About ten or twelve years ago, I charted the height of all male track Olympic medalists. I don't believe elite athletes, in aggregate get shorter as the events get longer, I know elite athletes get shorter as events get longer. Throw b.m.i. out the window for track (non-sprinters) athletes. In order for taller track athletes (non-sprinters) and Marathoners to compete against shorter athletes, taller athletes need to be relatively thinner. Great track athletes (non-sprinters) and Marathoners need to be close to two pounds per inch. B.m.i. is an okay tool for medical doctors. B.m.i. allows for individuals to weigh more than two pounds per inch, not track (non-sprinters) and Marathon runners. One-hundred meter dash is a max stride event, at least after 30m. What's the point for a Marathoner at 6'5"? It's not a max stride event. A 6'5" Marathoner will be heavy.
I believe J Ingebrigtsen's name came up. To date, his 5000m time is relatively worse than his 1500m to 2 mile performances. I am certain he will get worse as distances increase past 5000m. J I is built like a 6'2" hockey player who's been starving. He is supposed to be a bigger man. He doesn't have small bone structure.
Exactly, and yet i've seen this ridic claim "10k should be Jakob's best distance" in several LRC threads.
About ten or twelve years ago, I charted the height of all male track Olympic medalists. I don't believe elite athletes, in aggregate get shorter as the events get longer, I know elite athletes get shorter as events get longer. Throw b.m.i. out the window for track (non-sprinters) athletes. In order for taller track athletes (non-sprinters) and Marathoners to compete against shorter athletes, taller athletes need to be relatively thinner. Great track athletes (non-sprinters) and Marathoners need to be close to two pounds per inch. B.m.i. is an okay tool for medical doctors. B.m.i. allows for individuals to weigh more than two pounds per inch, not track (non-sprinters) and Marathon runners. One-hundred meter dash is a max stride event, at least after 30m. What's the point for a Marathoner at 6'5"? It's not a max stride event. A 6'5" Marathoner will be heavy.
I believe J Ingebrigtsen's name came up. To date, his 5000m time is relatively worse than his 1500m to 2 mile performances. I am certain he will get worse as distances increase past 5000m. J I is built like a 6'2" hockey player who's been starving. He is supposed to be a bigger man. He doesn't have small bone structure.
Exactly, and yet i've seen this ridic claim "10k should be Jakob's best distance" in several LRC threads.
jakob has not exactly gone after a 5000 time trial.
They don’t necessarily have an advantage. That is not a fact. And to your point runners like Bolt (6’5) and Mu (5’10), Jacob Ingebrigtsen(6’1) are clearly the top in the world and are tall
Interesting you mention Bolt. I just read this:
Research shows that an amateur runner often takes between 50 and 55 steps to complete 100m, while an elite sprinter takes in the region of 45.
Bolt typically completes a 100m race in about 41 steps - three or four fewer than his rivals.
this is only half the story. bolt was successful because he had the ability to cycle his legs like someone who is 5’5 while having the stride length of a 6’5 man. if having a 6’5 stride was the only important thing then all successful 100 runners would be that height.
height only matters in the 100 to an extent. you can be quite short and still very successful because of how mechanically dependent the race is. SCR is 5’1. andre cason (9.93, 9.84w) was 5’4. there was a guy from LSU that ran 10.00 that was also 5’4. we just see less short sprinters because there aren’t very many short people of that height in general.
200 and 400 is where it gets tricky. height is a huge deal in the 400 and it is almost impossible to be successful in it without being around 5’11-6’2 because of how much an advantage the stride length difference is in the later stages of the race. iirc every 400m world champion in the past few decades has been above 6 feet but i would have to be checked on that.
distance wise it’s quite simple. less height = less weight.
I was pretty sure that Noakes talks about weight and marathoners in Lore of Running so I looked it up this afternoon.
Lighter runners dispurse heat better because they produce less heat. The hotter the weather, the greater the disadvantage of heavier runners. As an example, Noakes pointed out that the winner of the 1996 Olympic marathon held in hot, humid Atlanta weighed only 43 kg. The second place finisher weighed only 45 kg.
I'm just using newborns as very short people. So, generally, shorter people have more surface area to body weight ratio.
Of course, heat builds up in our bodies. More body, more heat produced. Then the heat gets out by sweating onto the skin. More surface area = more pathways for heat to escape. Of course, taller people have more surface area. But, higher surface area to body weight ratio = better cooling possibilities.
I haven't read through it all, but if it hasn't been mentioned, a taller individual is going to have a greater amount of air resistance to overcome due to larger frontal body surface area. That's obviously not all of it but it's a factor. Also, maybe already mentioned, but smaller body surface area is more efficient at thermal regulation.
I'm just using newborns as very short people. So, generally, shorter people have more surface area to body weight ratio.
Of course, heat builds up in our bodies. More body, more heat produced. Then the heat gets out by sweating onto the skin. More surface area = more pathways for heat to escape. Of course, taller people have more surface area. But, higher surface area to body weight ratio = better cooling possibilities.
Body volume increases by the third power, while surface area only increases by the 2nd power. The ratio of volume to surface area gets exponentially larger with increase in height, assuming the same proportions.
I’ve seen lots of comments here over the years about shorter people having an advantage in distance running. I don’t understand this belief, and I’ve never seen a good explanation. Can someone please explain it?
Seems to me that taller people would have the advantage because they cover more ground with each stride. Wouldn’t a 5’3’’ guy have to turn his legs over much faster to keep up with a 6’3’’ guy?
Do 10 year olds usually make up stories? Yes. Often. And they don’t listen, also.
The average height of an East African man is 5'6", so the 5'7" is just the average height of an east african which is where most of the top times are from (5'7" is actually taller than the average). If shorter is better then I'd expect the short east africans to be better than the taller east africans, but it seems it doesn't matter. East africans tall or short are better, doesn't matter about height.
Average height of a basketball player is way above the average height of the regular population. The average height of fast runners is exactly the average height of the population, meaning it doesn't matter. It's on a standard distribution, very few people deviate more than a couple inches from the mean, so I wouldn't expect very many people above 5'11" to be fast, and I wouldn't expect very many people below 5'6" to be very fast. I would expect the majority to be 5'6-5'10 and that's what we have, this is just because so many people are in that range.
I think this is the best answer. As long as the weight is proportional to height, being shorter doesn’t make someone a better distance runner. It just so happens that the best marathoners are East African, and they tend to be shorter.
The average height of an East African man is 5'6", so the 5'7" is just the average height of an east african which is where most of the top times are from (5'7" is actually taller than the average). If shorter is better then I'd expect the short east africans to be better than the taller east africans, but it seems it doesn't matter. East africans tall or short are better, doesn't matter about height.
Average height of a basketball player is way above the average height of the regular population. The average height of fast runners is exactly the average height of the population, meaning it doesn't matter. It's on a standard distribution, very few people deviate more than a couple inches from the mean, so I wouldn't expect very many people above 5'11" to be fast, and I wouldn't expect very many people below 5'6" to be very fast. I would expect the majority to be 5'6-5'10 and that's what we have, this is just because so many people are in that range.
I think this is the best answer. As long as the weight is proportional to height, being shorter doesn’t make someone a better distance runner. It just so happens that the best marathoners are East African, and they tend to be shorter.
There are some anthropometric features they generally have in common which are of benefit, including thinner lower legs, and a greater Achilles tendon moment arm with a shorter forefoot length. Variability in Running Economy of Kenyan World‑Class and European Amateur Male Runners with Advanced Footwear Running Technology: Experimental and Meta‑analysis Results, Knopp et al, 2023
VO2 max/ kg body weight does not go up linearly with size. This is confusing because VO2 measured in liters per minute DOES go up linearly.
Energy costs in running are most accurately measured by VO2/kg body weight.
Energy costs in flat time trialing are more accurately measured by total VO2/surface area exposed to wind resistance.
Energy costs in climbing are back toward V02/kg body + bike weight + backward rolling resistance. Thus, the grade percentage matters.
Finally, Rowing is almost dependent on absolute VO2. A little bit on displacement of the water with weight... but the most part oarsman are huge. They have V02 max between 6 and 7 liters. However their VO2/body weight rarely is higher than 70 ml/kg/min.
Meanwhile, distance runners usually have an absolute V02 max between 4.5 and 6 liters but will many times by around 80 ml/kg/min.
You may not like it, but it is true. List the height of the top 25 marathoners of all time. The average is 5'7".
Even if that’s true, that doesn’t explain WHY. It could easily be that shorter guys gravitate to distance running because they are unlikely to do well in other sports. That doesn’t mean they have a physical advantage in distance running.
Oh, and I don’t like or dislike it (I’m 5’10’’). Just trying to understand the thinking.
Distance running is limited more by heat tolerance than anything else. Shorter people have a higher ratio of volume to surface area and stay cool more easily.
This is counterintuitive, but for a given shape, the smaller will always have higher volume to surface area. It's why the bitter Arctic bred magnificent giant beasts like mammoths, polar bears, walruses etc. They retain heat jealously.