Short>Tall?

paul tergat may disagree but i could be wrong

taller runners are just not as good. There are a few amazing outliers, Jim Ryun, Paul Tergat, Craig Mottram, but for the most part you want to be about 5'8" and weigh 135 lbs.

even in the 800, although the trend is for just slighly larger guys.

In everything above the 400, small is better. Even in some events under the 400, size doesn't change things that much either. Most sprinters are average size if you look at the whole spectrum.

Now, jumps, throws, decathalon, thats completely different. Size often determines how far you throw, and sometimes jump. Most decathletes are huge men.

your wrong.

doesnt is mean something when the outliers are the best ones?

ryun, mottram, kipketer, target.

It seems like somewhere between 5'7" and 6'0" would be the perfect height.

I'm 6'3" and am extremely jealous of my training buddies when it comes to speedwork and stuff like tempo runs. It is just so difficult to get the fast leg turnover required to turn out stellar times without a significantly more effort than shorter guys.

But on long runs...I feel like I'm at an advantage...it seems like I take half as many steps and put out less of an effort than the shorter guys..

It would seem that overall, the distribution of heights amoung runners is pretty much the same as the population in total which would indicate that height doesn't really matter at all and that other factors are more important in determining who is predisposed to excelling at running.

If you consider that the average height in North America is just under 5'10" and that is the height previous posters are saying is the 'good' running height, it jives.

I think short is definitely an advantage. Look at KK and Haile...arguably the best marathoners ever.

Mandingo wrote:

It would seem that overall, the distribution of heights amoung runners is pretty much the same as the population in total which would indicate that height doesn't really matter at all and that other factors are more important in determining who is predisposed to excelling at running.

If you consider that the average height in North America is just under 5'10" and that is the height previous posters are saying is the 'good' running height, it jives.

Or maybe it explains why North Americas get left behind the shorter east africans. BTW, Tergat is only 5 ft 10 in.

shotcalr23 wrote:

I'm 6'3" and am extremely jealous of my training buddies when it comes to speedwork and stuff like tempo runs. It is just so difficult to get the fast leg turnover required to turn out stellar times without a significantly more effort than shorter guys.

But on long runs...I feel like I'm at an advantage...it seems like I take half as many steps and put out less of an effort than the shorter guys..

I'm taller than you and find quite the opposite -- the faster we go the more able I am to use my long legs as an advantage. My turnover goes down so much on long runs I feel like I'm just gallumping along, carrying 175 pounds, while they are just ticking away, barely making any sound with their light quick little steps.

shotcalr23 wrote:

It seems like somewhere between 5'7" and 6'0" would be the perfect height.

I'm 6'3" and am extremely jealous of my training buddies when it comes to speedwork and stuff like tempo runs. It is just so difficult to get the fast leg turnover required to turn out stellar times without a significantly more effort than shorter guys.

But on long runs...I feel like I'm at an advantage...it seems like I take half as many steps and put out less of an effort than the shorter guys..

I don't think your situation is applicable to everybody. It probably has more to do with your lack of fast-twitch muscles.

to the original poster: go back to dyestat

Actually, studies have been done on this subject and *on average* the best runners (average of the world's top ten in each event) get progressively shorter as the distance gets longer.

This holds true for men and women alike.

I've seen some fairly convincing explanations of why this could be so. IIRC they focused on strength/weight ratios and vertical displacement during the stride.

Don't forget talent and drive. There is some kind of average distance runner, but the exceptions prove that if you have the talent and drive you shouldn't abandon your dream if you aren't the right size.

Obviouslt, there are limits. If you had the choice between, say a defensive lineman and middle distance and you were 6'2 285 lbs of muscle- go for football.

You know what I mean. But, where would Paula Radcliffe and Paul Tergat be if they didn't run because of thier size?

The legs, while running, serve as a lever. You can generate more power with long legs because of the mechanical advantage created. However, you also have an increase in weight with every inch gained. It turns out that the additional weight increases exponentially as compared to the extra power.

In the sprints, and even races like the 800m, you are not running long enough for the weight to be such as issue. However, when you get up to the longer distances, it is nearly impossible to overcome.

So yes, there is a correlation between height and success at certain distances.

[quote]simple machines, folks wrote:

It turns out that the additional weight increases exponentially as compared to the extra power./quote]

False. Weight is an extensive (here volumetric) quantity, and as such varies with height cubed. Small differences in height correspond to much larger changes in weight, but they aren't exponential by a long shot.