Running with short legs?

I have relatively short legs - 31 inch inseam at 6'1. I just don't like running...never questioned if it was due to short legs

I'm 5'0 and feel the same way when running! I think I've gotten up to 4.4 on the treadmill

As long as your legs reach the ground they are not "too short"

In general, the effort required for greater turnover due to a shorter stride is offset by the smaller mass and greater efficiency so that the oxygen cost remains similar at any given speed.

There was a recent study (sorry I didn't write down the reference and only scanned it) that suggested that differences in leg length might be more significant than previously thought, but I still think that holds true more for the extreme ends of the spectrum.

It's more challenging to run faster, but not to just run in and of itself.

5mph is still faster than about 95% of the American public. Keep that in mind.

Lots of top elite distance runners are quite short. Mo Farah is only 5'5.

Sweet13_Princess wrote: »

I almost feel comical by asking this question, but does anyone think it's more challenging to run because you're a short person or have short legs? I'm 5'3" and I see treadmill workouts that tell me to run at 5mph and I laugh. I'm already at a jog at 3.5 and feel like I'm running at 4.0. I tried amping it up to 6mph for 30 second intervals and practically fell on my face.*LOL* Anyone else agree or do you all just think I'm crazy.

Shannon

Well, not really, running speed = stride length X stride frequency, and tipically shorter people can compensate their short stride with a higher frequency. No worries, keep on working out and you will improve

5ft 2" here and my slowest running pace is 5 mph /My average walking pace is 4.25 mph ...I guess everyone's different regardless of the length of legs...

I have been aiming for a cadence of three steps per second (right left right) and am jogging at about 4.7mph. Speed will come with endurance and increasing stride length, but the cadence can remain the same.

Sweet13_Princess wrote: »

Wow! Thanks for all of the feedback. Based on what some of you have said, I wonder if shorter people burn more calories then? I mean, if we're having to take more strides to make up for shorter legs, wouldn't the calorie burn be higher? This really makes me curious, but also makes me laugh a little at myself.*LOL*

Shannon

only weight and distance matter.
Here is the formula:
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

I posted this on another thread yesterday so my apologies for the copy/paste, but:

Honestly, your height doesn't matter that much. Desiree Linden, one of the top female long-distance runners in North America, is only 5'2" and she just qualified for the US Olympic marathon team again. I don't know much about the science of it but I do believe the smaller/lighter factor helps offset a possibly shorter stride as you suggested.

Some other short runners:
Tsegaye Kebede (M), Ethiopia, 158cm (5’2’’), 50kg, 02:04:38 (broke the Chicago Marathon record in 2012)
Rosa Mota (F), Portugal, 157cm (5’2″), 45kg, distinguished as the Greatest Female Marathon Runner of All Time on the 30th Anniversary Gala of the Association of International Marathons and Distance Races (AIMS) on 09 Nov 2012 (former European, World and Olympic Champion (won 14 of 21 marathons started including Olympic Games, World Champs, London, Boston, Chicago and Rotterdam))
Tegla Loroupe (F), Kenya, 4’11”, 40kg, 02:20:43 at the 1999 Berlin Marathon to break the women’s marathon world record
Samuel Wanjiru (M), Kenya, 163cm (5’4’’), 52kg, 02:06:32 (2008 Beijing Olympics marathon winner and Olympic record)

I think for sprint-type events it might be different, but not so much for distance.

I couldn't find much from legit sources on it, but here's one hypothesis from a blog:

Running speed (per minute) = stride length x number of strides per minute. To increase your speed therefore, you can either increase your stride length, or increase your cadence. It would seem that studies have shown a convergence towards a cadence of 90-95 (measured on one leg) or 180-190 steps per minute for elite runners. If we assume then, that this factor remains relatively constant, the other factor to consider is the stride length.

The main thing to remember when discussing stride length whilst running is that it can be vastly different to your walking stride length. This is because walking stride length is limited to the length of your legs as you always need to have one foot on the ground, compared to when you run, where there will be a period of time when both feet are off the ground. In other words, running stride length is dependent on your ability to push yourself off the ground and forward.

So how does this relate to a runner’s height? Taller runners, due to their longer legs, tend to be able to push off harder compared to their shorter counterparts. Weight however, also has to be taken into account. A taller runner may push off with more force, but they may also be heavier and thus, may not travel as far forward compared to a shorter, lighter runner. Also, the more you weigh, the harder your body has to work to lift itself. Another point to consider is that taller runners need to lift themselves up higher, to get their longer stride in before landing on the ground again – this vertical motion detracts from forward motion. All of this goes some way to explaining how the previously mentioned examples of marathon runners could triumph despite being relatively short – it is clearly the height-weight ratio that is of more importance not just the height.

This is clearly just one theory / factor and there are surely a lot of other things at play here. It does give me confidence to know though, that height is by no means a limitation.

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

Sweet13_Princess wrote: »

Wow! Thanks for all of the feedback. Based on what some of you have said, I wonder if shorter people burn more calories then? I mean, if we're having to take more strides to make up for shorter legs, wouldn't the calorie burn be higher? This really makes me curious, but also makes me laugh a little at myself.*LOL*

Shannon

only weight and distance matter.
Here is the formula:
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning

Out of curiosity, who here has used this formula and been successful eating back those calories while still losing weight? Or maintaining. Depending on goal?

Last race I went on there was a short women, probably around 5'1" / 5'2" and she was flying along. I was doing around 6mph and she blew past me with ease.

I took my dachshund for a walk Saturday. He's had cabin fever so he decided to run his walk, and I let him. I had to keep a good jog going to keep up with him. His legs are about 2 inches long. Now, granted, he has 4 of them, but still...

I'm just being funny, I'm not mocking. But it's a bit true. I am no expert, but am someone who is progressing in running ability. I began with just over 5 mph on a treadmill. I can now sustain just over 6 mph for 30 minutes and am improving, so I can tell you that your speed will improve with your ability. Just enjoy and keep it up.