Am I too short to beat out the tall runners?

Look at all the small Japanese runners; several have run under 2:10 for the marathon.

It's not height, it's heart.

Shortness is not the problem, unless you have recently decided to race the 1500m-400m. Stretch the hamstrings more should open your stride a few inches.

That little F'er Geb outkicked me ALL the time. Friggin' midgets!

It doesn't matter unless you are racing middle distance or hurdles.

You either have it, or you don't. Don't use height as an excuse.

Btw...I think Geb is only 5'4"

Yo dog! What are you talking about. Spin yo wheels fast and you'll kick some ass. That's all it takes, short, tall, midget, whatever.

"I think that shorter runners have an inherent advantage in running efficiency for one primary reason….body mass. The greater body mass that taller runners generally have results in more weight and heat production than their shorter compatriots."

If you are tall, you know how obvious this is in hot weather, soft terrain and on hilly courses. Short folks have an advantage in running, all else being equal, not tall ones. I am like a freakin' skeleton at 6'4" and 155 - all veins and sinew - veins visible everywhere. 155 would be quite heavy for an elite distance runner and elite distance runners are far shorter than the average population (and heing gets smaller with distance). Tall people just have to lug around alot of bones, no matter how lean they are. Same reason why tall people can't do "body weight" exercises in proportion to their strength.

Try running a marathon carrying a 10 pound sack, and a marathon without. Which do you think is going to be easier?

The obvious answer is without. At the thinnest I can get healthily, 150, at 6'3", I will have to cart 30 extra pounds than an equally thin 5'6" individual. This takes extra energy, and hence, it is more calorically dependant (especially with events such as the marathon).

Brian is correct.

Yes indeed. The longer stride argument is foolish. It's all about efficiency and running economy, areas where small runners possess a huge advantage. That's why you see hardly any really tall world class runners, Craig Mottram notwithstanding.

Stride length is not the issue, you are right. Shorter legs = faster stride rate.

Smaller guys do dissipate heat better because of their surface are to volume ratio, but that same ratio makes taller guys more aerodynamic.

In other words, runners should not use their size as an excuse when they get beaten.

even mottram is only about 6'2, and he looks like a giant on the track. the fact that 6'2 is considered exceedingly tall says a lot.

The article is definately saying that stride length is important. So if you are worried about compensating for your hieght than try stretching your hamstrings and calves more, conciously planting your foot further ahead of you, and doing stride exercises.

Check these out:

Geb 1500,5K, 10K, Marathon

Bekele 5K, 10K

Little Bekele 5K

KK Marathon

Short guys can run fast, too!

Anyone remember the Stonerock twins? Even I call them short and I'm only 5'4". Unfortunately, they were the same age as the Mastalir twins. Didn't they go something like 1,2,3,4 at Arcadia? I wouldn't really know their order of finish because they ran much of the race in back of me - because I was almost a lap down. :(

the second wrote:

The article is definately saying that stride length is important. So if you are worried about compensating for your hieght than try stretching your hamstrings and calves more, conciously planting your foot further ahead of you, and doing stride exercises.

That's all fine and dandy, but I am 6'3" and have a very short stride for having such long legs (I am not terribly flexible). It looks kind of funny, kind of like a shuffle, so it may be more economical, but it certainly DOES NOT give me an advantage covering a lot of ground over a smaller guy. That's just an urban legend that tall guys have long strides.

I ran a 9:34 3200 in high school at altitude, and I have managed to darn near break 30:00 for the 10k, but I am injury prone... that's the key. The more weight you have coming down on your feet repeatedly, the more you are at a disadvantage compared to a guy like Gerry Lindgren, who could run over 200 miles a week.

nik wrote:

even mottram is only about 6'2, and he looks like a giant on the track. the fact that 6'2 is considered exceedingly tall says a lot.

perfect answer. 6'2 would be a short QB, and nothing in the NBA.

Marcus Ryfell- 5"3 13:08

Joe Falcon- 5"5 13:20

Geb WR

Plenty of sprinters as well

Good luck

The good news is that I don't think Paul Tergat is all that short.

I call BS wrote:

[quote]the second wrote:

. The more weight you have coming down on your feet repeatedly, the more you are at a disadvantage compared to a guy like Gerry Lindgren, who could run over 200 miles a week.

how tall was gerry lindgren?

I call BS wrote:

The good news is that I don't think Paul Tergat is all that short.

...but not all that tall either. Paul's about 5'10.

mule fan wrote:

how tall was gerry lindgren?

I'm pretty sure he's puny.