I think most will agree in the marathon the short guy has it all over his taller competitors. When ever I see the Kenyans winning my local 15k or see the top marathon winners I'm shocked at how short they all are.
Is being short also an advantage in the 5K's?
Oh man, no one is intersted in the height and running post. Its gonna soon be relegated to page two.
Aren't there some short or tall people with an opinion on this?
Please save this dying post!!!
Being shortish is an advantage in distance running for the following reasons.
1. Better power to weight ratio
2. Shorter people weigh less, and it is more economical to carry less weight.
3. It is more efficient to move shorter levers (legs and arms) than longer levers over long distances - again we are talking from an 'economy' point of view.
4. Shorter runners are usually biomechanically more efficient, and this contributes to better form and less injuries.
5. On hills (up and downhill) shorter runners have a clear advantage over tall/lanky runners - they are able to move up and down more efficiently and economically.
For these reasons and others, shorter runners are usually at the front.
Possible ideal height and weight for distance runner.
1.70 cm/ 50 kilos (male)
Most elite runners are around the '19' number on the BMI tables. Check you BMI, and see how you fare.
Go back to video footage of Mottram running neck-and-neck with Bekele, with everyone else well behind. From this, I think you can infer that it's an advantage to be short or tall.
Likewise, Asafa Powell (6'3" I think) ran 0.01 sec faster than Tim Montgomery (5'8-9") on the Balco roids.
Webb has run 3:32, but Krumm (6'2") has run 3:31....
Marathoning is supposed to be a short man's event.....but Tergat is 5'11"-6'0".
In other words, it doesn't freakin matter unless you're like 4 feet tall or 7 feet tall
I don't care what you guys say, I consider myself a good runner and I am 6'1". I ran a 17:07 5k this year (sophomore year) I weigh about 155. Your size is less important than your work ethic and a positive attitude.
While you can identify individual with average height excelling in distance events you can't dispute that they are the exception. By far the majority of winners in 15k and longer races are short.
I'm still not quite sure I understand why they would have a biomechanical advantage. Its easy to assume that, but in two similiarly propotioned athletes why does it occur.
A second theory, based on Tim Noakes ideas in the Lore of Running, might be related to dissipation of heat. A smaller body loses heat quicker allowing higher speeds.
This post was removed.
ghost wrote:
Possible ideal height and weight for distance runner.
1.70 cm/ 50 kilos (male)
1.70 cm? Isn't that like 4 inches tall? Wouldn't you get squished by the other runners?
And to the guy offering exceptions to the rule - you're not providing a valid argument. there will always be exceptions to the rule. Who is faster, Kenyans or Americans? Most would say Kenyans. Who is faster, Larry Mboga (Kenyan) or Alan Webb (American)? Webb, obviously.
SweetNickyT wrote:
ghost wrote:Possible ideal height and weight for distance runner.
1.70 cm/ 50 kilos (male)
1.70 cm? Isn't that like 4 inches tall? Wouldn't you get squished by the other runners?
And to the guy offering exceptions to the rule - you're not providing a valid argument. there will always be exceptions to the rule. Who is faster, Kenyans or Americans? Most would say Kenyans. Who is faster, Larry Mboga (Kenyan) or Alan Webb (American)? Webb, obviously.
ignorant white americans
ghost wrote:
Being shortish is an advantage in distance running for the following reasons.
1. Better power to weight ratio
2. Shorter people weigh less, and it is more economical to carry less weight.
3. It is more efficient to move shorter levers (legs and arms) than longer levers over long distances - again we are talking from an 'economy' point of view.
4. Shorter runners are usually biomechanically more efficient, and this contributes to better form and less injuries.
5. On hills (up and downhill) shorter runners have a clear advantage over tall/lanky runners - they are able to move up and down more efficiently and economically.
For these reasons and others, shorter runners are usually at the front.
Possible ideal height and weight for distance runner.
1.70 cm/ 50 kilos (male)
Most elite runners are around the '19' number on the BMI tables. Check you BMI, and see how you fare.
If 1 was true, then the 100m would be dominated by small guys. Mo Greene is the smallest global champion in recent years and even he is just about on the average. Bailey, Christie, Lewis, Borzov, Hayes etc., all well above average. So if power-to-weight ratio is related to height it must be the opposite to what you hypothesised.
2 True, in that weight is related to height, but taller people have larger lungs. There are plenty of examples of tall and short athletes in the endurance events.
3 Shorter legs have to be moved at a faster cadence to make up for a shorter stride, and so tire more quickly at high speeds. Hence the predominance of tall athletes at the 200-1500 range.
4 Is this conjecture or has there been a study done to show this? It's an interesting possibility.
5 Since taller runners can take longer strides, it follows that they can run downhill quicker. As regards uphill running, power-to-weight ratio comes into play so see 1.
Haven't seen much evidence for your conclusion. For every Kenenisa Bekele and Haile Gebrselassie there's a Paul Tergat or a Craig Mottram.
On the distaff side, look at Paula Radcliffe or Sonia O'Sullivan (Sonyar Ro Sullivan for you Brits).
Please no sociological/psychological reasons for the short guys running faster.
Don't want to hear, "Short people have been oppressed and they are more driven and motivated to beat the taller opponent" or "Running is more available and appealing to the short athlete because they are disadvantaged in other sports like basketball and football"
I'm not talking about sprinters we were talking about distance running and height.
Care to elaborate Tucson?
Tucson Vegan Runner wrote:
ignorant white americans
Sorry big guy but you don't need research. Just look at the winners of the next marathon.
Chase Me With a Saw. wrote:
runforfunracetowin wrote:I don't care what you guys say, I consider myself a good runner and I am 6'1". I ran a 17:07 5k this year (sophomore year) I weigh about 155. Your size is less important than your work ethic and a positive attitude.
You are not a good runner.
False. That's a solid time for a sophomore in HS even on a track. If that's on a reasonably hard XC course, that's excellent for a sophomore, if nowhere near elite at a national level, and not quite there (although showing potential to get there in a year or two) at a state level.
tank wrote:
Sorry big guy but you don't need research. Just look at the winners of the next marathon.
We can't do that. It hasn't happened yet. We can only check past results.
Try New York 2005 for size (if you'll excuse the pun).
A tall skinny guy (6-1, 155) will lose heat fast. I think that could be the factor giving the smaller guy the advantage.
cheeky response but I'll grant you that!
I'm pretty sure the poster meant 170 cm (which is 5'7") and 50 kg which is 110 pounds... You gotta be freakin' kidding me! If someone is 5'7" they should weigh 132 pounds, roughly.