Ross Tucker Profile picture
Aug 23, 2019 3 tweets 1 min read Read on X
I need to update this piece, because since writing, my engagement with many here, plus research from Sweden, has led to some evolution in thinking. At this stage, it seems much more likely that evidence will show that performance advantages are retained even after lowering T (1/)
However, even without that recent evidence, the biological principles for separation into men’s and women’s categories in sport are so strong that to overturn it requires exceptional evidence (2/)
I understand a desire for “compromise” (easy when not directly involved, I’ve realized), and get that we want “inclusivity”, but for the sake of “protected” women’s sport, especially at elite level, self-ID just cannot work. I get that this creates a sport vs society tension (3/)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Scienceofsport

Jan 27
@Nakabuleluwa @drjamesdinic @ProfTimNoakes This desire for a bottom line is what creates a 'market' for the kind of reductionist, over-simplified & selective thinking espoused in that review. Physiology is complex - there are many ways to achieve some outcomes. But if the outcome is performance, low to zero CHO is not one
@Nakabuleluwa @drjamesdinic @ProfTimNoakes Also, very little that has been discussed here is actually new. You could've had lectures in 2002 and heard the same discussions and debates that are now being "debunked" by the paper. Only, the review leaves out dozens of papers that contradict its desired thesis. Can people...
@Nakabuleluwa @drjamesdinic @ProfTimNoakes ...exercise on low CHO intake? Of course? Does fatigue co-incide with EIH? Yes, of course. It's been known for years. Thus, does CHO ingestion prevent EIH and thus delay fatigue? Yes, obviously. None of this argues that high performing athletes can perform OPTIMALLY on low CHO
Read 13 tweets
Jan 24
One thing about this, aside from it being typical academic circle-jerk insecurity (so needlessly, too), is that the integrated model proposed by @drjamesdinic doesn't actually make the same claims that many people (including Tim) proposed as far back as 2001. What James' model is
...explaining (correctly) is that both peripheral and central carbohydrate stores matter to exercise performance and fatigue. It's still a relatively narrow view on exercise, isolating one of many 'homeostats' that regulate or limit fatigue & performance, depending on context.
What Tim et al have argued (as per James initial tweet here ) is that "brain energy balance" matters, not peripheral glycogen levels, and so athletes can get away with very low CHO intake, 10g/hr levels. The bizarre irony is that to make this case,...
Read 9 tweets
Sep 3, 2025
There's a whole interview with Malcolm Gladwell that I hope you'll listen to (it's great! link below), but part that is getting a lot of attention is this clip right near the start, and I thought I'd share some context & thoughts

Here's the full podcast: podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/mal…
So context, he's talking about a panel that happened in Boston at @SloanSportsConf a few years ago. I was a panelist, and he was the moderator/chair. I was significantly outnumbered on that panel, and my main recollection was that it was a bit of a car crash! speaking for myself!
I recall murmurs & dissent to just about everything I said (male advantage is real, enormous and should be excluded from women's sport, testosterone suppression doesn't take it away, no such thing as meaningful competition), and cheers when trans advocates spoke! I wasn't happy!
Read 11 tweets
Aug 5, 2025
Two things these men (& very occasionally women) have in common when offering these 'insights' are: 1) Ignorance (perhaps chosen) of the policy leads them to criticize a straw man or fiction 2) They never offer a solution of any kind for women's benefit 🧵 theconversation.com/world-athletic…
For example, he writes the following. But the WA policy, from its origin, has been CLEAR that it's not simply the SRY gene, but the complete journey from that gene through to androgenization that is being excluded. That's why WA explicitly states the exception, as shown (blue) Image
Image
He doubles down on his simplistic understanding of the process - SRY is step one, and then "further medical assessments" establish a diagnosis, which would very quickly identify the detail he asserts as if nobody has thought of it. He appears not to understand how 'screens' work Image
Image
Image
Read 11 tweets
Nov 11, 2024
At some point in the future, I'll share a presentation that goes through male vs female physiological differences and the biological reality of sport, to explain what some have (wilfully) misunderstood. But for now, here's a pen review of this absurdity promoted by @BJSM_BMJ Image
Number 1 (summary conclusions only, mind) Image
Number 2. This might be the most egregious straw man ever erected. As if anyone really believes it is all muscle size and strength Image
Read 8 tweets
Aug 5, 2024
The IOC appear unsure of why sport would test the sex of athletes. In a bonus (short 16min) podcast, I explain the reasons, how categories only work when excluding some people and why screening is not arbitrary but essential to fairness & safety for women: open.spotify.com/episode/0nhX9D…
It strikes me that the IOC response to the controversy is to ignore the test results, instead choosing to criticize the reason for testing. This enables them to deflect the implication of the test results. The reasons for testing, more generally, is what I cover in the podcast 1/
An organization that is sincere about the integrity of women's sport would deal with BOTH issues. By all means, criticize targeted testing & seek a better way to do it (also in the podcast), but recognize that those test results are telling you that males are fighting females 2/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(