Say someone is 69" tall and their navel is 41". Is their torso too long? Does that even matter?
Say someone is 69" tall and their navel is 41". Is their torso too long? Does that even matter?
Male or female?
Sprinter, middle distance, distance or marathon?
Too many variables.
Male
5k and up
No, torso length does not matter. Why would it? There is no such thing as an ideal body type.
Eliud Kipchoge.
One can make somewhat generic statements, such as pointing out that very low bodyfat and long legs relative to total height are beneficial, but it's risky to get too specific--20 years ago nobody would have thought that fastest man in history NOW would be 6' 5". Drugs, especially, can change these equations.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
One can make somewhat generic statements, such as pointing out that very low bodyfat and long legs relative to total height are beneficial, but it's risky to get too specific--20 years ago nobody would have thought that fastest man in history NOW would be 6' 5". Drugs, especially, can change these equations.
Long legs relative to height are not especially beneficial. Leg length is irrelevant.
jsj wrote:
lol lol lol lol wrote:One can make somewhat generic statements, such as pointing out that very low bodyfat and long legs relative to total height are beneficial, but it's risky to get too specific--20 years ago nobody would have thought that fastest man in history NOW would be 6' 5". Drugs, especially, can change these equations.
Long legs relative to height are not especially beneficial. Leg length is irrelevant.
This is why Bassett hounds excel in the Greyhound Derby.
SMJO wrote:
This is why Bassett hounds excel in the Greyhound Derby.
Lol please tell me you're joking
So...conflicting opinions...not surprising.
that is one long/deep navel, probably not very aerodynamic.
jsj wrote:
SMJO wrote:This is why Bassett hounds excel in the Greyhound Derby.
Lol please tell me you're joking
Of course I'm joking. Bassett hounds do not excel in the Greyhound Derby.
In addition to having the wrong body type and muscle fiber type, they have really short legs.
short or not? wrote:
So...conflicting opinions...not surprising.
There are no conflicting opinions. They are people with the correct answer and then people like SMJO who thinks leg length is relevant for some strange reason. All that matters is how strong your legs are. The length is 100% irrelevant.
jsj wrote:
All that matters is how strong your legs are. The length is 100% irrelevant.
Lungs.
I think that the East African male marathoners are 'usually' around 5'5"-5'7" and 120-130 pounds. The women obviously smaller. I don't think long legs are a requirement.A light frame, a strong heart and powerful lungs.As far as legs go...the fastest animals have slender yet powerful legs. Many East African marathoners look like they have no calf muscles at all.Sprinters have huge muscular legs. Fast twitch v. slow twitch muscle fibers?Just an observation.
short or not? wrote:
Say someone is 69" tall and their navel is 41". Is their torso too long? Does that even matter?
whatever shape leg can put the most force into the track or ground (hint its usually not the longest).
Long legs take larger strides and are more efficient but not necessarily faster.
For example in the animal kingdom, the Cheetah and the Greyhound are not the longest legged cat or dog respectively, but they are by far the fastest.
on a woman, nice juicy butt, long legs, firm medium-sized boobs, everywhere else nice and tight. face of hillary clinton
jsj wrote:
short or not? wrote:So...conflicting opinions...not surprising.
There are no conflicting opinions. They are people with the correct answer and then people like SMJO who thinks leg length is relevant for some strange reason. All that matters is how strong your legs are. The length is 100% irrelevant.
The strange reason however is the correct reason. Leg strength has next to nothing to do with running ability, particularly at anything over 400.