Can tall runner qualify for Boston?

upthewall wrote:

Bekele is like 5'3" and has run 2-flat for the 'thon. Proportionally, you only have to run, say, about 21.7 miles give or take. You should be able to do it.

Ha ha! That’s quite an accomplishment. My son is about that tall and can easily outrun me in 5ks. I always get the “But you have longer legs, how did he win?” comment from people.

outside running wrote:

mortyd wrote:

It's not as ridiculous as you think if you look at the top finishers. The top five finishers in the 2020 OTM race were very tightly grouped around the average height:

That's about what you'd find on average picking 5 random men from the USA, fairly "tightly grouped around average height".

That is actually not at all what I would expect to find (as opposed to the previous poster who said I "struggle with statistics"--math is actually my strength). Don't worry, statistics as a subject in general is not intuitive at all. We have to crunch the numbers and not rely on our gut. Let's do some math.

Note that the first five finishers were all within 2 inches of the mean. The first assumption that everyone has already made is that the height of the marathon runner is normally distributed and mirrors the general population. The average height in the United States is 69 inches with a standard deviation of 3 inches. Graph that and then calculate what the area under the curve is within 2 inches of the mean. It turns out the probability that a runner finishing the race is within two inches of the mean height is 49.5%. It is essentially a coin toss per runner whether they will be within that tight range or not. You would expect to see a runner that is more than two inches taller or more than two inches shorter 50.5% of the time.

So the first runner that crosses in that range is 49.5%. Ok, I believe that is possible. The second runner that crosses is also in that range. Ok, the probability is .495*.495=24.5%. Interesting, but still possible if it is random coin flips. The probability of a third runner crossing in that range is: .495*.495*.495=12%. The fourth runner is .495*.495*.495*.495=6%. The fifth runner is .495*.495*.495*.495*.495=2.97%.

So the probability that the first five runners would be within two inches of the mean height is only 3%. That is not what we would expect when picking people from random in the general population. It leads me to believe that something other than chance is going on.

Again, I don't have all the data. I'm not saying we should draw any final conclusions from the math above. It makes me want to ask more questions and get more data to investigate further. I suspect that you don't have all the data either, so don't make definitive statements about things you can't prove without the full, complete data. Again, be kind and thoughtful and respectful. Don't rush to judgement and grab the pitchforks. I'm just asking thought-provoking questions about what I see.

Hardloper wrote:

outside running wrote:

His response to that was ridiculous

Yes, he clearly struggles with statistics. But let's pretend for the sake of argument height does affect running - what percent would it matter? Tesfaye Abera (6'4") ran only 1% slower than the world record. It is negligible compared to the problems he can fix like his lack of training.

The current world record is 2:01:39 and Tesfaye's PB is 2:04:24. That is 121.65 min / 124.4min = .97. So he is actually 3% off WR pace. Please don't use an ad hominem attack about "struggling with statistics". You haven't been precise yourself.

Let's assume there is a 3% disadvantage to being 6'4". That is assuming you are at an optimal BMI. Tesfaye only weighs 150 lbs at 6'4". That is impressively light. That is 35 lbs less than me. I honestly don't think I have 35 lbs to lose. What would be the percentage disadvantage if I am thicker and have more body mass. That is where we get into an interesting discussion.

mortyd wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

[Height] is negligible compared to the problems he can fix like his lack of training.

This is where we totally agree! I am working on slowly increasing my miles. I had an achilles tendon tear three years ago while doing speed work on the track. Both my ACLs have been replaced in my knees from soccer injuries. I have to be careful with volume and speed. So far my strategy has been to run every other day and give my body time to heal and adapt.

What I've learned from you is that isn't going to cut it. This week I've put in four miles each day at a slower pace, and planning a long run on the weekend. My achilles tendon is tight, but so far I'm hanging in there. The real trick is to slowly increase the miles and pace at the right amount that the body can handle healing without an injury. It may take a long time but I'm determined to work up to about 40 miles a week and see where this takes me. Thank you for all your help and feedback!

mortyd wrote:

So the first runner that crosses in that range is 49.5%. Ok, I believe that is possible. The second runner that crosses is also in that range. Ok, the probability is .495*.495=24.5%. Interesting, but still possible if it is random coin flips. The probability of a third runner crossing in that range is: .495*.495*.495=12%. The fourth runner is .495*.495*.495*.495=6%. The fifth runner is .495*.495*.495*.495*.495=2.97%.

So the probability that the first five runners would be within two inches of the mean height is only 3%. That is not what we would expect when picking people from random in the general population.

If you want to look at it that way, try any other distribution of heights. They will be lower than 3%.

20 Miles a week?!?! Man I know plenty of tall runners.. that has nothing to do with it. That half marathon times is great for only running 20mpw.. up that mileage and put in the work!! I’m almost positive they’ve cancelled Boston this year so you’ve got an extra year to train. Bump that up to 50-60mpw atleast and you’ve got it man, all it takes is putting the work in. Best of luck.

outside running wrote:

mortyd wrote:

So the first runner that crosses in that range is 49.5%. Ok, I believe that is possible. The second runner that crosses is also in that range. Ok, the probability is .495*.495=24.5%. Interesting, but still possible if it is random coin flips. The probability of a third runner crossing in that range is: .495*.495*.495=12%. The fourth runner is .495*.495*.495*.495=6%. The fifth runner is .495*.495*.495*.495*.495=2.97%.

So the probability that the first five runners would be within two inches of the mean height is only 3%. That is not what we would expect when picking people from random in the general population.

If you want to look at it that way, try any other distribution of heights. They will be lower than 3%.

Not sure I follow you. The math shows that if you look at the first five runners, you would expect one or more of them to be 2 inches taller or shorter than the average 97% of the time. The probability of all five of them being within two inches of the mean is only 3%.

LakeShowJoe wrote:

20 Miles a week?!?! Man I know plenty of tall runners.. that has nothing to do with it. That half marathon times is great for only running 20mpw.. up that mileage and put in the work!! I’m almost positive they’ve cancelled Boston this year so you’ve got an extra year to train. Bump that up to 50-60mpw atleast and you’ve got it man, all it takes is putting the work in. Best of luck.

Thanks so much! I appreciate the feedback and support. I’m looking to do just that with the miles. I will start gradually increasing the miles and see if I can get there.

mortyd wrote:

outside running wrote:

If you want to look at it that way, try any other distribution of heights. They will be lower than 3%.

Not sure I follow you. The math shows that if you look at the first five runners, you would expect one or more of them to be 2 inches taller or shorter than the average 97% of the time. The probability of all five of them being within two inches of the mean is only 3%.

I'm saying the probability of any combination you can think of will be lower than 3%. Once you pick a specific combination of heights, the probability of that combination of five becomes low.

For example, I can pick the names most likely to cross the line in the first five: John, Jim, Mike, David, Rob. Just because that combination is very unlikely doesn't mean that other combinations are more likely.

The world record at the time was 2:02:58, and Tesfaye also didn't have the Vaporflys so you can't compare to Kipchoge's best times.

Not an ad hominem because it wasn't even a message to you, it was to someone else. An example of an ad hominem would be if I said "you're wrong because you're an artist/musician/writer who sucks at math." However I was actually nice and explained the stats to you which went right over your head.

If you are too fat and unwilling to lose the weight then you will never run fast. Your thread was about height, not weight. Your height is not an issue because more height means longer muscles which carry more glycogen with which to carry more weight. That's why there are so many great marathoners who are tall. You can be 6'4" 150 but you won't see one who's 5'2" and 150. But if you're only running 4 miles a day and overweight, you won't BQ no matter what. That has nothing to do with your height.

outside running

I'm saying the probability of any combination you can think of will be lower than 3%. Once you pick a specific combination of heights, the probability of that combination of five becomes low.

.

I didn’t pick a combination of heights. We used math to see the probability the first five finishers would have similar heights like they did (knowing the average US height and standard deviation of heights in US). The math said it was unlikely they would be grouped that closely in height. There should have been more variability in their height.

Hardloper wrote:

mortyd wrote:

The current world record is 2:01:39 and Tesfaye's PB is 2:04:24. That is 121.65 min / 124.4min = .97. So he is actually 3% off WR pace.

The world record at the time was 2:02:58, and Tesfaye also didn't have the Vaporflys so you can't compare to Kipchoge's best times.

.

OK, I understand what you were saying now. Makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Maybe getting me a pair of Vaporflys will help! ?

Hardloper wrote:

If you are too fat and unwilling to lose the weight then you will never run fast. Your thread was about height, not weight. Your height is not an issue because more height means longer muscles which carry more glycogen with which to carry more weight. That's why there are so many great marathoners who are tall. You can be 6'4" 150 but you won't see one who's 5'2" and 150. But if you're only running 4 miles a day and overweight, you won't BQ no matter what. That has nothing to do with your height.

Well, I’ve never been called fat. That is a new one. ?Nothing but love for you, brother. I appreciate your advice. I will lose a few pounds and keep at the training.