Boston's problem with women

Distance: 8.5 km (5.3 miles); Time: 51 minutes; Surface: treadmill

This week all 21,000 places for the Boston Marathon, the world's oldest annual marathon which takes place each April through the leafy, red bricky streets of New England, sold out in a record eight hours. What makes this especially startling is that this marathon, one of the five "World Majors", has strict qualifying times as part of its entry criteria - to get a place, you have to have completed a marathon in under 3 hours 40 if you're a woman and under 3 hours 10 if you're a man (aged 34 or younger). That's pretty quick.

Boston Marathon Qualifying Standards
Age	Men	Women
18–34	3hrs 10min	3 hrs 40min
35–39	3hrs 15min	3 hrs 45min
40–44	3hrs 20min	3 hrs 50min
45–49	3hrs 30min	4 hrs 00min
50–54	3hrs 35min	4 hrs 05min
55–59	3hrs 45min	4 hrs 15min
60–64	4hrs 00min	4 hrs 30min
65–69	4hrs 15min	4 hrs 45min
70–74	4hrs 30min	5 hrs 00min
75–79	4hrs 45min	5 hrs 15min
80+	5hrs 00min	5 hrs 30min

Aside from the astonishing fact that we must all be getting so much faster if so many people can now qualify as "good" marathoners, the problem of over-subscription has prompted debate over whether women's qualifying times should be lowered to be brought more in line with men's. The gap in elite runners' times is now closer to 20 minutes than 30 - in the London marathon 2010, another World Major there were only 17 minutes between the male and female race winners.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, the Boston qualifying times were set back in 1977, Understanding of marathon fitness has moved on a lot since then, especially if you think that in 50 years ago marathon running was still considered an heroic feat suitable only for the unusually talented. I like to think that's still true, despite the fact that even the contestants on The Biggest Loser can run one these days.

Boston's problem also raises the question of age and gender and how they inter-relate in runners - is a man in his 50s still faster than a woman in her 30s? The qualifying times seem to presume so, when to me this feels instinctively wrong. Could it be that the marathon organisers - Boston's are almost all male - subconsciously want to perpetuate the "fragile woman myth" to protect the idea that men are always faster and stronger?

On the getting faster thing, the average human may be speeding up but at the top of the game every nanosecond is still a hard-earned victory. There is only about 6 minutes difference between the winner of the first London Marathon in 1981 (2.11) and the 2010 winner (2.05).

On a personal note (as someone unlikely to ever meet the Boston entry criteria) my knees are feeling a bit twinge-y today, so I think I might do some weights or biking instead of running. What's the best kind of cross training for marathoners, does anyone know?