Globe & Mail article- ideal body type for marathons

erinmcd · Postby **erinmcd** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:12 am

Interesting article in the G&M this morning- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le2091748/

In the words on Meatloaf "2 out of 3 ain't bad." According to this article I have the ideal height (5'7"), & ideal weight (140 lbs). Don't quite have the super speed yet (but I'm getting there......).

Interesting that it shows as being the most popular article on their site today.

Jwolf · Postby **Jwolf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:20 am

5'7" and 140 pounds? Really? That's about exactly my height and current weight but when I'm my fittest I'm a about 5 pounds lighter. But compared to elite women marathoners I'm definitely heavier- by 10-15 pounds for those my height- and I'm not very injury-resistant.

La · Postby La » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:27 am

Jwolf wrote:5'7" and 140 pounds? Really? That's about exactly my height and current weight but when I'm my fittest I'm a about 5 pounds lighter. But compared to elite women marathoners I'm definitely heavier- by 10-15 pounds for those my height- and I'm not very injury-resistant.

That's for men, though. I didn't read the article, but wouldn't the ideal height/weight for women be significantly less? Paula Radcliffe aside, they all look to be about 5'2" and 110lbs.

Jwolf · Postby **Jwolf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:19 am

La wrote:
Jwolf wrote:5'7" and 140 pounds? Really? That's about exactly my height and current weight but when I'm my fittest I'm a about 5 pounds lighter. But compared to elite women marathoners I'm definitely heavier- by 10-15 pounds for those my height- and I'm not very injury-resistant.

That's for men, though. I didn't read the article, but wouldn't the ideal height/weight for women be significantly less? Paula Radcliffe aside, they all look to be about 5'2" and 110lbs.

I didn't think that weight:height ratio (essentially BMI) would make a difference for men vs women, though. I'm just surprised that even male marathoners at 5'7" would be optimal at 140 pounds.
I know Kara Goucher is 5'7" and she weighs closer to 125. I think Paula is about the same.

erinmcd · Postby **erinmcd** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:26 am

La wrote:
Jwolf wrote:5'7" and 140 pounds? Really? That's about exactly my height and current weight but when I'm my fittest I'm a about 5 pounds lighter. But compared to elite women marathoners I'm definitely heavier- by 10-15 pounds for those my height- and I'm not very injury-resistant.

That's for men, though. I didn't read the article, but wouldn't the ideal height/weight for women be significantly less? Paula Radcliffe aside, they all look to be about 5'2" and 110lbs.

I was kind of wondering about the height: weight ratio. What makes 5'7"/140 ideal as opposed to 6'/155 ideal (for a man anyway)? For some reason I've always been under the impression that the tall skinny guys are generally faster than the short skinny guys (not including Kenyans).

Pat29 · Postby **Pat29** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:48 am

Thanks for posting.

According to the article I am about the right height but apparently I am about 6-7 pounds lighter than the ideal weight.

Jwolf · Postby **Jwolf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:57 am

I didn't read the original research article, but it's Interesting that the Canadian Running report on the article said "5'7" and 130 pounds or much less". That sounds more like it.

Jump145 · Postby **Jump145** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:07 am

I'm a few inches tall and 15ish pounds heavy, but I have a very aerodynamic 'haircut' that has to count for something.

AirForceRunner · Postby **AirForceRunner** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:26 am

7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons. :lol:

Spirit Unleashed · Postby **Spirit Unleashed** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:32 am

Jwolf wrote:I didn't read the original research article, but it's Interesting that the Canadian Running report on the article said "5'7" and 130 pounds or much less". That sounds more like it.

Just like Andy?

Joe Dwarf · Postby **Joe Dwarf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:36 am

AirForceRunner wrote:7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons.

You're 6'2" and only 170? More sandwiches for you!

Avis · Postby **Avis** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:39 am

I'm too short and too "stocky". I consider this part of my personal challenge.

AirForceRunner · Postby **AirForceRunner** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:45 am

Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons.
You're 6'2" and only 170? More sandwiches for you!

LMAO!!! I'm usually lighter, closer to 160. Running has been sporadic lately, with a bit of resultant 'creep'. :lol:

Joe Dwarf · Postby **Joe Dwarf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:53 am

AirForceRunner wrote:
Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons.
You're 6'2" and only 170? More sandwiches for you!

LMAO!!! I'm usually lighter, closer to 160. Running has been sporadic lately, with a bit of resultant 'creep'.

I'm a bit over 6' and 185 and my wife thinks I may be getting too skinny - I've went from wearing XL shirts to M over the last few years. I guess it's all on frame size or something.

AirForceRunner · Postby **AirForceRunner** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:01 pm

Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:
Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons.
You're 6'2" and only 170? More sandwiches for you!

LMAO!!! I'm usually lighter, closer to 160. Running has been sporadic lately, with a bit of resultant 'creep'.
I'm a bit over 6' and 185 and my wife thinks I may be getting too skinny - I've went from wearing XL shirts to M over the last few years. I guess it's all on frame size or something.

I think so....if I was standing at a bar, you'd guess about 180-185....if I walked away from said bar, you'd question if there was any chicken in my family lineage, given stick-esque legs. :lol:

ceileigh · Postby **ceileigh** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:12 pm

5'7" and 140 puts me right height but underweight. Guess I will go buy me some potato chips and ice cream ...

La · Postby La » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:17 pm

Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:
Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons.
You're 6'2" and only 170? More sandwiches for you!

LMAO!!! I'm usually lighter, closer to 160. Running has been sporadic lately, with a bit of resultant 'creep'.
I'm a bit over 6' and 185 and my wife thinks I may be getting too skinny - I've went from wearing XL shirts to M over the last few years. I guess it's all on frame size or something.

Vanity sizing.

ChrisL · Postby **ChrisL** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:19 pm

I'm 6' and 155lb and no fat, but I have been under 150lb and it was not pretty. Tergat was 5'11" and 136lb. So, i can't imagine being that small. I am having a hell of a time trying to find clothes that fit me, small are too short and medium too big.

Joe Dwarf · Postby **Joe Dwarf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:26 pm

La wrote:Vanity sizing.

That's not usually such an issue in men's clothing as women's - but there is definitely some variation from brand to brand. But in dress clothing where it is a lot more standardized I've dropped from a 16 1/2" neck to 15 1/2".

Jwolf · Postby **Jwolf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:47 pm

La wrote:
Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:
Joe Dwarf wrote:
AirForceRunner wrote:7 inches too tall and 30 lbs too heavy. No wonder I don't run marathons.
You're 6'2" and only 170? More sandwiches for you!

LMAO!!! I'm usually lighter, closer to 160. Running has been sporadic lately, with a bit of resultant 'creep'.
I'm a bit over 6' and 185 and my wife thinks I may be getting too skinny - I've went from wearing XL shirts to M over the last few years. I guess it's all on frame size or something.

Vanity sizing.

I agree- varying "frame size" is largely a myth. Bones don't vary that much in size.

Postby **turd ferguson** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:11 pm

That article sucked.

The headline says 'run' a marathon but most of the science is about the body type required to 'win' a marathon. Then the rest of the article mashes the two ideas together.

ETA: I see that g&m commenters have picked up on this as well.

Joe Dwarf · Postby **Joe Dwarf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:38 pm

Jwolf wrote:I agree- varying "frame size" is largely a myth. Bones don't vary that much in size.

I guess not - I'm pretty sure my skeleton hasn't reduced in size but my shirt size sure has - maybe there's not as much difference in sizes as I previously thought. AFR refers to his chicken legs, that might be one difference between the two of us.

Jwolf · Postby **Jwolf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:59 pm

Joe Dwarf wrote:
Jwolf wrote:I agree- varying "frame size" is largely a myth. Bones don't vary that much in size.
I guess not - I'm pretty sure my skeleton hasn't reduced in size but my shirt size sure has - maybe there's not as much difference in sizes as I previously thought. AFR refers to his chicken legs, that might be one difference between the two of us.

I agree- weight distribution is definitely an issue.

erinmcd · Postby **erinmcd** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:57 pm

Jwolf wrote:I agree- weight distribution is definitely an issue.

If Darth Tater was in this thread he'd be all over that reply! :lol:

Jwolf · Postby **Jwolf** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:32 pm

erinmcd wrote:
Jwolf wrote:I agree- weight distribution is definitely an issue.

If Darth Tater was in this thread he'd be all over that reply!

Lol! Thankfully I'm not a top-heavy runner.