There seems to be a pervasive myth that people with long legs relative to body height are better runners. Take a look at guys like Bekele and Seko, and you'll see this is not the case.
There seems to be a pervasive myth that people with long legs relative to body height are better runners. Take a look at guys like Bekele and Seko, and you'll see this is not the case.
I think when you look at guys like Bekele you will see this is the case.
Its true, smaller and lighter seems to be better.
dogface gremlin wrote:
There seems to be a pervasive myth that people with long legs relative to body height are better runners. Take a look at guys like Bekele and Seko, and you'll see this is not the case.
You are right, but like a lot of running myths it doesn't matter how stupid they are, people will always believe them.
Usain Bolt agrees
I don't think that having long legs necessarily assumes one to be the better runner. However, it is a bonus. Longer legs= longer stride= more distance covered.
It doesn't hurt to have em.
It comes down to the size of your balls.
It's all a ratio. Power: Leg Length = how good you are. The longer your legs, the harder it is to achieve optimal power transfer. However, if you can have the same ratio as a smaller guy at a larger size, you'll dominate (i.e. Bolt).
QFE
i dont think it matters both ways. short people might be more prone to heavy weight sometimes
I would say it\'s helpful to have long legs relative to your total body length. Even for Bekele and Geb, their leg length/torso length ratio is on the high end, but of course it\'s true that in absolute terms, their legs are by no means long.
What's the definition of leg length, I measured from my sole to my hip bone. I'm 57% leg. Is that good?
What if you have long legs but it's your upper legs that are proportionally longer than your lower legs? I think a lot of sprinters are built like that.
Oooohh I have exactly that. My legs are definately longer than my torso, as a porportion. And my thieghs are the longest part also, the distance from my knee to my foot is pretty normal. And yes :) im quite good at sprinting.
what about the vitruvian man?
my legs are completely too long for my body. I have almost a 34 inch inseam (measure inner thigh to ankle) ; and i am just around 5'10. My torso is so short, most people are surprised when i stand up .
I always get the "You have such long legs - it must be easy for you to run fast". Not really. My hip flexors are definitely my weakest muscle. I have the marathon shuffle stride (well not quite; but not a pretty full legged one). I believe if I was more proportionate I could definitely be quicker.
Its also crazy because my hips are so much wider.. that might explain the angle being tougher to use my legs (narrow little hips are usually on the super fast little girls).
I won't get into bra sizes.. they don't make a 36 A (only B and up). So that throws "the perfect fit" out the window.
Although i have about 12% body fat (at 124 pounds); i have a wider waist than my boyfriend who is 155. So i could never fit in a size 2.. more like 4-6 and i am bone thin.
nice
legss wrote:
my legs are completely too long for my body.
My legs are the perfect length. They just touch the ground when I stand up.
Sounds like your problem is hip width and muscle strength as much as leg length. If you keep the hips and muscle the same, you might be faster with shorter legs. Narrow the hips and strength the muscles maybe those long legs would be an advantage. You can't really just say one thing is the weakness.
legss wrote:
my legs are completely too long for my body. I have almost a 34 inch inseam (measure inner thigh to ankle) ; and i am just around 5'10. My torso is so short, most people are surprised when i stand up .
I always get the "You have such long legs - it must be easy for you to run fast". Not really. My hip flexors are definitely my weakest muscle. I have the marathon shuffle stride (well not quite; but not a pretty full legged one). I believe if I was more proportionate I could definitely be quicker.
Its also crazy because my hips are so much wider.. that might explain the angle being tougher to use my legs (narrow little hips are usually on the super fast little girls).
I won't get into bra sizes.. they don't make a 36 A (only B and up). So that throws "the perfect fit" out the window.
Although i have about 12% body fat (at 124 pounds); i have a wider waist than my boyfriend who is 155. So i could never fit in a size 2.. more like 4-6 and i am bone thin.
Longer legs are definitely advantageous in sprinting. Whether they provide a net advantage in distance running, I'm not certain. There are benefits and drawbacks to having longer legs. A longer lever is more powerful, so that's an advantage. Longer bones also carry longer, more volumous muscles, which is favorable for raw power output but may be unfavorable for endurance. Even a small difference in muscle length confers a huge different in muscle volume. A move volumous muscle is more powerful, which is obviously an advantage. However, due to the fact that volume increases as a cube of length, but surface area only increases as a square of length, a more volumous muscle has drastically inferior ability to dissipate heat, which is a critical consideration in endurance performance. So, the answer is, I have no idea whether the hell longer legs confer a net advantage.