Anyone who looks at Anya as just a pretty face hasn't watched her act. There's nothing wrong with being pretty and being able to do a job. Crouse seemed to be upset that someone with above-average looks, which are subjective anyway, and who's also talented got the role, and implied that the character would have been better portrayed by someone plain-looking. I actually don't mind looking at beautiful people or plain people on the screen and don't feel the need to judge either based on appearances. Filmmaking is an art, though, and fictional characters can look however casting directors want: ugly, cute, scary, or anything in between. 

It's funny that someone who's known for demanding inclusion, even to the point of discriminating against biological women, is angry and wants to exclude good-looking actresses for certain roles in favor of those who are not, but, in addition to that being unfair, I have a question. Who decides? If not the casting directors, who gets to dictate which actresses are frumpy enough for Crouse's approval?

More and more, I see a trend of people wanting to police language, control conversations, and manage how people react and respond. It doesn’t matter the political party, censorship is in fashion. Online, it can be more subtle than a group publicly demanding what books are banned and which are not, which speakers are allowed to take the mic at events and who should be silenced, and which individuals should be canceled when they step out of line. In fact, I received an online scolding by Lauren Fleshman the other day when I voiced an opinion based on a pull quote from an article in Women's Running Magazine and was confronted, quite smugly, about my response, how wrong it was of me to make a comment about eating disorders based on the quote I read. 

Instead of focusing on the topic or defending a position, those who don't really want a conversation but want to be seen as right resort to condescending jabs. In some cases, people will shift the focus in an effort to control any possible dialogue. Apparently, I'm supposed to read a person's entire repertoire, especially if she's selling a product, before making comments and shouldn't rely on an interview-style article relating to the work. Keep this in mind any time you feel compelled to comment on anything written in a publication. 

I actually stand by my comments and have always been consistent when it comes to eating disorders not being a choice, as Fleshman suggests, intentionally or not, in the write-up. This isn't the first time she has done so or has at least implied people have control over their illnesses. These are very complex disorders, and those who suffer are affected by genetics, environmental factors, brain chemistry, social pressures, comorbidity, and upbringing. Any suggestion of a mental illness being a choice should be addressed. 

If Lauren was misquoted or wasn't clear in her statement, why not simply correct it or clarify the position instead of just talking down to someone? I have called out individuals who present inaccurate information before. In this case, I can't say I would trust anyone who would agree to be interviewed for a weight-loss article full of mixed messages and bad advice after presenting herself as an eating disorder recovery advocate, but I'll try to give the interviewee the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe she wasn't fully aware of how the content in this other article would be presented. 

Regarding the piece on weight loss, I should add that it's not that dieting is a taboo topic per see, but when you see such cringeworthy and potentially triggering ideas about “flat-belly” breakfasts and advice about skipping post-workout snacks that have been shown to improve recovery, you can immediately determine that this is a piece that will likely cause more harm than good. Kevin Beck recently addressed the juxtaposition of this very article with another one by Runner's World. Women's Running has made similar missteps in publishing potentially damaging articles about weight loss followed by those that encourage eating intuitively. 

That wasn't the only tsk tsk I got from Fleshman, though. I didn't notice it initially, but earlier and quite out of the blue, she responded to a tweet of mine that linked to a blog post by Kevin Beck. Her accusation that Kevin "attacks" women with "threats and abuse" is an outright lie that she absolutely cannot back up with any evidence, none. I'm surprised she hasn't deleted the tweet yet. It's definitely in violation of Twitter's TOS and is a bad look for someone who is promoting a newly written book. 

My response caused her to block me, though. God forbid she engage in a conversation she initiated simply because she doesn't like my reaction to her lies. I have already addressed my feelings toward her, and her recent behavior has only solidified my thoughts about the kind of individual she is, not a very gracious one. 

I'm sure the two of us can agree on quite a lot of things including but not limited to her apparent support of fairness over inclusion* regarding transgender athletes that Amby Burfoot pointed out, the desire to see a healthier environment for women and girls in sport, and prevention and, I assume, treatment for those suffering from eating disorders, but, regarding the latter, I don't think just anyone can be a good recovery advocate. 

There is an art to speaking about this issue. It takes practice and an understanding of these kinds of illnesses, either by lived experience or by education, to be able to address an audience, online or in person, without inflicting more harm, even if it's unintentional. Too many people step into the role of advocate and give out incorrect information. I always admire Rachael Steil for her ability to discuss eating disorders in a safe, effective manner. 

As far as my upsetting online interaction with Fleshman goes, the way I view it is that someone who lies in order to attempt to manipulate another loses credibility. That's a given. I already had my issues with her before she decided to supervise my tweets and lie like she did. Any remaining respect I might have had for her as a person is pretty much gone. I have a lot of respect for her as an athlete and as someone who attended Stanford (I turned down a scholarship there in favor of attending BYU and don't regret it,) but I can't bring myself to support anyone who so carelessly tosses out false accusations, especially against my best friend. 

On that note, I have to clarify that I don't always agree with what Kevin writes. He can be callous in his approach, but he doesn't ever lie. That I admire. I don't condone his sometimes-abrasive descriptions of people, but if you look at some of the brilliant writers of the past, H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Charles Dickins, etc. he's in good company. 

Originally, I was going to write about the easily agitated people who get offended at the term girl when used in place of woman, but I ended up adding a few extra thoughts on my way to the topic. However, since Fleshman is among these individuals, there is a link to what I previously wrote. In order to tie things up more quickly here, I will briefly jot down my thoughts knowing there's a lot of information on this subject already out there if people are interested. 

A few years ago, Matthew Smith wrote a brief article that included statistics showing younger individuals in England tend to look at "girl" as a more patronizing or sexually suggestive --- which seems weird considering "girl" is, according to those same easily offended individuals, a child -- than older individuals. The actual full definition of “girl” is the following, and keep in mind that young is subjective and often relative:

/ (ɡɜːl) / noun. a female child from birth to young womanhood. a young unmarried woman; lass; maid. informal a sweetheart or girlfriend.

I'm sure there are weirdos who use "girl" as a pejorative, but most normal functioning individuals can tell the difference between someone who's intentionally trying to be disrespectful when calling a woman a girl and someone who's merely using a familiar term. Same with "guys" as in, "Hey guys! Let's go to a party," when referring to a group of friends consisting of both men and women or even just women. More often than not, people don't mean any harm when using these terms, and it's unproductive to assume people who use these words are doing so in order to put anyone down. 

If you find yourself getting upset over other people's use of generally non-controversial words, maybe consider the broader definitions. You don't really see men getting their panties in a bunch when they're referred to as boys. If you think some of the same adult women who claim to be offended haven't at some point said, "I'm going for drinks with the girls" or something similar, you would most likely be mistaken. 

As I caution others to calm the fuck down over the little things, I remind myself to do the same. I'm overly sensitive, so minor incidents can be hugely upsetting to me. My OCD brain spins these incidents around and around to the point of disrupting my emotional well-being. It's a matter of putting things in perspective, but usually, after a dose of blogging since running isn't much of an option these days, I end up feeling at least a little better. I hope others can find whatever it is that helps ease the discomfort that often comes with being human. 

*ETA: It looks like I may have been mistaken about Fleshman’s stance on transgender athletes, but a lot of people were as confused as I was about it. In this interview, she seems to suggest inclusion over fairness while acknowledging biological differences, though it's a wishy-washy comment that could be taken either way: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/10/1147816860/sports-world-still-built-for-men-elite-runner-wants-to-change-that ...but then she came out with this absolute mess, which sort of clarifies her stance that inclusion is better but also that girls go through different changes than boys during puberty. 

Allegations of Misconduct at CU

If you've read "Running With The Buffaloes," you probably won't be surprised at the allegations of misconduct related to CU Boulder's cross-country program. I've never written much about the team because I was part of the organization well before the "legendary" coach Wetmore took the reins. It was also a dark time for me back then. Though the environment wasn't healthy for me and several other women on the varsity team, coach Quiller was a nice guy and never pestered me about my weight or body composition. He seemed to be aware of the dangers of being too thin. Several transfers were coming from programs that were downright abusive, so in comparison, things were pretty nice at CU. 

Aside from an assistant coach who ran the 800 and who was very clearly on some kind of performance enhancer, there was nothing out of the ordinary going on that I was aware of, just too many miles prescribed and too much speedwork for my body. I wasn't alone there. 

Coming from an extremely safe, clean, honest, and healthy BUY setting and working with one of the most sensible coaches on the planet, CU's methods at the time struck me as far from perfect but not terribly damaging. Nothing in the article about the ongoing investigation points to anything outright evil either. Still, I have my reasons to suspect there's more to the story than a former athlete upset about having her body composition tested, and, as one individual pointed out on Twitter, perhaps the reason why more people didn't balk at the methods described in "Running With The Buffaloes" is because it's a story about men and that kind of severe training was more accepted and not seen as anything all that unusual at the time. Maybe it should have been a red flag for more people, and it was for at least some of us. But things are very different now. We recognize and can define wrongdoing more quickly and accurately.

Training or overtraining aside, weight and body composition can provide a coach with valuable information. When I was at BYU, our coach weighed us, but the team setting was probably one of the healthiest running environments I had ever experienced. It's not so much that anyone in a position of authority gathers this kind of information; it's more how he or she goes about it and also what he or she does with that information.

Part of the reason why I have avoided sharing my suspicions about the darker side of the CU cross-country program that consistently produces successful runners is because all that I know about Wetmore and his training methods is hearsay. I know at least one person who was coached by him before he was the head coach at CU, and I know a few people who filled the role of assistant or volunteer coach while he was there. One of these ladies told me that Wetmore had all of his female athletes go on the pill. I thought it was weird, but she insisted it was to help prevent bone loss in runners who were "naturally" thin. But shouldn't going on birth control be a decision between a woman and her gynecologist, not a running coach? And all of them? Really? Again, it all seemed strange to me.

I also know other coaches who trained former CU athletes who ran under Wetmore's guidance. In fact, when I was writing my memoir, I interviewed a coach who was working with two CU alums who were too afraid to talk to me about their experiences there, even though I assured them that I would protect their anonymity. No go. Whatever trauma they experienced and privately confessed to their new coach would stay hidden from the rest of the world, but it was enough for me to wonder about his coaching style. And knowing some of the unsavory comments he said to at least one of his former athletes is enough for me to know that whatever facade he presents to the world probably isn't the full picture. Most likely, he's private and avoids interviews and the spotlight for a reason, and it's not because he's shy. 

Shortly after the article about the investigation was published, I noticed that Joe Klecker posted on Twitter about his experience at CU under Wetmore. He suggested it was fine, nothing to see here, folks! Because he didn't experience anything that upset him and he was referred to a dietitian and other professionals rather than discuss weight or mental health with his coach, which is how it should be, he seems to imply that his experience can serve as a standard for everyone else. People respond differently to different types of stress, and what's not upsetting for one person might be unbearable for another. That's why a good coach takes into consideration individualistic experience and aims to provide a safe environment for everyone. 

Another person on Twitter suggested that coaches should be able to tell who has an eating disorder, which is absolutely ridiculous. More often than not, you can't tell who has an eating disorder or who might develop one. Don't play guessing games when it comes the mental health of individuals. 

What both posters are missing is that anyone at any given time can be susceptible to developing an eating disorder or can be dealing with a mental health issue. Just because one person's experience seems OK, it doesn't mean that the program overall isn't toxic, and just because one person found the environment unhealthy, it doesn't mean it's a bad program overall. That's why it's important to conduct an investigation and uncover patterns that can help determine what, if anything, needs to be addressed.

Regarding mental health in the running community, things have definitely changed over the years, and, fortunately, those in positions of authority are starting to become more aware of the issues that plague so many runners, especially when it comes to eating disorders. 

In the 80s, there were plenty of unhealthy college running programs, probably more unhealthy ones than not, and it was mostly accepted that people, primarily coaches, would talk about weight and the importance of maintaining a certain physique in order to perform well. Over time, though, it became apparent that thin doesn't always mean faster and most definitely does not mean healthier. In other words, the more disaster struck young athletes, the more coaches learned that those who are too thin or end up engaging in other unhealthy behaviors in an attempt to control weight often end up experiencing more injuries and can't maintain health. It's better to have a little extra muscle mass or even fat than risk dieting to the point of not being able to run well or at all. 

Of course, there are other ways for athletes to remain extremely thin while engaging in demanding, consistent training, but I'll stick to the topic at hand here and save additional speculation for another time. 

Despite some programs softening their "don't get fat" stance, plenty of coaches still foster unhealthy athletic habits and contribute to an atmosphere that encourages eating disorders. Because the investigation is ongoing, we don't know the details of what the athletes at CU believe to be toxic conditions, but one of the more important messages in the Runner's World article states:

But body composition testing can have harmful effects on collegiate athletes when not conducted responsibly. Testing frequently, conveying results without appropriate sensitivity, or aiming to manipulate these numbers can trigger disordered eating and eating disorders, and contribute to a condition called relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S), a mismatch between energy intake and expenditure that can lead to menstrual irregularities, weak bones, and other injuries and long-term health problems.

What's concerning is that there are others calling the investigation a witch hunt. It's hard to imagine that when at least five individuals find certain methods toxic there isn't something controversial going on behind the scenes. The idea that there were comparisons of body composition between current and former teams suggests that methods were questionable at minimum. Because of my history of eating disorders and also knowing some of the snide comments Wetmore has said to one former athlete, I might be assuming the worst, but I also know that, despite improvements, there aren't enough checks on programs. There also aren't sufficient mandatory training programs or evaluations for coaches. As one local professional coach put it, "Certification for coaches is a joke. Pretty much anyone can become certified." 

With the investigation, it's important to listen to both sides and try to encourage more awareness around safer coaching methods. One of the best ideas is to have athletes work with registered dietitians and mental health professionals. It takes a village, so to speak, to raise a healthy athlete. Because eating disorders are so prevalent in runners, coaches really need to work on their approach with athletes. Even if only one person on the team is more sensitive, a coach should be cautious with how he or she addresses everyone.

This is a little bit rushed and probably contains grammatical errors, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there immediately in response to the article, something  I rarely do anymore. It will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation, and I hope some former CU athletes who have been successful offer their insights. Then again, most people already know that those who are running at the top are often treated differently than those who aren't winning races. Like it or not, coaches are human and fallible.