OK. I’m running the other day and a runner pops out in front of me about a 1/4 mile up the hill. I love it when runners appear in front of me because it stirs the competitive drive in me and pushes me a little harder than I may normally go (if you need the whole scoop, check out the Bunny Post here).

This guy was a Hare. I was near the end of my run and I didn’t have that final push in me. What I did notice was this guy was little. I’m 6′-2″ and this guy had to be all of 5′-6″ with a slight build – maybe a buck thirty. Point is, this guys turnover was incredible. Absolutely flying up the hill. I’m pretty confident up hills but I could never hit that guys pace.

That got me thinking. Besides the obvious advantages, I’m guessing the smaller you are the quicker you can run (to a point). The physical pounding the body takes has to be way less than the torque I put on my joints. Personally I know that I’m much faster at 200 pounds than I was at 270. Let’s be honest, NOBODY is quick at 270!!! I found some height and weights of some notable runners:

Emile Zatopek – 5-8 1/2″, 154 lbs. (average size)
Kip Keino – 5′-9″/146 lbs. (9% below average)
Sebastian Coe – 5′-10″, 120 lbs.(over 20% below average)
Linford Christie – 6′-2 1/2″, 170 lbs. (10% below average)
Ingrid Kristiansen – 5′-6 1/2″, 128 lbs. (4% below average)
Tatyana Kazankina – 5′-3 1/2″, 110 lbs. (6% below average)
Grete Waitz – 5′-6 1/2″, 110lbs (17% below average)
*From Weight and Performance article.

I think common sense tells us this premise is right on. It’s just interesting to look at the facts. I have seen a couple of Clydesdales hauling ass in a couple of races but you don’t ever see many elite Clydesdales.

RMFR