Wrist size

geometry wrote:

Harpo wrote:

I think 7 inches is wrong - my wrist is not big and the radius is 7 1/8th inches.

I ran 30:50 at 5' 9" 130 pounds...certainly not big-boned.

Isn't the radius half the diameter? No way the radius could be anywhere close to seven inches if that is true.

I think he meant the actual radius bone in the forearm.

Seven inches around the LARGEST part of your wrist circuference IS the dividing line between normal and heavy boned.

Obviously 7 and 1/16 or 1/8 th is marginal and there are bigger wrist sizes than this.

However out of all the fast runners on this forum we have only had one reply from a 30.50

runner with a bigger wrist size , i would say my theory is generally fairly sound.

"Generally fairly sound?"

On how big of a sample?

Not to mention with what kind of verification?

With what kind of information about those that didn't respond?

Even if you do find others who fit your hypothesis (far from a theory), the information is removed from other contextual data, such as height or amount of training needed to go below 31:00. Most 5 foot guys likely have smaller wrists than 5 foot 6 guys, and they smaller than 6 foot guys.

The distinguishing characteristic of sub 31:00 runners is how fast they run. Anything else is more likely subject to significant variance in a normal, healthy range for size and weight. For example, consider these sub 28:00 runners, Webb, Ritzenhein, Tegenkamp, Hall, Mottram, Beleke, Gebrselassie, Browne, Solinsky and Culpepper. There's a lot of variation there and all are significantly better runners than sub 31:00. If you looked at runners 30:00-30:59, you'd likely see even more variation in body type and overall size.

My hypothesis...wrist circumference is a relatively unimportant feature in identifying the elite 10K runner. Other physical characteristics, mental characteristics, and training would be far more significantly correlated with the sub 31:00 runner than is a sub 7 inch wrist circumference.