We’re asking the wrong questions about women’s athletic performance

In 1992, an article in Nature asked, “Will women soon outrun men?” The question was sparked by a series of remarkable performances by women, including Florence Griffith-Joyner’s 100-metre world record in 1988. At the time, women’s performances were improving faster than men’s, prompting speculation that the gap might eventually close in endurance events, and then possibly the sprints. More than three decades later, the answer is clearer. Prior to puberty, boys and girls perform similarly, but the hormonal surge at adolescence sets in motion a lasting gap in speed, strength and endurance. Women have continued to narrow the gap, but a sizeable difference still remains. Even when talent, training and effort are equal, biology still sets upper limits of performance. But does this really matter? Women’s sport does not need to be compared to men’s sport in order for it to be considered elite or credible. It can stand on its own. Maybe the real question is not how close the gap is between men and women but instead whether we are providing women with the training and resources to maximize their potential. Puberty changes everything Prior to puberty, boys and girls are similar from a performance perspective. Girls often keep pace or outperform boys, with similar race times, jump height and endurance capacities. Once puberty enters the equation, the balance shifts. In boys, testosterone surges well above that of females at any age, driving gains in muscle, bone, heart size, lung capacity and hemoglobin — an iron-rich protein in blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to body tissues, including working muscles, which plays a major role in sports and is especially important in endurance events. These traits boost speed, power and endurance capabilities. On the other hand, girls experience spikes in estrogen and progesterone during puberty. These hormones are essential for reproductive health and are associated with higher body fat and wider pelvic structure, which in turn could alter athletic performance. By the late teens, and importantly after the start of puberty, the divide is obvious. Men outperform women by 10 to 30 per cent across the majority of athletic events not because of differences in dedication or effort, but because physiology has set different athletic ceilings. Biology sets the boundaries Expanded investment, higher salaries, greater participation opportunities, stronger advocacy, the growth of professional leagues and improved coaching and training have benefited some sports like women’s football (soccer) over the last few decades. Recent developments, such as the new WNBA collective bargaining agreement that includes salary expansion and revenue sharing reflect a shift in momentum towards an increasing value in women’s sport. Nonetheless, once training conditions become comparable at the elite level, the performance gap does not disappear — it stabilizes. Despite similar coaching, facilities and sports science support, a consistent performance divide remains because after puberty, muscle size, lung capacity and hemoglobin set a baseline that training cannot erase. None of this diminishes the extraordinary sporting achievements of female athletes. Exceptions to the rule? Where women excel There are events in which women outperform men, and these cases are telling. In ultra-events and cold-water swims, women have occasionally won outright, likely as a result of greater fat metabolism, better pacing and higher tolerance for prolonged discomfort. These traits matter less in explosive events but can be decisive in prolonged endurance or sustained output activities. Also, performance includes aspects of sport — like skill, tactics, and strategy — that are difficult to compare. The elements are a reminder that the performance gap shifts with context, rather than being finite. Alternative questions Acknowledging these differences does not diminish women’s achievements. Instead, it protects the principle of fair competition that women’s sport was created to uphold. Fairness, however, is not the same as equity. The majority of women’s sport still receives less funding, media coverage and scientific investment, there are gender-specific barriers to sport and physical activity participation, and there are major gaps in understanding how female-specific physiology such as menstrual cycles, contraceptives and pregnancy affect performance and recovery. These are realities that coaching practice and sport policy are only beginning to tackle. And this leads to an alternative question: when will the coaching/administration gap close? This question is put forward in the face of continued disparities in the number of female coaches and administrators across most sports, a fact noted at the most recent Winter Olympic games.
Similarly, when will the training gap close? Along with sex differences in physiology, coaches and athletes acknowledge differences in coach-athlete relationships, injury risk and other aspects of health, yet training often continues to draw on sport science literature and sport programming historically based on male participants. Anecdotally, after presenting on these topics to a group of high-performance coaches, several described seeing these differences in practice and expressed frustration that the research base remains too limited to guide them in sex-specific, evidence-based training practices. Nonetheless, expanding this research, as well as increasing the representation of women in sport leadership and administration, would be a step forward in creating change.
Will female athletes ever compete with males in the most physically demanding sports? Maybe, maybe not. But is this the right question? Women’s sport does not need to mirror men’s to matter. Its value stems from fair competition and athletic achievement. It has earned the right to visibility, respect and investment — both financially and through research — to best allow all of our aspiring athletes to maximize their full potential.

Kurt Michael Downes receives funding from the Coaching Association of Ontario (CAO). He is the President and Head Coach the Border City Athletics Club (not-for-profit) and is a member on the boards of Inclusion in Canadian Sports Network (not-for-profit), Family Fuse (not-for-profit) and Resilient Kids Canada (not-for-profit). Kevin Milne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.