HEIGHT AND RUNNING

Maybe in the longer distances smaller guys dominate the rankings but at 800/1500 athletes of at least 6 feet in height have performed just as well as shorter guys; Ryun, Walker, Ovett, Scott, Snell, Cram could hardly be described as short! And, no doubt, other names could easily be added to that list.

As for longer distances, I'll just throw the name of Derek Clayton into the mix!

Asbel Kiprop & David Rudisha

Some study done by the Dutch has determined that African runners posess thinner legs and also higher leg to height ratios than their Dutch counterparts.

So having longer legs is a plus. Having thinner legs is hugely economical.

In general, taller runners have higher mass and there is a limit to how effecient you can be at certain weights. Guys like Chris Solinsky at 165 lbs are on that upper limit.

In my opinion, being taller leads to greater range of motion in joints such as, the knees which can increase the risk of injury and make optimal training less likely.

On my xc team the top 7 or 8 guys are all right around 5'8". We're probably the shortest team in the state and we might actually win state next year

Mr. Obvious wrote:

mr wrote:

it has something to do with heat generation and dissipation. smaller people either generate less heat, or they can dissipate the heat they create better than taller people, i cant remember which it is.

This is the right answer. Body surface area only increases at 2/3 the rate of mass, generally. Shorter guys have a greater ratio of skin/mass and are able to dissipate heat better.

Body surface area and heat dissipation is part of the answer.

But the advantage goes away when it's cold outside. If marathon temps are in the 70's, bet on the short guy. If temps are in the 40's, it doesn't matter.

I've noticed that successful tall distance runners do tend to have a lower BMI than their shorter counterparts. So the taller you are the leaner you need to be.

Ryan Hall: 5'10"

Josh Cox: 6'3"

Jason Hartmann: 6'3"

Matt Tegenkamp: 6'4" / 165lbs

Galen Rupp: 5'11"

Scott Bauhs: 5'11"

Alan Culpepper (retired 2007): 6'1" / 130lbs

Brian Sell (retired 2009): 5'10" / 140lbs

Fernando Cabada: 6'2"

Chad Hall: 5'9"

Peter Gilmore (retired 2010): 6'0"

Jason Lehmkuhle (retired 2012): 5'9"

Fat hurts wrote:

I've noticed that successful tall distance runners do tend to have a lower BMI than their shorter counterparts. So the taller you are the leaner you need to be.

I've noticed this as well. Asbel Kiprop being an extreme example.

mtwthf wrote:

It seems like shorter guys have had relative success compared to taller runners in the mid-distance events especially the 5000m. Any data or inquiry into this?

Yes Kenyans and Ethiopians have been the most successful runners and tend to be shorter.

If you go back to before the sport when pro and East Africans started showing up, runner's heights were much more distributed

6'0"

John Walker

Steve Ovett (I find that hard to believe)

Dave Wottle

Ron Clarke

Emil Zatopek

5'11"

David Bedford

Rob de Castella

Lasse Viren

5'10"

Brendan Foster

Frank Shorter

Billy MIlls

Mike Boit (Kenya!)

5'8"

Pyotr Bolotnikov

Seb Coe

Vladimir Kuts

Paavo Nurmi

Prefontaine

No man under 6'4" will ever set a running WR. Never.

Every white dude that had gone sub 13 has been above average height

Don't discount the effect of air resistance. A taller runner has greater surface area to create resistance.

lrf wrote:

Don't discount the effect of air resistance. A taller runner has greater surface area to create resistance.

Tell that to Usain Bolt.

Tell that to Bolt wrote:

lrf wrote:

Don't discount the effect of air resistance. A taller runner has greater surface area to create resistance.

Tell that to Usain Bolt.

So, you added nothing except to point to a tall runner. The average sprinter expends 13-16 percent of their energy overcoming air resistance. For distance runners, the energy cost is about 8 percent. However, those are averages (pulled from The Lore of Running.)

Given the formula, D=(1/2)*CD*A*r*V2 where D is the drag and A is the cross-sectional area of the runner, it follows that air resistance is not negligible and must rise for a runner that is either taller or broader, or in the case of many taller runners, both. Here is the full explanation for the formula.

Also, from a racing standpoint, the reason that drafting is so effective is that it removes a large amount of the air drag on a runner who tucks in closely enough to the lead runner.

So, is it the definitive difference? I don't know, though I think you can make a case of heat capture, added weight with the height, and drag all playing substantial effects. Two out three of those were mentioned above. I simply added a third component.

This Danish study? I've posted it a couple of times. It's really interesting especially with regard to the generalizations we make about East Africans.

Obviously pirated but it's still there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQVHZU4WzE

This is clearly the answer. Upper body length would add extra weight.

there are very few national class distance runners over 160lbs.

I meet other runners all the time who have marathon goals. I always ask about their training, weight and mileage.

Typical guy wants to run Boston and weighs over 200 pounds and is 6'2'. They are set on the glamour event but usually wind up seeing the orthopedic surgeon. No one bothers to tell them that genetically they are not meant for running longer distance. All you have to do is read Joggers world and see what they emphasize regardless of body size.

The money is in the marathon

Phone sex wrote:

Every white dude that had gone sub 13 has been above average height

Except Dathan Ritzenhein

Is that you, Ventolin?

And there are other tall sprinters: Justin Gatln, Ryan Bailey. Tyson Gay isn't exactly short. If you do a historical survey you will find the taller sprinters tend to do better.

Yes, there is some extra air resistance, but you are overemphasizing that factor.

Not only does a longer upper body add weight, it doesn't contribute to motility. The upper body is mostly just along for the ride. Yes, the arms provide counter-balance and all that, but the legs do the work. Longer legs provide a greater stride length, so you get a longer stride combined with less upper body weight to move = a BIG net gain in performance.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

mr wrote:

it has something to do with heat generation and dissipation. smaller people either generate less heat, or they can dissipate the heat they create better than taller people, i cant remember which it is.

This is the right answer. Body surface area only increases at 2/3 the rate of mass, generally. Shorter guys have a greater ratio of skin/mass and are able to dissipate heat better.

Heat dissipation is not a significant limiting factor compared to aerobic fitness, running economy, speed and so forth.

More likely is that long legs are less energy-efficient at full gait. What Cram calls "long levers" are in fact type 3 levers - the glutes act on them near the fulcrum at the hip, to move an object at the end of the lever, i.e. the ground. While this can accelerate the ground faster, like a caveman's atlatl, it requires the glutes to exert more force than if the legs were shorter.

And the amount of force the glutes can exert is limited by their cross-sectional mass, which does not increase proportionally with leg length. Tall people are thicker than short people but not by as much as they're taller.

Short distance runners often have huge range of motion, looking like sprinters in lift phase, while tall ones tend to have choppier strides.