Short people get the shaft

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mbminx wrote: »

As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.

I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P

I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.

I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.

ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".

And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.

I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.

It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.

http://blog.airiarunning.com/height-impact-running-speed/

Height and Stride Length

The most obvious way that height will impact running speed is by increased stride length. Research indicates that stride length is proportional to height, as well as to race distance. For instance, researchers investigated elite triathletes and found that stride length was positively correlated with height. However, stride length did not have a correlation with performance.

Alternatively, stride length has also been shown to be a function of running speed. In general, the faster a person runs, the longer his or her stride. This relationship was observed in the Olympic setting, where Dr. Jack Daniels determined that female marathoners had stride lengths almost 2 feet shorter than those of female 800 m runners. But, does a longer stride length necessarily mean faster running?

According to the legendary coach, a long stride length is not necessarily a good thing. As Dr. Jack Daniels notes, “The main problem associated with a [long stride length]…the longer the time you spend in the air.” This displaces your body mass higher and leads to a greater ground landing shock. A shorter stride means a lighter stride. The difference between marathoners and 800 m runners is that the 800 m runners can more efficiently sustain the longer stride length for the duration of their race.

Height and Stride Rate

A recent buzzword in the running community has been stride rate, also known as cadence or turnover. This term describes the number of times a runner’s feet hit the ground per minute. Researchers have observed that races are won by athletes with an average cadence of 180 – 190 beats per minute. Additionally, exercise physiologists have determined that higher stride rates are more efficient than lower stride rates, and that improved turnover can reduce injury risk.

Tall runners are disadvantaged in this regard. In general, taller runners tend to have a longer stride, as mentioned above, resulting in a lower stride rate. However, this generality does not always hold true. There are many short runners with low stride rates and plenty of tall runners with short strides, and therefore high stride rates.

Tall runners (i.e. taller than 5’8’’) should first determine their stride rate by counting how many times the right leg touches the ground in the course of a minute, and then double that number. If cadence is below 150, chances are good that your stride is too long and is negatively affecting your running speed. To improve stride rate, focus on workouts that improve turnover, such as intervals, hill repeats, and fartleks.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mbminx wrote: »

As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.

I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P

I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.

I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.

ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".

I'm 5'3, and above 4 mph is when I move into a run too. 3 mph is neither fast nor particularly slow for me, although on the leisurely side, and my normal walking speed unless I'm tired or choosing to stroll is faster. I've always thought it was a city thing, I get impatient walking slowly or behind slow people (and my sister who is the same height as me is a faster natural walker than me).

Admittedly I don't enjoy walking at 4 mph -- I'd rather run. If I'm walking it will be more like 3.5 mph or maybe faster if I'm running late to something.

Agreed that it's cadence, not stride length, that makes the main difference, as I learned re running (when I had to train myself to stop thinking I should increase stride to speed up).

@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?

I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.

ryenday wrote: »

@CSARdiver am I reading this right? My long stride (and people have told me I walk funny with a ridiculously long stride for my height) could be slowing my walk speed down?

I’m gonna time myself (cadence) at normal fast walk (normal stride trying to get to work as quick as possible) and a intentionally shortened stride and start to see if I can move faster! Admittedly the research you post is for running (both feet off ground at same time) and I’m walking but it should be interesting.

When I was training for 10km races, walking, the first thing I learnt was the faster I went, the shorter I had to make my stride.

Cheers, h.

ryenday wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mbminx wrote: »

As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.

I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P

I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.

I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.

ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".

And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.

I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.

It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.

I don't know whether this generalizes or is just my weird body, but I'll throw it out here:

I found that when I started focusing on glute engagement on every step, my exercise/serious-transport walking speed picked up from around 3.6-3.7mph to around 3.9-4mph. This is average pace, measured by Garmin, over walks of a couple miles and up.

I wasn't trying at all to increase speed. I was trying to make better friends with my own glutes , and see if it would take a little stress off my bad knee (torn meniscus, a little OA) - it did. I perceive that doing this automagically increased my cadence and shortened my stride, but I have no objective measurements for that.

My inseam is around the same as yours, BTW, though I'm not super short (5'5").

AnnPT77 wrote: »

ryenday wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mbminx wrote: »

As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.

I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P

I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.

I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.

ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".

And I get confused by your posts. I move my little legs as fast as I can. I doubt I could talk except in huffs. It is 3 mph. ( Apple Watch). Any faster and I have moved into a jog. And I swim 3 miles or so most weeks, it is not a question of fitness.

I’m walking to work (1.5 miles) 3 or 4 days a week for 4 months now and am working it. Trust me, my legs don’t and don’t seem to be able to move 3.5 mph. Unless I’m running.

It sounds like something other than height/ leg length is involved but I can’t think of anything.

I don't know whether this generalizes or is just my weird body, but I'll throw it out here:

I found that when I started focusing on glute engagement on every step, my exercise/serious-transport walking speed picked up from around 3.6-3.7mph to around 3.9-4mph. This is average pace, measured by Garmin, over walks of a couple miles and up.

I wasn't trying at all to increase speed. I was trying to make better friends with my own glutes , and see if it would take a little stress off my bad knee (torn meniscus, a little OA) - it did. I perceive that doing this automagically increased my cadence and shortened my stride, but I have no objective measurements for that.

My inseam is around the same as yours, BTW, though I'm not super short (5'5").

Consistent with that, I found out my running stride was too long (which I think was a side effect of overcompensating for being short and thinking I should take longer strides to go faster) when I hurt my knee. My physical therapist (who was also a runner who had had classes in running stride and injury) watched me run and then showed me how my stride was putting too much pressure on/jostling my knees, and one of my things to work on going forward was running more with the glutes.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mbminx wrote: »

As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.

I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P

I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.

I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.

ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".

I walk at 4.2 mph just fine and start slow jogging at 4.5. I'm 5'3".

Christine_72 wrote: »

I'm 5"8 and often wonder how short petite women manage on low calories and not be ravenous. But as mentioned above, the less mass one has, the less energy one needs, correct?

I'm taller and heavier, so i need more food/energy. But what about appetite.. My daughter is only 5"2 and can put me to shame at a buffet restaurant lol

Yeah, that's my biggest problem. Sure, I feel completely fine with 1000-1200 calories. It fulfils my energy needs perfectly. But most of the days, my appetite is much bigger. So I totally feel your daughter... me + buffet = caloric disaster!

But seriously: who's paying for a full buffet and stops at 1200 calories? That's a total waste of money! Most restaurant food/portions are at least 600 for a single meal already and I'm not going to a restaurant for ordering a salad w/o any dressing and a dry chicken breast with broccoli. I'm not eating out that often, but if I do, I want to enjoy some yummy goodness and not restrict myself.

Plus: for short people, the difference between diet and maintenance is minimal. When I go into maintenance, I might have 3-400 calories more than I have right now and will still have to skip lunch or overeat each time when I go out (and I don't even drink alcohol with my dinner)

lemurcat12 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mbminx wrote: »

As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.

I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P

I get confused by these arguments that short people can't move fast.

I'm short, have a shorter inseam than you, and can walk 4mph and start to run any faster than that. I'm confused by this assertion about short legs. You just have to take more steps than a taller person to get the same pace they do.

ETA: Trust me, I've spent 30 years keeping up with a 6'2" partner. I'm only 5'1".

I'm 5'3, and above 4 mph is when I move into a run too. 3 mph is neither fast nor particularly slow for me, although on the leisurely side, and my normal walking speed unless I'm tired or choosing to stroll is faster. I've always thought it was a city thing, I get impatient walking slowly or behind slow people (and my sister who is the same height as me is a faster natural walker than me).

Admittedly I don't enjoy walking at 4 mph -- I'd rather run. If I'm walking it will be more like 3.5 mph or maybe faster if I'm running late to something.

Agreed that it's cadence, not stride length, that makes the main difference, as I learned re running (when I had to train myself to stop thinking I should increase stride to speed up).

I don't necessarily enjoy walking 4 mph, that's my exercise pace. My normal walking pace is around 3.5