Running with short legs?

Options
13»

Replies

  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'2", and have just eased myself into running. I ran my first uninterrupted mile yesterday in 8:58, and finished 3 miles with a 10:20 pace. This would have been inconceivable to me even a few months ago.

    So don't worry, it gets easier.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    Options
    peleroja wrote: »
    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.

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

    +1

    being shorter is better for distance running!

    Being tall is only good for sprinting and the field events of track and field. For example, tall high jumpers are usually more successful!
  • peaceout_aly
    peaceout_aly Posts: 2,018 Member
    Options
    I used to feel like this too! Before, I thought it was difficult to get up to 4.5 MPH and now I can go for 15 minutes at 7 or 8 MPH. I have a short inseam, I'm only 4' 11" so I feel your pain. It's all about the stride. Focus on taking big strides, it helps a lot and helps you not get exhausted early on.
  • LizzieEEllis
    LizzieEEllis Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    At 5', I love walking outside or on an indoor track, but hate the treadmill. Walking is a very meditative and relaxing experience. I prefer to space out, so the mental effort required to not fall off of a treadmill (though minimal) makes the experience irritating. It might not be so bad if I could rest my hand on the bar, but it is typically set at about shoulder height for me. I wonder if people with long legs feel constricted by the size of the running area. I also prefer to go whatever speed I please without thinking about it, so coming out of my stupor to fuss with the settings is a turn-off.
  • Joreanasaurous
    Joreanasaurous Posts: 1,384 Member
    Options
    Yeah... I am 4 foot 11 inches. I relate. A lot.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    litsy3 wrote: »
    Lots of top elite distance runners are quite short. Mo Farah is only 5'5.

    Isn't Stevie Kremer something like 5'2 or something like that, Emelie Forsberg is similarly pretty short.

  • litsy3
    litsy3 Posts: 783 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    litsy3 wrote: »
    Lots of top elite distance runners are quite short. Mo Farah is only 5'5.

    Isn't Stevie Kremer something like 5'2 or something like that, Emelie Forsberg is similarly pretty short.

    Yeah, Mo was just the first that sprang to my mind because he's a man, so that really is noticeably short. As a woman runner I'm used to practically all my team-mates being my height (5'4) or smaller.
  • 20yearsyounger
    20yearsyounger Posts: 1,643 Member
    Options
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    peleroja wrote: »
    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.

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

    +1

    being shorter is better for distance running!

    Being tall is only good for sprinting and the field events of track and field. For example, tall high jumpers are usually more successful!

    Not sure about that. I went to school with a guy that won a bronze medal in the 100m Olympics and he was my height. He always used to beat taller people. It's about turnover as well not just height.

    As for the treadmill, I always feel like I might fall off as well if I go to fast. At least on an elliptical I know that balance is part of it.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    meganridenour wrote: »
    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?

    This has been what I've been using lately and yes it seems to be accurate. It's a lot lower/more conservative than a lot of other online calculators/MFP and even my HRM give me. Prior experience seems to indicate the other sources were overestimating, and this seems to be more accurate based on what I would expect to lose.

    To the OP - don't worry, you'll get faster the more you train. Also get outside! Dreadmills don't let you use your natural gait and force you to a constant pace. I'm always really slow when I start out, 15 minute-miles, no joke, and I am a little taller than you at 5'4". Speed comes with time/endurance/training.
  • kaylasaurus
    kaylasaurus Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    peaceout_aly wrote: »
    I used to feel like this too! Before, I thought it was difficult to get up to 4.5 MPH and now I can go for 15 minutes at 7 or 8 MPH. I have a short inseam, I'm only 4' 11" so I feel your pain. It's all about the stride. Focus on taking big strides, it helps a lot and helps you not get exhausted early on.

    This may work for you, but I would not recommend over-striding. Your foot should be landing below your hip. I developed a lot of hip problems when I was trying to overcompensate for my short legs this way ( I am 5'1 with a 28in inseam)
  • catnap1996
    catnap1996 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    Contrary to popular belief, being short makes you more suited to running . Look at the elite runners. Paula Radcliffe is an anomaly at 5'9". Also , height has nothing to do with burning calories
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,139 Member
    Options
    klkateri wrote: »
    I'm just short enough that most elliptical machines have much to wide a stance for me and I feel like I'm going to fall over... as for running, I always feel like that but never thought it could be my height.

    I have the same problem with the elliptical that is why I am now prefer the ARC. I can control the stance much better and get a good workout. I don't run, I never did because I don't like it and now my knees will not allow it, but I am a fast walker for my short legs and my stride is small. I am only 4' 11", so I can't expect much.
  • 20yearsyounger
    20yearsyounger Posts: 1,643 Member
    Options
    catnap1996 wrote: »
    Contrary to popular belief, being short makes you more suited to running . Look at the elite runners. Paula Radcliffe is an anomaly at 5'9". Also , height has nothing to do with burning calories

    Not directly but indirectly if you are focused on the optimum weight for your height.
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    im 5'1 and on my best day can do a 12 min mile.

    but i also dont really consider myself a runner LOLOL
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    catnap1996 wrote: »
    Contrary to popular belief, being short makes you more suited to running . Look at the elite runners. Paula Radcliffe is an anomaly at 5'9". Also , height has nothing to do with burning calories

    The elite regional runners here top out 5'11"...

Categories