More on the tallest and heaviest sub 27

With blood doping in cycling suddenly bigger guys like Indurain or Riis were able to climb with the goats. Something smells fishy here.

Portlandia wrote:

Geography holds several factors that are important to success in distance running: culture, genetics and environment.

So America is a distance runner's paradise?

A local runner who is a writter for the local paper recently refered to a local running elite as:

"leanly muscular yet twiggy, and short yet gawky."

I think that description fits a lot of elite runners rather well.

Seemed like the most relevant thread. Solinsky in June '08 on his weight: http://blip.tv/file/981121

as a 6', 155 lb middle distance runner who ran against college kenyans regularly and on the roads, post college; I must admit that I felt like a plow horse running along beside them, or worse, behind them. They seemed to be gliding along effortlessly, like on a pillow of air or something. btw...i got the same impression running behind bill rodgers a few times. i thought that he seemed to glide along, like the africans.

TK1451 wrote:

Seemed like the most relevant thread. Solinsky in June '08 on his weight:

http://blip.tv/file/981121

That jibes with what I saw in Eugene in 08. 160-161. Narrow shoulders and lean.

J.R. wrote:

These are really great lists, thanks much to malmo for putting them together.

Actually Wejo put the data together. I just copied it and formatted the data for easy manipulation.

Clarke (13.16/27.39 in the 60s), Clayton (2.08 and 2.09 in the 60s), De Castella (2.07 @ Boston, World Champ.), Mottram, Bermingham, Darren Wilson (27.37/60.02), Kerry O'Brien (WR.steeple in early 70s)were all big strapping Aussies. Perhaps a bit of size and strength is the counter to the small, light Africans.

how exactly does it counter them?

clean? wrote:

With blood doping in cycling suddenly bigger guys like Indurain or Riis were able to climb with the goats. Something smells fishy here.

Did you ever take a look at The Cannibal? (E.M.)

Portlandia wrote:

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.

Uh, no... where you were born is not relevant at all. If my parents lived in Kenya and I was born there, I wouldn't have any greater chance of making this list, and indeed, probably a lower chance. Careful what you are saying.

If you had said that a person's ancestry is the biggest factor, specifically Kalenjin and wherever the best runners in Ethiopia come from, then I'd agree with you.

And drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. (making no claims about any individuals on that list, but anyone with a clue realizes that most of the guys on that list were doped to the brim)

I agree with Malmo's interpretation that this is not evidence of hope that a big white guy can run sub 27; it is actually the opposite. Evidence that unless you are a tiny man from one of two places, you have miniscule odds of running that fast. But, then again, this is not exactly news.

Of course, tallest and heaviest don't mean fattest, so I calculated kg/cm ratios for a bunch of the sub 27 runners. The higher the number (the more kg's per cm of height), the "fatter." This isn't the only way to do it. BMI is another way, but I couldn't be bothered to look that formula up.

The results as I recall them:

Solinsky: .404 (assuming 165 lbs: he said he weighs from 164 to 166lbs).

The rest: .32 to .34 (Hissou).

My conclusion: he is way heavier for his height than the rest.

The physio docs should study how he does it!

(I am at .34, about 2 inches shorter than Solinsky and 27 lbs lighter, while sadly almost 7 minutes slower on the road).

skinny little bitches. wrote:

I agree with Malmo's interpretation that this is not evidence of hope that a big white guy can run sub 27; it is actually the opposite.

Uh ... no. This is proof that a big white guy can do it (one did it; therefore it was possible: inference from is to can, logically valid, deductive). It is not proof that others can.

The BMI is a function of weight over the square of height (I think it was an index developed for cm and kgs). However, scaling a figure, the volume goes up as the cube of the linear scale. While bodies do not quite go up by the cube, they probably go up by a power that is slightly higher than 2. However, this does not mean that the optimal or expected running/height weight relationship will go up by that power.

Good point. That was poorly written on my part. I take the list as evidence that it's overwhelmingly unlikely (but not impossible) to run sub 27 unless you're a tiny man of African ancestry.

jjjjjjjj wrote:

skinny little bitches. wrote:

I agree with Malmo's interpretation that this is not evidence of hope that a big white guy can run sub 27; it is actually the opposite.

Uh ... no. This is proof that a big white guy can do it (one did it; therefore it was possible: inference from is to can, logically valid, deductive). It is not proof that others can.

a minute behind wrote:

how exactly does it counter them?

Clayton was of the opinion that because he was bigger than his rivals he was capable of holding up under much more and harder training than they could.

Kenyans have a lot of people that are short. That doesn't mean being short is a benefit. It means if kenyans are fast, the average height of fast runners will be lower. If you look just at kenyans are the shorter ones faster than the taller ones. Not that I can tell. I don't see any of the short Kenyans running faster than Tergat did for example. There are not a lot of tall kenyans runners because their are not a lot of tall kenyans.

wellnow wrote:

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?

The advantage of being a small distance runner is that they accumulate less heat in long races in hot or warm and humid weather.

Larger distance runners need cooler weather to match the smaller guys. But as times get faster and faster, the difference will become very slightly smaller.

The biggest disadvantage of being a large elite distance runner that I can see, is that major Championsips are often held in warm countries.

As far as World records go, the first guy under 26 could be as heavy or heavier than Solinsky, and eventually, the first guy under 25 could be bigger still.

wellnow wrote:

The advantage of being a small distance runner is that they accumulate less heat in long races in hot or warm and humid weather.

Larger distance runners need cooler weather to match the smaller guys.

Considering your premise, with cooler weather larger runners would be closer but NOT be able to match the smaller runners.

But as times get faster and faster, the difference will become very slightly smaller.

With faster times, and therefore more heat, the difference would become larger.

The biggest disadvantage of being a large elite distance runner that I can see, is that major Championsips are often held in warm countries.[/quoe]

Also the times run are faster than Americans can run.

[quote]As far as World records go, the first guy under 26 could be as heavy or heavier than Solinsky, and eventually, the first guy under 25 could be bigger still.

Wow what a turnaround. So more heat now equals faster?? What happened to your premise??