Is Running the only sport where all body types have a chance of competing and succeeding?

I think you could accurately say that anyone could complete (don't know if I would say 'run') a marathon IF they have the willpower to complete the necessary training. That's a big IF though, as most people don't have the willpower.

Pure Hate (out of love) wrote:

He also said that it's impossible for him to run a marathon. The thing is... he and I were the same weight, and I am 5 inches shorter than him.

So he's fat and you're obese?

WAS. I was very overweight. I was 160 pounds.

Even though he said I was being condescending, should I have actually said this:

"No! You can't run a marathon! You're too fat."

That wouldn't work. That would actually be condescending. The thing is, I really believe that anyone can "run" a marathon. (Or attempt and finish it regardless of the time).

I mean the weights differ but the body types are for the most part the same. There are sports that are more body specific, but there are even more sports that aren't as body specific.

So, NO! You are very wrong!

I feel like this post is all over the place.

First mass does not equal speed. It takes more energy to move greater mass. In a gravity event like downhill skiing mass is an advantage, but not in running where less mass (up to a point) is better.

Second, you are just discovering middle distance?

The top runners still fall into a pretty narrow range of weights and heights with a few outliers in all events, but they are just that...outliers.

Your friend might not be able to run a marathon. Some people have health issues that are going to make that extremely hard. I have developed osteoarthritis in one knee and am not going to try a marathon again. But if you take your friend to a big city marathon and wait for the 4 hr and slower group to come through you are going to see a lot of non-skinny folks.

Now track as a sport including the field events certainly has something for a person of any size.

When I first joined cross country, I thought it would be nice to run in nature. Unfortunately you lose appreciation for it when you are already close to redlining two minutes into the race and then you have to keep your foot on the gas from there.

Mass = speed in the shorter events, especially for runners who need to run 7+ meters per second

I was just thinking about trying to find a way for my friend to take an interest in running. All he does is arms and upper body and he doesn't do cardio at all. He says he does 30 minutes on the treadmill as warmup and he refuses to run outside. He likes being able to track his fitness with the numbers.

I owe him for getting me into running. He was the one that motivated me in the first place to run around a track. But nowadays he likes to ridicule me for wearing shorts that aren't basketball shorts. Sometimes he says he can beat me in a race when I mention that I'm training for a specific distance.

It's weird and I don't want to argue with him because he's my friend.You can't change someone's beliefs or their opinions. But I want to motivate him.

I agree. It's not about the time. Even if it's the 4 hour mark, anyone can compete in the marathon! I know it's hobby hogger thinking, but anyone can complete a marathon, it's just a mindset.

I'd like to know why track & field isn't popular. Maybe it's because we spend all our time training and we have underdeveloped personalities. Woops!

Depends on your definition of succeeding. Anyone can go run a race, but anyone can go play a round of golf as well. Being really good in running has a pretty narrow spectrum of body types. Other more skill based sports (like golf, baseball to an extent) can have old fat guys be among the best in the world.

Yup, in skiing you have no shot if you are under 200. Seems like most of the best guys are right around six foot and 200 to 225. Solid mass of muscle.

In most any sport, the closer you are to world class the more optimized the body types will be with minimal variations. The opposite is true as well.

% of world class swimmers in the 50 and 100 free under six foot with short arms

No.

I agree with optimized body types to be a world class athlete. But there's a range for every body type, right?

As long as the runner isn't obese or overweight or has Marfan Syndrome, one of the running events will categorize them into short, middle, or long distance.

Then they find their speed and that's their niche.

If you're big and fat (very common body type nowadays) you don't fit in any of those niches.

Pure Love (Out of Hate) wrote:

I agree with optimized body types to be a world class athlete. But there's a range for every body type, right?

As long as the runner isn't obese or overweight or has Marfan Syndrome, one of the running events will categorize them into short, middle, or long distance.

Then they find their speed and that's their niche.

Endomorphs and people whose legs are short relative to their height have no chance of being very good in any running event.

Coach wrote:

Endomorphs and people whose legs are short relative to their height have no chance of being very good in any running event.

They can still be very good, just not the very best.

isnt makhloufi an endomorph? 🤔

Wow... just wow... wrote:

isnt makhloufi an endomorph? 🤔

No, more of an mesomorph compared to most ectomorph middle distance runners

Stop Coaching wrote:

Coach wrote:

Endomorphs and people whose legs are short relative to their height have no chance of being very good in any running event.

They can still be very good, just not the very best.

Perhaps "very good" is relative can you give examples of very good fat or squat runners.

For me, I think "very good" is being able to compete and still feel "in the race."

After all, running for yourself is just as important than winning. Unless you're trying to impress someone...