Marathon Mom Paula Radcliffe Raises Controversy (supposedly)

Last week's New York City Marathon was deftly summed up by BlogHer's own resident mathoner, the inimitable Grace Davis, and she did touch on some of the positive commentary surrounding Paula Radcliffe's win. In case you missed it, Radcliffe won the marathon with an impressive finishing time of 2:23. Her victory is made all the more impressive because Radcliffe gave birth less than a year ago.

When Grace wrote her piece last Wednesday, she cited praise for Radcliffe's accomplishment found 'round the internet. But as these things often go, by Friday (just two days later!), the news was already spinning the win as a contentious matter. Why? Because we have to grab every chance to portray mothers as sniping against one another, of course:

For bleary-eyed new moms, the image of Paula Radcliffe celebrating her astonishing New York marathon victory just nine months after giving birth is more than slightly surreal. There she was, one sinewy arm holding a baby, the other victoriously waving a British flag, ribs visible beneath a washboard-flat torso, not an ounce of visible fat on her sleek body.

"Running whilst preggers? Winning 9 months after? Yo!" read one blog comment.

Yes, it's amazing. Yes, those of us who could scarcely manage to shower in the early days of motherhood might find Radcliffe's apparent Bionic Woman tendencies a bit, well, hard to wrap our heads around. Kristen Chase of Motherhood Uncensored was quoted in the above article:

"New moms are extremely tired, so the prospect of getting on a treadmill or even running outside at six weeks when your children — at least my children — aren't sleeping through the night" seems unimaginable, said Chase, who also has a 3-year-old daughter.

As was the ever-relatable Sweatpantsmom:

"It's been 3,285 days since I last gave birth and I get winded just walking to the refrigerator."

I'm just not sure this qualifies as the "debate" the article promises. Heck, most of us can't imagine running a marathon, period. The fact that Radcliffe was triumphant so soon after giving birth -- a labor which included fracturing her sacrum, by the way -- is amazing no matter how you view it. I see women giving her props. Sometimes there are a few tongues planted firmly in cheeks while they do so, sure, but on the whole I'm just not seeing the mommy-war-esque furor I think the media wants to find.

Cindy over at Go Workout Mom says that Paula Radcliffe needs no one's approval:

The average person is not going to get up and go run a marathon so soon after pregnancy, but for an exceptional athlete, why not? We use pregnancy as an excuse to avoid fitness. We convince ourselves that we are not as fit as we were prior to pregnancy. We are the keepers of our own bodies. We choose to listen or not. Paula Radcliffe had a desire to immediately return to top competitive ranks. She made the sacrifices and suffered the consequences of her training. For both the challenges she faced by over-training early and for returning to peak condition, she made those decisions for herself. I respect any person that makes that commitment regardless of media and all of our crazy opinions posted on the internet.

Herding Blind Cats says rules change, and common sense is the way to go:

Now, there's a lot of debate about how much you can exercise during pregnancy. With my first, it was, "don't get your heart rate over 140, you'll fry the baby's brain". Basically. With my second, it was, "exercise is OK, but if you feel any strain, stop." My general opinion with both of my kids was (barring any medical condition) that I was pregnant, not disabled, and I would do most anything physically as long as I felt OK. I mean, you can tell if you're overdoing it. It's not any different when pregnant, except for you can't see your feet. And you're really tired, but that goes away in the second trimester. Anyway, so my theory is that if this woman was a marathon runner before pregnancy, why on earth would she not be able to keep training within reasonable limits? And she did, and good for her.

She does stick a little jab in there at the end, but still, hardly cause to claim people are up in arms:

IMO, if you suffer a SPINAL STRESS FRACTURE, that's your body saying, hey, moron. You just gave birth. Ease into it a little softer, would'ja?

Amy at Mother Load is willing to give voice to what many of us may be feeling, but I don't read it as mean-spirited at all:

Apparently, Ms. Radcliffe trained throughout her pregnancy.

This is mind-boggling to me. I don't think I could have run to the end of the block to save my life, once I got past 30 weeks. My legs just refused to break into a trot. TOO.. HEAVY... MUST...SIT...DOWN, my body said over and over again.

I did do spinning and "Core Fusion" (kickass Pilates-type) classes until I was 34 weeks, and thought that I was pretty hot stuff for managing to do that. But there's always that Supermom out there to show you that, no, actually, you still suck.

Congratulations to Ms. Radcliffe, and her (presumably) 14-ounce toddler.

Yeah, maybe someone like Paula Radcliffe makes some of us less athletic moms feel a bit lacking, but on the whole, I don't see women debating here. I see woman cheering on a fellow mom, even if they're doing it from the comfort of their own couches.

Contributing Editor Mir also blogs about issues parental and otherwise at Woulda Coulda Shoulda and Cornered Office, as well as sharing the joys of mindful retail therapy at Want Not.