PEDS wrote:
What's the definition of leg length, I measured from my sole to my hip bone. I'm 57% leg. Is that good?
That's not good because I am 61% leg.
I'm faster than you. Low 14:00s 5k.
PEDS wrote:
What's the definition of leg length, I measured from my sole to my hip bone. I'm 57% leg. Is that good?
That's not good because I am 61% leg.
I'm faster than you. Low 14:00s 5k.
You are most likely overestimating your leg length. 50% is well above average, with most men heing about 44-47%. 61% is an outright freak.
HARDcoreADDICT wrote:
I don't think that having long legs necessarily assumes one to be the better runner. However, it is a bonus. Longer legs= longer stride= more distance covered.
It doesn't hurt to have em.
Not necessarily. Take a look at Bekele running against some of his taller competitors. He covers the same amount of ground with slower turnover - It's really amazing. I have a video of him running next to, I think it was Broe, in a 5k and even though Bekele's legs are much shorter than Broe's, his turnover was less quick. I kept rewinding it to see him cover the same amount of ground with shorter legs and less turnover.
Leg length and stride length are only loosely correlated. There is a reason why fast runners are not all 7 feet tall and that 5'5 guys can be faster than 5'10 ones.
sfv wrote:
HARDcoreADDICT wrote:I don't think that having long legs necessarily assumes one to be the better runner. However, it is a bonus. Longer legs= longer stride= more distance covered.
It doesn't hurt to have em.
Not necessarily. Take a look at Bekele running against some of his taller competitors. He covers the same amount of ground with slower turnover - It's really amazing. I have a video of him running next to, I think it was Broe, in a 5k and even though Bekele's legs are much shorter than Broe's, his turnover was less quick. I kept rewinding it to see him cover the same amount of ground with shorter legs and less turnover.