For distance events in particular.
For distance events in particular.
I find when I run on stilts my times are affected adversely, so there may be something in this.
Nobody is adversely affected by a headwind. It's all in your MIND.
Look at the wind adjustments for 100m. A couple tenths either way in the fiercest of winds! And they're going much faster where drag forces are exponentially higher.
A distance runner may lose a tenth going one way, and fail to gain it back the other way, but only if they have a weak and cowardly soul.
Weight is more of a factor than surface area. A short 115lb runner is going to be more affected than a 6'2" 160lb one.
People fail to realize the power of exponentials.
Height is usually considered only in one linear dimension. But when it comes to wind resistance you have to consider surface area which is a squared function. So small increases in height cause disproportionate wind resistance for taller runners. This is amplified with higher winds. Obviously this applies to someone with broader shoulders as well.
Being tall is a huge disadvantage for a distance runner and it's far worse when it's windy.
Don't be so sizist. I am just big boned. How very dare you.
runnER/DR wrote:
People fail to realize the power of exponentials.
Height is usually considered only in one linear dimension. But when it comes to wind resistance you have to consider surface area which is a squared function. So small increases in height cause disproportionate wind resistance for taller runners. This is amplified with higher winds. Obviously this applies to someone with broader shoulders as well.
Being tall is a huge disadvantage for a distance runner and it's far worse when it's windy.
What you said about wind is completely true. I lose a LOT during headwind in both cycling and running, but I also benefit most from having tailwind. Obviously, the loss in headwind is much bigger, but on a point-to-point run with only tailwind I can cause serious damage to fitter runners. Same is true on hills - uphill I struggle with my 6'2", but downhill I was already beating 30 min 10k runners when I was just a 38 min guy.
Being tall isn't necessarily bad for running. We suffer more in windy conditions, and also in heat, but we have advantages too - much longer stride length. Bolt did well in sprinting. So did Wariner/van Niekerk in long sprints. So did Rudisha in the 800. So did Mottram/Solinsky/Tegenkamp/Jager in long distance. Just in the HM and marathon tall guys are extremely rare/scarce, and at the absolute top pretty much non-existent. Tergat is probably the most notable one, but he wasn't super tall, just below 6 inches still. And he was extremely skinny. Good, skinny tall runners can still run good times tho, for example Luke Puskedra 2:10, or Frodeno in triathlons but smaller runners like Meb, Farah, Ritz or Rupp definitely have an advantage over them which also shows in the faster times.
Facing strong winds it's more likely that smaller children will be picked up and blown away than big heavier adults having more surface area.
Being taller is an advantage even up to the marathon but there are drawbacks as well.
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20855134/great-marathoners-over-six-feet-tall-are-rare/
"That’s not to suggest that tall teens shouldn’t aspire to be great marathoners. The last two men to hold the world record, Dennis Kimetto and Wilson Kipsang, are reported to stand exactly 6 feet tall, and the first person to break 2:05, Paul Tergat, is listed at being just under 6 feet tall."
If height and weight were the main factor shorter men would be dominating ironmans but it's rare to see an elite under 6'.
Yousewhat? wrote:
If height and weight were the main factor shorter men would be dominating ironmans but it's rare to see an elite under 6'.
Or ironman is just selected for by taller runners because typically you have to be somewhat well to do to develop the background necessary for an ironman. Meaning $$$$ = better childhood nutrition likely and thus taller on average.
Yousewhat? wrote:
Facing strong winds it's more likely that smaller children will be picked up and blown away than big heavier adults having more surface area.
Being taller is an advantage even up to the marathon but there are drawbacks as well.
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20855134/great-marathoners-over-six-feet-tall-are-rare/"That’s not to suggest that tall teens shouldn’t aspire to be great marathoners. The last two men to hold the world record, Dennis Kimetto and Wilson Kipsang, are reported to stand exactly 6 feet tall, and the first person to break 2:05, Paul Tergat, is listed at being just under 6 feet tall."
If height and weight were the main factor shorter men would be dominating ironmans but it's rare to see an elite under 6'.
Can't agree with you.
1) This article lists just a few marathoners who were good and tall. Want to make a similar list of shorter marathoners with good times? Suddenly you have 5,000 runners vs 10 runners.
2) Runners like Tergat and Kiprop are genetic animalities. They are VERY skinny, despite their height. Just compare them to Bekele for example. If someone is 6 ft tall and only weighs 135 pounds, like Tergat did, that's still quite light and not much heavier than Meb or Bekele who are much shorter.
3) Running is just one part of an Ironman. Tall athletes have advantages in cycling (except very hilly courses) and in swimming (massive advantage, generate a lot more power), which combined account for like 70% of an Ironman. The male 1500m swim world record holders are all between 6'4" and 6'7".
As a short person I have always found this hard to be true. Taller people have naturally longer strides. More foot power.
June walmsley is a perfect example.
The explanation for the predominance of shorter athletes in distance is not because of less wind resistance. Triathlons show it's not a matter of endurance or efficiency either. Derek Clayton was 6'1". Ovett was 6'. Rudisha is 6'3" though 800 runners were always taller. Sosthenes Bitok gave me an autograph when I was a child and he was tall and had huge thighs. Right then I knew good distance runner having to be short was a lie.
It's selection. There's a similar old belief that sprinters were short and muscular but 6'5" Bolt demolished that. Taller athletes get channeled into other sports that are more fun, tactically challenging, popular, and lucrative. Distance running is boring, lonely, simplistic, painful, and pointless.
Any elite distance runner is a genetic anamoly. Who's more of a an anamoly with a 2:05 marathon a 5'5" runner or the 6' one?
Yousewhat? wrote:
The explanation for the predominance of shorter athletes in distance is not because of less wind resistance. Triathlons show it's not a matter of endurance or efficiency either. Derek Clayton was 6'1". Ovett was 6'. Rudisha is 6'3" though 800 runners were always taller. Sosthenes Bitok gave me an autograph when I was a child and he was tall and had huge thighs. Right then I knew good distance runner having to be short was a lie.
It's selection. There's a similar old belief that sprinters were short and muscular but 6'5" Bolt demolished that. Taller athletes get channeled into other sports that are more fun, tactically challenging, popular, and lucrative. Distance running is boring, lonely, simplistic, painful, and pointless.
Any elite distance runner is a genetic anamoly. Who's more of a an anamoly with a 2:05 marathon a 5'5" runner or the 6' one?
That's because usually conditions aren't very windy. Also not excessively hot. Wind resistance grows in square to speed increase, similar how heat increases exponentially due to surface area to mass ratios).
Never wondered why Radcliffe couldn't win Olympics 2004 in Athens? Cos the race was ULTRA hot. She would have won any major marathon at that point in any city with normal weather, but the heat destroyed her since she was WAY too tall to have any chance at winning despite being by far the fittest athlete (doping or not, she would have beat them if it wouldn't have been so hot).
Also you listed 800m runners.. where do heat and windy conditions matter more, in a 2 minute event or in a 30 minute or even 2 hour event?
About triathlons - short distance is usually dominated by shorter athletes, whereas in long distances taller athletes get comparatively stronger. That's because the AVERAGE SPEED is lower in Ironman compared to Olympic tri, which makes wind resistance matter a lot less during the run. Olympic tris are often finished with a sub 30 min 10k, whereas Ironman is cruising for 2.5 hours and holding on.
And yes, tall athletes self-select themselves into sports that suit them, like basketball but short athletes do that as well, like with gymnastics or powerlifting. So it goes both ways! Only a few people voluntarily decide to pursue a career in running, it's not a very popular/well-paid sport to be a professional in compared to other options.
Depends - does, for example, height come from leg length, to create advantages in other compensating areas such as stride and power? It's hard to control for everything else, but in theory, yes.
But, we have to assume same muscle mass and/or cross-sectional area of key groups; weight; nutrition; effort/wattage; form; tactics (e.g. attempting to maintain pace rather than effort); posture into the wind and so on.
Consider an out-and-back 10k. Two runners (6'0 and 6'2) of exactly equal PBs (40:00 flat, for this example), with a headwind on the outward journey. Does a 6'0 runner who maintains pace into the wind on the way out (say 20:00 minute split, for even numbers) , beat a 6'2 runner who rather maintains effort level (turns around at 21:00) and so presumably has more 'in the tank' for the return? I would say no. There may have been a potential advantage, but it comes to nothing in practice.
Quite conceivably, the 6'2 runner wins here, because of a) energy conservation, b) advantage on the return from stride (again, presuming the height comes from leg length, not torso!) and c) greater potential for help from a tailwind.
The point: all else being equal, the taller is more affected. But the point in competitive sport is to use all information and therefore apply sound tactics to overcome even a physically advantaged competitor.
Longer strides yes, but you forget that tall athletes require a lot more power output for their steps since they are heavier and move a lot more mass.
Put on a Stryd powermeter on the 6'2" guy and the 6'0" guy (or take an even shorter one so the difference becomes even more obvious). The tall guy with long legs and longer strides will produce a good amount more power/watt than the shorter runners. But he also requires more energy to do so, and he pounds his body more.
On hills the power-to-weight ratio matters even more - the tall guy will still produce more raw watt and per step, but the shorter, faster runners will be faster and produce more watt/kg (or watt/lbs if using that).
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Longer strides yes, but you forget that tall athletes require a lot more power output for their steps since they are heavier and move a lot more mass.
Put on a Stryd powermeter on the 6'2" guy and the 6'0" guy (or take an even shorter one so the difference becomes even more obvious). The tall guy with long legs and longer strides will produce a good amount more power/watt than the shorter runners. But he also requires more energy to do so, and he pounds his body more.
On hills the power-to-weight ratio matters even more - the tall guy will still produce more raw watt and per step, but the shorter, faster runners will be faster and produce more watt/kg (or watt/lbs if using that).
Sure, I acknowledge all of the above. The point was, though, is that unless you are racing clones, potential advantage is only that. The translation of advantage into practice is the key, and is often where the intrigue of competition comes in.
Even with what you've said, you must presume that each athlete has fuelled correctly for their own requirements, and that the taller runner does not have a more efficient and smoother gait cycle. As I said, you presume (understandably) that height comes from leg length - some very short athletes (especially some elite women) though have a stride that is longer than peers' as their torso is very small indeed.
So, performances and/or race results generally cannot be reduced to a single thing like height (or indeed, shoes...). Too much is malleable on race day. Again - does the shorter runner draft? or vice versa.
A comparative example is in go-karting - so often, the heavier drivers complain because they believe they are naturally slower - when there are compensating benefits such as lateral grip and maintaining speed through sweeping corners. And all of this is dependent upon input quality, tyre degradation, and general mechanical sympathy.
An interesting question from Op, but my point was "yes undeniably in theory, but not significantly in practice"
Ok let's say it's extremely windy with gusts up to 50 mph.
Who do you want to draft behind, Mo Farah or Chris Solinsky?
Who do you think will have to work harder against the wind and produce a lot more power just to deal with it, Farah or Solinsky?
This isn't just theory, even in practice the shorter runner would benefit from that situation and could beat a fitter taller runner because of the conditions. The tall guys have other advantages - have you seen how the Ingebrigtsens raced in the last years? Lots of pushing and mean maneuvers in races, close to DQ or sometimes even getting DQ'ed. They use their strength and size to their advantage vs the short, skinny Africans on the track. Also diving on the finish line, just a few inches but could also matter.
Sure, fitness will always be the most important factor. Look at Mo Farah - he is short, but has an insane stride length - often even exceeding people who are 5 inches taller than him. Long, loping strides and when it's time to kick he just goes ham with his cadence, keeping his naturally long stride length. It's always interesting to watch.
Taller runners have an aerodynamic advantage over smaller runners in windy conditions.
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
For distance events in particular.
depends on the overall surface area