More on the tallest and heaviest sub 27

According to the man himself, he is between 164-166 lbs. right now.

I need to check, but I remember "Train Hard, Win Easy" as citing Tergat at 125 lbs., which jibes with my impressions on his incredible wiriness.

I am sorry malmo, but several heights and weights of runners are waaay off. For example- Sileshi Sihine is by no means 5'7.3" and 123 lbs. He is, at best 5'2" and I read several reports of him being just 48kg, which is less than 108lbs (I stood by him several times and I was taller by whole head at my height of 5'7"). He is just slightly taller than his wife and only 3kgs heavier.

Paul Tergat, was never 133lbs - but according to his own words - was at 57-58kgs and was dieting hard, if it was higher than that (skipping lunches and meat). So 125lbs would be more accurate. Mourhit - another example of incorrect stats (I know him personally, so I can attest).

Derek Clayton was 165 or more

This is interesting, but I don't understand why Solinksy's weight is getting so much attention. All of the other runners on this sub-27 list have body-types that fall in line with the athletic side of the general east african population. We could organize this list according to hair length or glove size, and Solinsky would still stand out - but what would it tell us?

He is certainly towards the heavy end of the spectrum, but this comparison seems misleading.

twelvepoint wrote:

He is certainly towards the heavy end of the spectrum, but this comparison seems misleading.

What is misleading?

I think the idea that you don't have to be really short and really light to be a great distance runner.

Hair length has nothing to do with that.

Remember kids...legs don't move without muscle contraction.

Alan

malmo wrote:

http://www.letsrun.com/2010/heightweight0504.php

Sorted by height (Average/Median)

Image:

http://i41.tinypic.com/sxovig.jpg

.........Image:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2r7q2v6.jpg

Sorted by weight (Average/Median)

Image:

http://i43.tinypic.com/i7304m.jpg

.........Image:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2mzzm7l.jpg

Those are some great lists. Thanks for posting them. As a general rule, one has to be short (relatively speaking) and light to excel at the world class level in distance running. Solinsky has somewhat broken the mold, but I would tend to think injury risk increases greatly with weight. Gravity just accelerates the risk with each footstrike amplified by the pounds with increased training load. 5'6 and 110 lbs... looks about right to me.

Of course, Ely Rono was a hair under 6'4" and managed a 2:10 marathon. And Clayton at 6'2" and 160 lbs put down a 2:08 before it was in vogue.

Actually, Solinsky (and others) believe his muscular frame allows him to handle the pounding more.

The thing many are not considering here is that the 'absolute' numbers don't matter. It's the power:weight ratio that really matters. (In theory) solinsky could be 175 and as long as that ratio was the same (with equivalent endurance) he'd still run 26:59.60.

Or something like that.

Jack Bacheler ~200cm, 75kg/6'7" 165 on the far end of the scale.

Still weighing as much as Solinsky. Maybe there is an absolute upper weight limit.

What's the deal about calling Solinsky a fatty? Is Solinsky's body fat percentage high? And what constitutes high body fat for an elite runner, 7%? 8%? That's pretty lean.

The East Africans have very narrow frames, like a 26" pair of Levi's would accomodate two of them. So no way they top 150lbs even on a Krispy Kreme/Burger King diet. You can't compare North Americans with our more muscular frames with Africans. Different species, like comparing house cats with lions.

runn wrote:

I think the idea that you don't have to be really short and really light to be a great distance runner.

Just the opposite. I think that it only reinforces the idead you have to be small to be a great distance runner. Anomalies are called anomalies for a reason.

Forrestchild wrote:

I am sorry malmo, but several heights and weights of runners are waaay off.

What are you sorry for? you've done nothing wrong.

If you have a problem with the data provided by the published bios by IAAF, and other sources, then send them an email. I'd bet they would appreciate it.

Something to consider is whether Solinsky is now reaping benefits from being somewhat overweight in his college years (that is, average weight, for a non-elite with his frame). You could argue that his bones and joints are still conditioned to a heavier body weight, and allow him to run higher mileage w/o injury now.

These are really great lists, thanks much to malmo for putting them together. It is amazing to see the average weight is 124 pounds! I was in the mid 120's my Sr year of high school cross country, after getting to 150 as a Jr, and mostly after that around 140, however I'm 5'9.

Wait for your power. wrote:

the 'absolute' numbers don't matter. It's the power:weight ratio that really matters.

Agreed.

Derek Clayton was slow for the 10000m, with a fastest time was 28:45.2.

What are the height and weight numbers on Tadese Tola? That guy's build seems very similar to Solinsky's, and obviously he's getting the job done pretty well. If you see him in a field of other East African, he looks huge.

Also, Joseph Ebuya, while shorter, also has a similar build - he's listed at 5'6 and 147.

Correction, the median weight is 121 pounds.

Some of the heights and weights must be way off.

For example, Paul Tergat was much less than 141 pounds.

Even so, the information is amazing.

I think the argument should not be weight versus times, which is what seems is how we are going about it. As they say, correlation is not causation.

Obviously, the biggest factor in being successful in distance running is about only ONE thing. Geography. You cannot make another argument against that. Where you were born makes the biggest effect bar none.

Chris is definitely on the bigger side, but he is a very muscular runner. His body fat percentage is certainly on par with a Kenyan, but he has about 25 lbs of extra muscle, bone, etc than them. But, lightest is not always the worst, it comes down to efficiency and VO2.

Portlandia wrote:

Obviously, the biggest factor in being successful in distance running is about only ONE thing. Geography. You cannot make another argument against that. Where you were born makes the biggest effect bar none.

We can't make another argument against that?

What is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about?