Sex Differences in Track and Field Elite Youth.

PURPOSE: To understand athletic performance before and after puberty, this study determined 1) the age at which the sex difference increases among elite youth track and field athletes for running and jumping events, and 2) whether there is a sex difference in performance before ages associated with puberty among elite youth athletes. METHODS: Track and field records of elite US male and female youth (7-18 yr) across 3 yr (2019, 2021, and 2022) were collected from an online database ( athletic.net ). The top 50 performances were recorded for 100-, 200-, 400-, and 800-m track running, long jump, and high jump. RESULTS: Males ran faster than females at every age in the 100, 200, 400 and 800 m ( P < 0.001). When combining all running events, the sex difference (%) was 4.0% ± 1.7% between 7 and 12 yr and increased to 6.3% ± 1.1% at 13 yr and 12.6% ± 1.8% at 18 yr ( P < 0.001). Similarly, males jumped higher and farther than females at every age ( P < 0.001). For long jump, the sex difference was 6.8% ± 2.8% between 7 and 12 yr, increasing to 8.5% ± 1.7% at 13 yr and 22.7% ± 1.4% at 18 yr ( P < 0.001). For high jump, the sex difference was 5.3% ± 5.2% between 7 and 12 yr, increasing to 12.4% ± 2.9% at 15 yr and 18.4% ± 2.04% at 18 yr ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Before 12 yr of age in elite youth track and field athletes, there was a consistent and significant sex difference of ~5%, such that males ran faster and jumped higher and farther than females. The magnitude of the sex difference in performance increased markedly at 12-13 yr for running and long jump and 14 yr for high jump and thus was more pronounced after ages associated with puberty.

Underrepresentation of women in exercise science and physiology research is associated with authorship gender.

Historically, low representation of women participants in exercise science and physiology studies has led to a lack of understanding in the response of women to exercise and therapeutic interventions. We hypothesized that 1) the number of women authors, participants, and editorial board members increased over 30 years (1991-2021) and 2) larger representation of women as editors and authors is associated with more women participants. Gender (man/woman) of editorial board members (n = 394), authors (n = 5,735), and participants (n = 2,984,883) of 972 original research articles with human participants published in 1991 and 2021 was analyzed from three journals: Journal of Applied Physiology, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, and British Journal of Sports Medicine. Between 1991 to 2021, the average percent women per article as participants (21.9 ± 31.7% vs. 36.3 ± 30.3%, respectively, P < 0.001), authors (16.4 ± 22.4% vs. 30.9 ± 24.0%, P < 0.001), and editorial board members (13.3 ± 5.4% vs. 41.5 ± 7.3%, P = 0.006) increased. In 2021, the gender proportion of participants in large datasets was similar (50.2 ± 20.2% women). However, studies with smaller datasets (i.e., <∼3,000 participants) included less women (35.6 ± 30.6%). Women participants (%) were less when the last author was a man rather than a woman in 1991 (19.9 ± 29.5% vs. 34.3 ± 42.2%) and 2021 (31.6 ± 27.7% vs. 51.7 ± 33.4%). In 2021, there was a positive correlation between author and participant gender (% women) (r = 0.42, P < 0.001). Our data suggest that the low representation of women in exercise science and physiology research could be resolved with equitable numbers of women authors and editors and by encouraging men authors to study both women and men participants.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Analysis of human applied physiology studies revealed that the representation of women authors, participants, and editorial board members increased over 30 years but remained lower than men in 2021. Larger representation of women editors and authors was associated with more women participants. Women authors assessed similar numbers of women and men participants, whereas men authors included less women. Equitable representation of women participants may be achieved by closing the gender gap in authorship and editorial board membership.