1776 wrote:
druns wrote:
But I see some elites with body types that don’t meet the mold... like Purrier who I’m thinking will not be competitive. Do you agree? Are there any other athletes that won’t be competitive or should t be competitive due to body type but are?
Outliers do exist. Seko had thick AF calves. How many marathoners have calves his size and run 2:08 for the thon?
Sammy Wanjiru
K Bekele
Two right here wrote:
1776 wrote:
Outliers do exist. Seko had thick AF calves. How many marathoners have calves his size and run 2:08 for the thon?
Sammy Wanjiru
K Bekele
Yuki Kawauchi
Small claves being optimal is a myth!
but what do i know? wrote:
The old communist countries used too do test to see what the kids best sports would be, not sure on what the test consisted of. If you could find that info, I would go with that.
There is an American book describing tests for sports choice, I read it in 1988 and got ratings for seven sports out of tens, from 3:00 in the marathon (PR 2:52) to surfer in swimming. Unfortunately my notes do not include Title or Author.
Found it nearby:
Rippe, James M, and William Southmayd. "The Sports Performance Factors". New York: The Putnam Publishing Group, 1986.
Steve Caution wrote:
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
There is a test, where you use your left hands index finger and thumb to wrap it around the right wrist - if it overlaps, it indicates small frame, if it just touches, average, if the fingers don't even connect very big frame.
What authority developed that nonsensical so-called test? My index finger and thumb are a good half inch apart if I try it -and my wrist is only 6.5 inches around- and I'm 5'4" and 123 pounds. I guess I have a "very big frame."
The test should tell you something about your frame, that means your bone structure. Large frame means you have thick and strong bones (relative to your size). The test does not say if you are skinny, fat, or muscular. Normally there is a correlation that small framed people are more lean and lightweight, and big framed people are stronger and heavier, but of course there are exceptions. However, it does not mean a big framed runner can not starve themselves (or burn enough calories by high mileage) to have a 20 bmi (like you) or even lower. But he has to put more effort into maintaining a lean racing weight and then maybe is closer to a 20 bmi instead of a 18.5-19 of an equally competitive small framed runner. The bigger framed runner might be better suited for middle distances. He is also more likely to use a sit and kick strategy instead of running from the front.
Why do I get the feeling the OP is doing a little research on what will surely be some incredibly awkward pickup lines at the bar?
Large muscular arms = sprints
pencil-thin arms = distance
somewhere in between = somewhere in between
I have yet to achieve the letsrun trifecta. However, I did get my game up enough to purchase a pair of the nice neon green Nike vapor fly next % which I snagged for $310 off StockX and when I did, I paired it with some designer jeans and went out to the nightclub, the ladies were all over my ⛺️ image on top of my pants
Partridge wrote:
Steve Caution wrote:
What authority developed that nonsensical so-called test? My index finger and thumb are a good half inch apart if I try it -and my wrist is only 6.5 inches around- and I'm 5'4" and 123 pounds. I guess I have a "very big frame."
The test should tell you something about your frame, that means your bone structure. Large frame means you have thick and strong bones (relative to your size). The test does not say if you are skinny, fat, or muscular. Normally there is a correlation that small framed people are more lean and lightweight, and big framed people are stronger and heavier, but of course there are exceptions. However, it does not mean a big framed runner can not starve themselves (or burn enough calories by high mileage) to have a 20 bmi (like you) or even lower. But he has to put more effort into maintaining a lean racing weight and then maybe is closer to a 20 bmi instead of a 18.5-19 of an equally competitive small framed runner. The bigger framed runner might be better suited for middle distances. He is also more likely to use a sit and kick strategy instead of running from the front.
Exactly right about the frame/bone structure test. The test works for around 80% of people, but like in any tests, there are outliers like the person in this thread where it didn't fit.
The ideal weight for big framed runners is higher than for average, with small framed runner needing the lowest weight. We are talking here about 18 BMI vs 19-20 BMI vs 21 BMI depending on frame size for a 5k guy of same size. Think about all these 6'2" runners:
Kiprop -> Jager -> Mottram -> Solinsky (from light to heavy). Now Solinsky was 6'2" and his best race weight was 157 lbs. General population would still think that he is a skinny stick! That's how weird the general population is. He just seems massive because well, compared to other elite runners, he truly is. But put him next to a lineback or someone and he will be the stick.
About the sit-and-kick - this is not really dependent on frame/bone structure, but more on muscle fiber distribution between ST and FT. Lewandowski and Coe were both extreme fast-twitch runners in the 1500m (they would be ST in a 100m ofc, that's why we have to look at each event), bot Lewandowski is a heavy guy (20.0 BMI) and Coe (17.6 BMI) was a tiny stick. But both just had a very high percentage of fast-twitch fibers compared to other 1500m runners.
druns wrote:
Looking at some athlete I’m not sure how they could be competitive with their natural physique... for example Elinor Purrier looks like overachiever and seems big boned compared to other runners and I’m thinking will never win anything (same for Colleen Quigley at steeple).
Is it possible to be able to look at a runner and judge their success? And or what event would be ideal... maybe quigley would be better if she toned up and focused on 1,500?
I’m not a coach but I know there are some on this sight and am interested in your opinions.
To answer your questions for the distances not really other than a stockier runner will generally not transition well to anything longer than the track. Look at most 1500/5000 guys compared to marathoners and there is often not a noticeable difference. The 800/1500 types often are bigger but some 800 guys like Kipketer could line up with marathoners and not stand out. So in anything longer than mid-distance its pretty difficult to take most elites and put them in a specific distance. The exception is an outlier size wise like Solinsky or Mottram, guys that much larger than the standard distance runner rarely transition to the marathon at anywhere near the level they achieve on the track.
Now if you want to categorize by distance, mid-D, sprints that is easier.
Hard to really tell. Look at the success Anna Pierce and Erin Donahue had.
This entire post is laughable. Have you taken a moment to look sy the cartoon like physique of most North Americans? Under all the extra mass, are they small or large framed?
The more you train, the leaner you will be. Fast runners don't have proper physique. Decades of consistent training shape a body to its proper size. If an elite runner is heavey they aren't training hard enough.
gregmacd wrote:
Large muscular arms = sprints
pencil-thin arms = distance
somewhere in between = somewhere in between
tiny scale-covered arms = T rex
This Will trigger the SJWs wrote:
This method works 9 times out of ten:
Skinny - distance
Stocky and white - field
Stocky and black - sprints
Also important to look at ethnicity:
Europeans - field, middle distance and ultras
East Africans - middle/long
West Africans - sprints
South Afircans - ultras
Japanese - sprints, marathons and ultras
Nothing to do with ethnicity but opportunity, South Africa for example has the most participation, and opportunity to participate at road running, ultras etc because there are so much more events, runners are licenced to clubs, lower barriers to create events (i.e. traffic permissions etc ), a running culture etc
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Partridge wrote:
The test should tell you something about your frame, that means your bone structure. Large frame means you have thick and strong bones (relative to your size). The test does not say if you are skinny, fat, or muscular. Normally there is a correlation that small framed people are more lean and lightweight, and big framed people are stronger and heavier, but of course there are exceptions. However, it does not mean a big framed runner can not starve themselves (or burn enough calories by high mileage) to have a 20 bmi (like you) or even lower. But he has to put more effort into maintaining a lean racing weight and then maybe is closer to a 20 bmi instead of a 18.5-19 of an equally competitive small framed runner. The bigger framed runner might be better suited for middle distances. He is also more likely to use a sit and kick strategy instead of running from the front.
Exactly right about the frame/bone structure test. The test works for around 80% of people, but like in any tests, there are outliers like the person in this thread where it didn't fit.
The ideal weight for big framed runners is higher than for average, with small framed runner needing the lowest weight. We are talking here about 18 BMI vs 19-20 BMI vs 21 BMI depending on frame size for a 5k guy of same size. Think about all these 6'2" runners:
Kiprop -> Jager -> Mottram -> Solinsky (from light to heavy). Now Solinsky was 6'2" and his best race weight was 157 lbs. General population would still think that he is a skinny stick! That's how weird the general population is. He just seems massive because well, compared to other elite runners, he truly is. But put him next to a lineback or someone and he will be the stick.
About the sit-and-kick - this is not really dependent on frame/bone structure, but more on muscle fiber distribution between ST and FT. Lewandowski and Coe were both extreme fast-twitch runners in the 1500m (they would be ST in a 100m ofc, that's why we have to look at each event), bot Lewandowski is a heavy guy (20.0 BMI) and Coe (17.6 BMI) was a tiny stick. But both just had a very high percentage of fast-twitch fibers compared to other 1500m runners.
To your point about Solinsky, that's spot on. A peak Solinsky @ 6'2 157, def will raise some eyebrows at a track meet, but you're right, even next to a college Defensive Back, he's a twig. Most DB's are 180 and above, anywhere from 5'10-6'2, I was 192 in my playing days at 6'2, and often thought I wasn't big enough. The size and strength of football players can make one playing quite delusional of the average size human because you're around some real genetic freaks.
I've always believed Solinsky had the frame, had he wanted to and had good hand eye coordination, could have been a hell of a Wide Receiver. Put him in the weight room for a year, he'd easily been 180-190. Can't say that about too many distance runners.
I will contribute with an ASTOUNDING no. You people overthink this stuff.
druns wrote:
NotPC wrote:
On the HS level I think you can tell pretty quickly who is going to be good and who is not. That has very little bearing on whether they are going to make it to be an elite runner, by the time to get to the top level of HS and into college the body types are all very very similar.
But I see some elites with body types that don’t meet the mold... like Purrier who I’m thinking will not be competitive. Do you agree? Are there any other athletes that won’t be competitive or should t be competitive due to body type but are?
She just qualified for the world championships in one of the most competitive countries, I think her body type is working incredibly well for her. Why would you criticize her body type over all the women that she just beat? Not everyone can podium at the Olympics, just because she won't, doesn't mean her body type isn't good. The fact that she could very well qualify for Tokyo should tell you that her body type is ideal for her.
druns wrote:
Looking at some athlete I’m not sure how they could be competitive with their natural physique... for example Elinor Purrier looks like overachiever and seems big boned compared to other runners and I’m thinking will never win anything (same for Colleen Quigley at steeple).
Is it possible to be able to look at a runner and judge their success? And or what event would be ideal... maybe quigley would be better if she toned up and focused on 1,500?
I’m not a coach but I know there are some on this sight and am interested in your opinions.
Shorter the person the further the run
MUT and Road Runner wrote:
druns wrote:
Looking at some athlete I’m not sure how they could be competitive with their natural physique... for example Elinor Purrier looks like overachiever and seems big boned compared to other runners and I’m thinking will never win anything (same for Colleen Quigley at steeple).
Is it possible to be able to look at a runner and judge their success? And or what event would be ideal... maybe quigley would be better if she toned up and focused on 1,500?
I’m not a coach but I know there are some on this sight and am interested in your opinions.
Shorter the person the further the run
I thought that too for awhile, but Idk if I believe that anymore. Scott Jurek, Hal Koerner, Walmsley, Francois, Dylan Bowman, Mocko, and Matt Daniels are all runners over 6 ft that have non traditional frames.
Although, Walmsley is without question the hands down elite in that pack, and there are others I am sure over 6 ft. Walmsley's build and stride is something from the ultra distance gods. I am curious to see how Matt Daniels, a tall lanky frame with incredible range continues to evolve with the 100 mile distance.
Coffee Bacon wrote:
MUT and Road Runner wrote:
Shorter the person the further the run
I thought that too for awhile, but Idk if I believe that anymore. Scott Jurek, Hal Koerner, Walmsley, Francois, Dylan Bowman, Mocko, and Matt Daniels are all runners over 6 ft that have non traditional frames.
Although, Walmsley is without question the hands down elite in that pack, and there are others I am sure over 6 ft. Walmsley's build and stride is something from the ultra distance gods. I am curious to see how Matt Daniels, a tall lanky frame with incredible range continues to evolve with the 100 mile distance.
6 foot is the high end range for elites. Don't see many taller than that.