To run these incredible do we have to be super light? I noticed that J Chebet was 5'4" & 114. Most of the best guys at this point are built like elves. I believe that there was a study just released inwhich it states that the best African runners are lighter in their legs then all of the rest. Something to ponder
oops, I meant to say incredidible times. Looking at the ratio of weight to height Chebet is 1.78lbs/inch. In a previous question I asked the height & weight of Paula, her height/weight is 119/5'8" or 1.75lb/inch. Bill Rodgers seemed to be built in the same fashion & is the most prolific marathoner in USA history,(before KK)is there something to this? It's almost like looking a horse racing jockey types anymore.
Jeez, I'm at 2.15 lbs/inch (6'4 1/2" and 165) I need to lose some weight!
Dang:
I am 5'8" and 140 when racing. That puts me at 2.06. For me to be at 1.8 I would need to weigh 122+ pounds. While I am sure that I could get to such a weight, it would not be an enjoyable or healthy ride.
I think that, to pick up on the BDG "talent" post, having a frame of the size that could handle the pounding of 100 mile weeks year in and out is part of the durability piece of talent.
6'2" and 170lbs puts me at 2.297297297 lbs/inch, perhaps helping to explain my middling to fair PR's, despite whatever intense training I've ever done. Bone structure and height seem to dictate higher lbs/inch stats for taller folks, ie - it seems necessary for the bones and muscles to be out of proportionally larger to support the larger frame, for most people at least. Tergat and Culpepper, both reportedly 6' and 130-140lbs range seem to throw the proverbial monkey-wrench in that theory, but perhaps they simply represent the exception rather than the rule. I'm no scientest so I'd like to see anyone with more direct information on this post real data.
6' at 140lbs would make you 1.94 pounds per inch (about 8.9% over the 1.78 number posted)
6' at 130lbs would make you 1.80 pounds per inch (about 1.1% over)
I wouldn't say that a 9% deviation from the standard constitutes an erronous theory. However you would really need a lot more data than this to realy create a trend.
Over a year ago I did a little study for fun on height/weight ratios, which I posted on Marius's site. Here are the results:
------------------------------
A few months back I did a study on the body weights of male distance runners (1500-Marathon) that participated in the 2000 Olympics. I found it to be very interesting so I also did one on the top U.S. male distance runners, including non-Olympic qualifiers. Take it for what it?s worth. I can?t guarantee that the runners reported an accurate weight (not to mention fluctuations) and a few runners had no weight listed at all. Also, I threw out a couple of numbers (outliers) that seemed like mistakes, such as one 5?8? 187 pound marathoner. If that number was correct, I feel sorry for that poor soul! :-)
A question that it prompted me to ask is: since relative VO2 max is dependent on body weight (absolute VO2 max/weight in kg), you in effect raise relative VO2 max just by losing weight? At what point does this diminish and why (strength loss, etc.)? I?m sure there are individual differences where this point occurs, but at the top the differences are small. So if Marius (138 lbs/62.72 kg 87 VO2 max), for example, gained 7 lbs/3.18 kg his relative VO2 max would fall to approximately 83. On the other hand, if he lost 2 pounds this does not necessarily mean his relative VO2 max will continue to rise to 88.28 since it could be accompanied by a decrease in strength, or does it? Please tell me if I?m way off or if you have any input.
Sorry for the length, I could not use tables.
_____________________________________
Example: Marius (62.72 kg, 87 ml/min VO2 max)
Absolute VO2 Max = 62.72 * 87
= 5457 ml/min
Increase in weight from 62.72 kg to 65.90:
Relative VO2 Max = 5457 / 65.90
= 82.81 ml/min
____________________________________
Equations/Conversions (approx.):
Relative VO2 Max = Absolute VO2 Max / Weight in kg
Absolute VO2 Max = Relative VO2 Max * Weight in kg
Lbs = kgs * 2.2
Kgs = lbs / 2.2
Height in Inches = Height in meters * .3937
Height in Meters = Height in inches / .3937
__________________________________
Results of Olympic study (Height in inches, weight in lbs.):
(Multiply your height in inches by the factor to see where your weight would be, ex. Marius is approx. 72 inches tall * 1.9095 (mean for 5000 runners) = 137.48, pretty close to his 138. )
1500m (39 athletes)
Height
Max ? 76 in.
Mean ? 69.90
Min ? 63
Weight
Max ? 176 lbs
Mean ? 141.82
Min ? 110
Factor (Weight/Height)
Max ? 2.375
Mean ? 2.0271
Min ? 1.6418
5,000m (44 athletes)
Height
Max ? 76 in.
Mean ? 69.18
Min ? 61
Weight
Max ? 158
Mean ? 132.25
Min ? 99
Factor (Weight/Height)
Max ? 2.1351
Mean ? 1.9095
Min ? 1.5469
10,000m (32 athletes)
Height
Max ? 73
Mean ? 68.69
Min ? 65
Weight
Max ? 149
Mean ? 131.38
Min ? 110
Factor (Weight/Height)
Max ? 2.194
Mean ? 1.9123
Min ? 1.6418
Marathon (96 athletes)
Height
Max ? 75 in.
Mean ? 68.23
Min ? 59
Weight
Max ? 165
Mean ? 132.59
Min ? 99
Factor (Weight/Height)
Max ? 2.2687
Mean ? 1.9410
Min ? 1.5714
All Events Combined (211)
Height
Max ? 76 in.
Mean ? 68.81
Min ? 59
Weight
Max ? 176
Mean ? 134.04
Min ? 99
Factor (Weight/Height)
Max ? 2.375
Mean ? 1.946
Min ? 1.5469
Factors for the top 5 finishers in each event:
Event----Max?----Mean?---Min
1500-----2.13----2.012---1.896
5000-----2.099---1.953---1.783
10000?---1.971---1.862---1.754
Mara-----2.224---2.018---1.894
Notice how the marathoners tend to have a higher factor, even among the top 5 finishers. Is this partly due to the increased need to burn fats, therefore they carry more weight?
Factors for Various Runners:
Marius ? 1.9167
Haile ? 1.8615
Tergat ? 1.8889
Ivuti ? 1.7538
Hicham ? 2.1
Ngeny ? 1.896
Goucher ? 2
Pyrah ? 2.06
Hissou ? 1.9155
_______________________________
Results of American Runners (25 athletes)
Factors:
Event----Max?Mean?Min
1500-----2.30-----2.109---1.93
5000-----2.07----1.976---1.78
10000+--2.13-----1.951---1.78
Me:
5'10" 133 lbs
1.9lbs/inch
Cool, thanks for the stats RES.
You can't just divide your height by your weight and then use that number to compare yourself to other runners. Taller people have a greater (I think) proportion of their weight from their skeleton, as opposed to muscles and fat and so on (which are the parts which can fluctuate). So if there is some sort of sweet spot for height to weight ratio (a highly debatable point), that ratio would vary with height.
There's a discussion of this in Martin and Coe's "better training for distance runners".
Having said all that, it seems that if you're carrying pounds which aren't helping you go faster, they're probably making you go slower. However, some of those pounds which you may think are excess may be helping you in subtle ways, like keeping you at a healthy enough weight to not get sick and injured all the time. None of the elite runners that I know try to control their weight directly: they try to run enough mileage, and eat healthily and intelligently, and the rest should follow.
6'0'' 140 lbs
I actually might be a little light, but the only place I can seem to put any weight on is in the belly, so I try to stay about where I am at.
I'm 5'10 and about 128, which puts me at 1.8. I could probably stand to lose 3-4 at the most. I think bone structure has a TON to do with it...i.e. a person could concievably have 1% body fat and still have a height/weight ratio of 2.00+.
DJL
Dear God that's insane! I don't think you could stand to lose four pounds. I can't imagine what you look like now. . .
ewwww
[sorry, that's my mental image there, for all I know you're a cute skeleton.]
I'm 5'8 and weigh 155. I usually race around 153-4 which would put me at 2.28. I don't think it has too much to do with how you run. Plus my VO2 is still over 80 even though i weigh that much so...??
I'd say I weigh too much--is 6 foot 1, 300 pounds. However, I have ran 15:37 for 5K.
Ferris, I think you can use the weight/hieght ratio as a starting point.
There are not many tall(over 6') & heavy(over130lb) runners that are running the blistering times that we see today. Just look at Culpepper what is he 6' & 132, not much there is there? That is one of the factors that AC used to run 2:09:41, that & tons of running.
Your not going to make it to the top if your tall & heavy, not going to happen. Who & how many are the Heaviest/tallest men under 2:10:30? How about under 2:09 & so on?
I'm not sure if anyone has said this, since I didn't read all the threads...Weight to height ratio is about as useful as somebody's SAT score in determining how thin they are. If you have somebody that's 4 feet tall and 100 lbs. (kinda chubby) they're nowhere near as thin as somebody who is 8 feet tall and 200 lbs (ridiculously thin), even though their ratio is the same. It's like saying that the area of a 20' by 20' room is half that of a 40' by 40' room. The discrepancy isn't as huge for small height differences, but it is significant.
good point
Anyone ever hear of the Body Mass Index? Your weight divided by your height SQUARED. That's what's used to determine obesity and being under weight. I forget the exact formula, something like
(Weight in pounds)X 704/(Heigh in inches)squared.
This is an anorexia for men thread...