Thanks, excellent post and that should settle the issue that we all knew the answer to anyway.
Weights would be interesting too.
Thanks, excellent post and that should settle the issue that we all knew the answer to anyway.
Weights would be interesting too.
And in respect to DISTANCE speed the little guys win big.
Yeah the statistical package does not know what the figures stands for, but the tests don't mean anything if the user does not know how to apply them. Why force the model through the orgin, that means just as little. Easy to try everything until you get a significant result.
Comparing sprints and distance are two different things. One is concerned about max and the other sub max level. There is a case to say taller is better for the sprints and no energy needs to be saved. There is a disproportional increase in mass for increase in height. Yes you have extra muscle, but you also have extra bone mass, skin and other factors weighting you down that don't be used to propel yourself. So it is more costly to have the extra weight as energy has to be used to carry it (not a problem in sprints). A small person may (and often does) have a longer stride. Remember most of the stride is in the flight and smaller/lighter people have less mass to lift as they push off. Interesting topic the choice of stride, other studies have found no relationship.
The source is immaterial.
The source is only immaterial if you're not interested in generalising to other populations. The moment you show an interest in saying that the results would hold in any group besides your subject pool, you should care about your source. For example, if you are interested in generalising to distance runners, then I disagree that the source is "immaterial". If you aren't interested in such a generalisation, then you agree with me that this has no relevance to distance running.
No bias; the fact that they are all sprinters, in the same race no less, means we can compare them better.
It also means that we can't extrapolate the findings to other groups. The findings are fine for the group that you're sampling. They may not apply to others.
but it's obvious you won't accept it.
I accept the results, it's the assumption that the findings apply to some other group that I don't accept.
If there is a link between height and stride length it may be:
a) longer limbs
b) taller people in the same build also stronger, greater push off.
c) longer limbs, less enertia slower stride, so longer stride to maintain speed. (condicts first point)
That data just looks at hight v stride lenght but they were moving at different speed.
Haile is 5'3" and 117 lbs. 10 k time...26:22...marathon 2:05 something. Oh and 5k...12:39. Beat that tall dudes.
We won't get into basketball on this site.
Really what we could do pretty easily if we had all the data would be to determine the correlation of different factors to completion time for different races. A simple predictive multiple regression calculaton with factors of height, weight, turn over ratio, and stride length could answer the question.
My guess is that body weight would be the most significant factor and if running weights the same the taller guy will have the higher probability of being faster.
Simple stats.
This whole thread has been fairly ridiculous. After watching Chris Solinsky trounce Robert Cheseret and a slew of other people who looked more like runners than he did, I had to stop and realize how important other factors really are. Some of them are hard really put your finger on.
To the guy that spewed out that whole data analysis of the sprinters height and strides, I will reinforce what others have said. The question seems to be how does height affect the optimal stride length for energy efficiency in distance running, not the optimal stride length for maximum speed.
If you look at the distances in recent years, the average height seems to be fairly short compared to the height of an average American, but of course there is enough variation in the size of elite distance runners because of the tradeoffs involved, that asking the question in the title of the thread seems misguided.
esperanza wrote:
Haile is 5'3" and 117 lbs. 10 k time...26:22...marathon 2:05 something. Oh and 5k...12:39. Beat that tall dudes.
This guy...
http://img.epochtimes.com/i6/5061403571124.jpg(If his feet ever touch the ground, you'd see that he's a tall dude)
Speed Kills wrote:
esperanza wrote:Haile is 5'3" and 117 lbs. 10 k time...26:22...marathon 2:05 something. Oh and 5k...12:39. Beat that tall dudes.
This guy...
http://img.epochtimes.com/i6/5061403571124.jpg(If his feet ever touch the ground, you'd see that he's a tall dude)
he runs 9.77 for 100m not 26:22
bekele 5'5" 119lbs 26:17 and 12:37
So I guess at 6'4" 195lb my 2hr 55min means I need to lose 40lbs or 6 inches which is pretty tough, but guess I also need to lose 45min on my marathon,
man
letsrun it tough
Koroibos wrote:
Yeah the statistical package does not know what the figures stands for, but the tests don't mean anything if the user does not know how to apply them. Why force the model through the orgin, that means just as little. Easy to try everything until you get a significant result.
Haha, what are you talking about? The package does the tests, though it's such a simple regression it could be done without recourse to any computer or even a calculator.
To reiterate, the test was: there is no relationship between height and running stride.
The no-intercept model is correct because the original equation was stride length = 0.964 + 0.694 height. In other words, if you had an athlete of zero height, he would have a stride length of 0.964m.
My result agreed with the other research:
"Work conducted by Hoffman on male 100 metre sprinters (10.4 to 11.0 seconds) indicated that the average stride length was 1.14 times the athletes height. Similar work conducted by Rompotti on the best twelve 100m sprinters (11.0 to 12.4 seconds) at Stanford University concluded that the normal stride length was 1.17 times the athletes height. Despite the differences in abilities of the athletes in each group the results are fairly similar.
For "differences in abilities" read "differences in running speed". If you don't think it applies to other running events then you've got to come up with a study to show some evidence of it.
The actual figures of 1.14, 1.17, 1.35 and my own figure of 1.23 are unimportant. The important part to try and understand is that running stride length is directly proportional to height.
God help Sally Clark.
Maybe its mostly expentancy and intimidation.
I've got a couple miles to go in my half marathon and I'm doing well and want to place well in my age bracket. I've just passed a couple of those lumbering giant types, you know, huge sneakers, big slow strides and gasping for air. They were no problem. I'm doing well and edging out a couple of other 5'11'" racers.
Suddenly, a little 5'3" guy pulls up next to me and starts racing me. Oh my God, I've heard about these little guys - great biomechanics, great turnover speed, great power to weight ratio, and they dissipate heat like radiators. Ok, I'm not going to get intimated by this freak of nature. He'll fatigue just like the rest of us. But just look at him. The way he moves, he just floats on the course so effortlessly.
I have to drive those thoughts out of my mind. He's not so special, I just have to run my race. But my God this tiny power house does not seem to have ANY signs of fatigue.
The finish line approaches, I reach as deep as I can, I have nothing left, but the little man edges me out.
I hate little people.
tank wrote:
Thanks, excellent post and that should settle the issue that we all knew the answer to anyway.
Weights would be interesting too.
I'm a little confused. Are you responding to me? Because I did post the weights (in kilograms)
pfff
no western white runner under 6 feet has run under 13 minutes yet for the 5 km while 3 over 6 foot white guys have done it already and 1 5'10" englishman came close.And all the tall guys are ay more efficient with their lower vo2max.Just look at frank shorter,...
There are exceptions in the white mens sector as well like sebastian coe,alan webb but they wherent(arent) the smallest small guys certainly taller then 5'7" and webb is 140 not 110 if i have to believe the articles.So i say its totally wrong.Beeing 110 lbs 170 cm just isnt muscled enough to run under 13:10 unless your kenyan ofcourse.
I dont think height is the factor either,webb will probably crown himself as THE FIRST white runner under 6 to run under 13 if he CAN do it ofcourse.And he seems like a powered up ex skinny guy.He has muscles so i dont see any need to stay skinny to run good times.The truth is that most under 13 minute guys hve a bmi of 20 - 21 so
i'd rather be around there then that low 19 mark.I am gaining weight and getting better still at running slow but certainly am.
SweetNickyT wrote:
Care to elaborate Tucson?
Tucson Vegan Runner wrote:ignorant white americans
Ignorant Americans would have been sufficient. Weren't we supposed to learn metric as a country by 1980? The only people who remotely know anything about metric conversion is distance runners (5k, 10k) and drug dealers (grams, kilos)
and webb is 140 not 110 if i have to believe the articles.
His USATF bio says 149, and he does look it. Very similar build to me and I weigh about that.
As for BMI, not everyone can be as light as Culpepper or Tergat. Look at how thin their joints are. Culpepper actually looks stretched. I'm pushing the limits getting down to BMI in the low 20s (which has me at about my high school weight)
My point was there are no people running that are 1cm or near the origin, most runners are 1.50+m so why make a model the includes these mytical people that are 10cm tall?
Cavanagh & Kram (1990) found height 6.8% in the variation of stride length in distance runners.
Tall guys may not dissipate heat as well due to their lower ratio of surface area to mass, but that ratio also makes them more aerodynamic,
I think there are some people on this thread who feel they should tell Craig Mottram to stop being such a dreamer trying to beat those little African guys?
