Over 6ft...

I do believe that their is a height that is ideal for distance runners and it seems like it is under 6 feet. For the middle distances this seems to be particularly true. Being a miler. like me. requires a fair amount of muscular strength. Runners that are 5' 10'' or under, are generally able to keep on that extra muscle mass without being excessively heavy (over 150 lbs). Since I am 6' 1'', if I was a built like Webb, I would probably weigh 180 lbs. However, I think this is more of a limit for elite runner and does not concern the average or even above average runner very much.

As for as myself, I think I am going to keep the mass I've got (165 lbs). I have found through trial and error that I run my best miles when I am at my most muscular. Plus the ladies like it.

skinny runner wrote:

im 6 foot i inch

and weighed 140 in college and ran

1:52 800

3:51 1500

14:28 5 k that was indoor

and

8:51 steeple

and

ran a 10k once at 31:06 that was my freshman year

I think tall elite long distance runners (like Alan Culpepper) are able to 'get away' with their height because the distances they run do not require as much muscle mass. So they can run well on a VERY skinny frame. I am thinking for all the 6 foot + guys who weighed under 150 lbs: on this thread, that they had to be doing at least 80 miles a week. Am I correct? For cross country I think I may try to get under 155 lbs by doing this much mileage. Do you guys still lift during this time. I have heard that their being certain strength excerises/lifts that you can do that make you stronger without adding a lot of muscle mass. Does anyone know what they are?

I'm 6'3........158lbs

30:26 for 10k last week, 30:15 a few months ago

Sorry Ghost but you are full of it.

Lofty regards,

Jim Ryun and Bob Schul

Don-

the 8k and 3200 are from my most recent cross season where I made some big jumps. This spring my coach and I are looking to go 153/355.

OK OK now wait wasnt Daniel Komen tall?

DC800 wrote:

6'6" 180

1:46

O'Connell.

19yo

6-4, 165 when in good shape

50.0 400m (hs)

6'1 1/2" best racing weight 176lbs

body fat less than 5%

400 51.0

800 1:51.

1500 3:45.3

5000 15:46

Nobody has mentioned body type. I have pretty short thick legs and a very long stomach big chest. Great lung power but I fell my speed turnover is poor.

some of these times and the weight they lug around is pretty awesome. One of the best in history must still be Derek Clayton at 6'2" and 160 pounds. Ran a 2:08 in the 70's

6 feet. Wow, I'd be happy to have reached 5' 10"

I got stuck at 5'6", it stinks to have use stepstools all the time.

6'2 155

1:48 - 800

3:38 - 1500

Wow, this thread has really succeeded in making me feel fat.

As far as pr's go, I ran a new 5K (15:35) a little while ago and want to go under 15 this season. I suppose I'll have to lose some weight first though.

Guess I'll go purge now.

ghost wrote:

Being taller means you are putting more stress on your joints, and you will probably have more osteo arthritic problems and back problems as you age.

[/quote]

Ghost -

Could you please cite a study/medical journal that proves your statement above?

Luke Beevor of Florida State is 6'10 and has run 14.25 for 5000m, 3.49 for 1500m.

6'3/4" Racing weight 138lbs now- 145

1500 - 3:56

3k steeple - 9:04

5k 14:38

8k 24:24

big guy,

if you think you are muscular at 6'1" 165, you are seriously delusional!

I was 6'2 1/2 (1.89 m) and weighed 154 lbs (70K) at age 21. My best times: mile-4;20, 5K-14:37, 10K, 30:25.(avg 80 mi) Age 30-160 lbs- 5K-14:55/10K 31:04 mara:2:25:54(avg 70 mi)

Age 40-165 lbs-5K- 15:59, 10K 33:00 (avg 50 mi)+cycling

Age 50-170 lbs-5K- 17:25, 10k 35:42 (avg 30 mi)+cycling

I gradually put on weight over time as I still ate the same. My training was less over time.(not spirit)

I am now retired from running (A great 40 yrs) and my weight is 173 lbs and am trying to eat less.

Rocket

rodney wrote:

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

probably not if he were to diminish his lean muscle by dropping to that weight.