Over 6ft...

Do you really think that a 5 ft man who's 120 and a 7 ft guy who is 168 are really both at their ideal weight? Volume - and so presumably weight - increases cubically(more or less) as height increases.

I'm 6'1" and did my best racing at 145. These days I'm 185. Something I do notice about the PR's of those who have posted them so far is that their 800, 1500 times are superior to their 10k/ marathon times. I was a bit the opposite:

800: 2:07

1500: 4:12

5000: 15:35

10 : 32:00

Marathon: 2:27

DC800 wrote:

6'6" 180

1:46

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

.... and what about that former G'town guy that no one has mentioned, he led the Boston Indoor 1000m a few weeks back, he is like SIX' SIX'', right??.....

Funny....I just posted about the 6'6" guy from Gtown! So is that you??

( and I really apologize, I forgot your name)

Yeah, I guess we posted and the same time. Thanks for the props, this is indeed O'Connell, and to tell you the truth, I wouldn't trade my height for anything. It has its drawbacks... but ultimately, its pretty sweet to be super tall. As far as the height/weight thing... I mean, yeah I'd probably be a little faster if I got 5-10 lbs lighter, but I'm a fairly skinny dude already... you got to think about health too. I'm no nutritionist though.

Hey man, that's a riot!!! At the exact moment I was thinking of you, as being the quintessential example of the "large height/size doesn't matter runner" , you post! Small world.

Yes, Jesse O'Connell.....I was racking my head, but the name slipped my mind. Great run the other day, by the way (leading that 1000 nearly the whole way. I know you would have liked to hang on to the lead, but still, gutsy run nonetheless).

What are some of your other PR's?

I think you (and some of ther other tall runners mentioned on this thread) just go to show that one can be a great runner whether he is 5' 0" & 99lbs (like that Rotich guy), or 6'6" 180-190 like you and Hesch (well, Hesch has the weight in that range).

Being light has its advantages(and that is why on the AVERAGE smaller guys do better, especially as the race distace increases). BUT......having a long stride and and lots of power helps too. So there is no perfect height/weight.

When is your next race?

It is really impressive to read the personal records of all the tall people who have contributed here - but once again - I am pretty sure that those guys would have done even better with a few inches less on the altometer.....

Simple physics and biomechanics tell us that being shorter confers the following advantages.

1. Lighter weight making it easier and more economical to run conserving energy.

2. Lighter people burn less calories, meaning your energy supplies will not be affected as much. You will not burn as much during racing/training.

3. Better power to weight ratio, helping in sports activities of all kinds. Just look at the best power lifters in the world....the lighter weights lift more over their heads in relation to their body weights than the heavier power lifters.

4. In middle and distance running (the sport we love) one of the main factors of success is having good turnover of the legs, and athletes who are of normal height (under 6 feet) have the ability to turn over those legs at a quicker rate than the taller athletes, in general.

Also, paradoxically, shorter athletes have longer strides than taller athletes because they (shorter athletes) are more powerful around the hips and possess better coordination and power to weight efficiency. So this is a win-win situation for shorter athletes....faster cadence and longer stride translate to covering distances more rapidly!

5. More coordinated running style and better biomechanics, making shorter athletes less susceptible to injuries....and the shorter athletes are the ones who have long shelf lives.

To prove this...consider the abnormally tall elite runners/marathoners that we know about....like Don Kardong (6ft4) and Jack Bacheler (6ft6).....both of those guys were fine runners.....but they had very short athletic careers not lasting more than 10 years....and as they got older they became slow very quick.....and now Kardong is pretty slow, even though he is in his 40's and cannot break 40 minutes for 10.000, even though he was a sub. 13 for 3 miles at his peak! (and finished 4th in the Montreal Olympic marathon, in 1976.....being outsprinted by - you guessed it..."short" Karel Lismont/Belgium, who was about 5ft6 and just over 100 pounds....).

Derek Clayton (6.2/160) former record holder in the marathon (2:08) some 30 years ago, had a very short career, before his cartilages in the knees were shot....after just a few years of top class running.....

Once again....kudos to those tall athletes who have done good times.....but the truth is that in all things we are at a disadvantage in distance running....so you run well despite your height...not because of it.....

As for taller people getting more girls...that is a bit of a myth which needs to be debunked.....there is little/no evidence that this is the case....and at the end of the day, opposites attract less than people who are similar in stature and appearance.....making people of normal height more likely to score in that department.

From: ghost (6.3/183) (racing weight was: 140-150, 25 years ago).

Ghost, I am going to answer your points one by one.

1. Yeah that's true, if all things are equal, but tall people have more muscle than short people - duh. You seem to think that taller people just weigh more but don't have any more strength/advantages, while this isn't true. There is obviously a stride length advantage, and they have more muscle.

2. And that matters why? That's ridiculous. Bigger people freaking eat more, man.

3. Dude, that's because the entire point of light weight power-lifting is to optimize your weight/power ratio, whereas the biggest lifters are simply trying to lift the most.

4. Where's some research on that, as far as I can tell you just pulled that out of your ass. I don't think Xavier Carter, Randy Moss, etc. have turnover problems.

And ok, shorter athletes have a longer stride? You have got to be kidding me.

5. Once again, straight out of your ass. I mean clearly Michael Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, etc. have absolutely no coordination! Tall skinny people aren't any less coordinated that short skinny people. If you have weak muscles and no coordintion in your brain, you are going to be awkward - doesn't matter the height.

All of that is absolute BS.

Oh, and don't kid yourself about women liking shorter guys equally. I know lots of shorter guys that get girls all the time, but if you survey girls, often "tall" is at the very top of their list for most wanted guy attributes.

Some more for your list:

David Krummenacker 6'2"/175 only American to run 1:43 & 3:31

Bob Kennedy 6'0"/148 AR holder at 3000 and 5000

Steve Holman 6'1 1/2"/150

Tom Pappas 6'5"/210 #2 American all-time in decathlon

Edwin Moses 6'2"/180 most dominant hurdler of all time

Johnny Gray 6'4"/175 AR holder at 800

Brandon Rock 6'4"/170 IAAF #9 in 800 (1995)

Michael Johnson 6' 1/2"/175 WR holder at 200 and 400

Jeremy Wariner 6'0"/170 Olympic 400 gold medal

Justin Gatlin 6'1"/170 "world's fastest human"

Carl Lewis 6'3"/195 arguably the greatest Olympic athlete of all time

Tommie Smith 6'3"/190 (supposedly ran a 19.2 200 in training) possibly the fastest person to put on a pair of spikes

John Carlos 6'4"/195

In my case:

6'4"/185 (205 now, with a lot more weight work)

400 47.3

800 1:51

So...... short is for slow people?

It seems to me that there are a couple of issues:

1. Foot area doesn't scale proportionately with weight for tall people, so taller people tend (I think) to be more injury prone if trying to do high mileage. Note that Bob Kenneday has had a lot of injuries compared to, say, Sebastian Coe.

2. If you believe Noakes (I do) African runners with small frames and very low mass have the advantage of lower heat buildup in the body core, and thus, everything else being equal, can sustain higher average speeds in a Marathon. Since weight goes up faster than height, taller people would seem to be at a greater disadvantage here.

And of course, "we" (tall, built guys) get the girls; Skinny short guys get to run marathons.

sorry to nitpick, but krummy is closer to 160-165. dude can run though, no doubt aboutit.

I'm 6'7 and 175 pounds. I'm still pretty young so I've been putting on weight as of late, but I've found that as one becomes taller it becomes much more important to do core work and drills to maintain that strength and coordination that shorter runners have naturally.

6'2'' 175

400 51

800 1:56

1500 4:07

3200 9:37

8k 26:06

Any of you other big guys notice that if you don't run for a few weeks that you put on weight fast. I put on about 12 pounds in 4 weeks when I was hurt over break

I am 6'2" and in HS. My ideal weight is 148 lbs. It works for me, and my pr is 15:47.

6'1"+ - 154

400 - 52

800 - 1:55

1500 - 3:53

3000 - 8:24

5000 - 14:19

5 mile - 23:56

10000 - 29:45

DC800 wrote:

6'6" 180

1:46

IF YOU GOT DOWN TO 160 LBS. YOU'D RUN 1:44..........

being over 6 ft. means...

1) your more likely to be hired and make more money

2) your more likely to be respected

3) GIRLS ARE MORE INTERESTED IN YOU

IT'S ALL ABOUT PRESENCE SUCKAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I respectfully disagree completely with this post. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I simply don't believe any of it.

I've studied a fair bit of physiological literature on this, and there is no consensus there as well.

#1 and #2. There really is no physical basis for this statement whatsoever. Simply being 4 inches taller does not make someone automatically more or less efficient. Taller/heavier people certainly do burn more energy ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, but biomechanics are rarely equal and TALLER/HEAVIER PEOPLE ALSO STORE AND CARRY MORE ENERGY!!! They may burn slightly more energy per stride, but their strides will be longer, and their increased mass also has proportionally more energy stores.

#3. Shorter levers have some advantages kinetically, as well as some disadvantages. The example given is correct, but only half of the issue. A short lever cannot do as much work as a long lever given the same energy input. If you want to lift something heavy off the ground by prying it up, would you rather use a long or short lever. Long of course. If you forced a tall runner to run with the same stride length as a shorter runner, then the tall runner would be at a disadvantage, but the fact is that the taller runner will cover more ground. Weight lifters simply have to straighten their arms, and the short guys do not have to lift the weight as high as the taller guys. If tall guys were given credit for the WORK they do, they may be better weight lifters than the short guys.

#4. Quicker turnover, but shorter strides. Tell this to Ed Moses. He kind of blows all your arguments about efficiency out of the water, doesn't he??

#5. Again, no studies proving this at all. And also, you're mixing apples and oranges. Shelf life and PR times are two completely different issues. I'm guessing a 20 minute 5k runner has a much longer shelf life than a 15 minute 5k runner, but no one really cares, do they?

All the rest is anecdotal, and just as many examples showing the opposite can be found.

I gain weight very very quickly, always have, but I don't know what the cause is. I'm 6-0 or 6-1, my ideal racing weight is 150 although I am 165 right now. Random comment to you - your 800, 1500, and 3200 times seem really slow for a guy with 51 quarter speed and 26 flat 8k ability, have you raced those middle distances recently?

I just noticed the Billy Mills poster near the bottom of the page. Met Billy last year and got to talk with him. I'm guessing he's a shade over 6', and has a gold medal. Being 5 inches shorter didn't help Gamoudi that day. I'm guessing the muddy cinder track (they raced right after a rain, and Mills said the cinder kept sticking to his spikes in big clumps) played into the hands of the physically strongest runner that day.

Speed Kills wrote:

Some more for your list:

Jeremy Wariner 6'0"/170 Olympic 400 gold medal

Justin Gatlin 6'1"/170 "world's fastest human"

NO WAY is Jeremy Wariner 6'0'" and 170. NO WAY. Wherever you saw this listed is WAY off. By like 20 lbs. I stood pretty close to him at the Olympic Trials,(he was in the same heat as a friend of mine), NO WAY he's 170. As your list also says, Gatlin is 170. Once again, NO WAY. He's got to be closer to 185lbs.

DonCorneo wrote:

Ghost, I am going to answer your points one by one.

Sweet screen name.