Is Height A Factor ?

[old] whp4 · Post by **[old] whp4** » January 14th, 2005, 12:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Those one or two others are world record holders.  </td></tr></table> Not only that, one of them is your hero, apparently. But it still doesn't make for a statistically significant population for assessing whether or not height is a factor, just as one person miraculously recovering after some novel treatment doesn't make a proof of efficacy for the general population. It is significant for the purposes of providing an existence proof that a select individual might be able to row 2k on a C2 ergometer in a certain elapsed time, but I haven't heard anyone disputing that EE or EL actually accomplished their world record erg pieces. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> When they set their records, Ebbesen and Luini were reported to weight 158 and 152 pounds respectively.  </td></tr></table> Both are primarily on-water rowers. Are you not aware that the weight limits for lightweights are different? 72.5 kg maximum for an individual, 70 kg average for the crew. I'm still waiting for you to supply that list of really fast short lightweights. Bill

[old] DavidA · Post by **[old] DavidA** » January 14th, 2005, 3:03 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (SimonB @ Jan 13 2005, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Hi I'm 5'8. No matter how hard I train, no matter how good my form or technique is, no matter how good my CV is, I do not believe I will ever be able to pull under 7:00 for 2k. My stroke length is just not long enough. I have taller friends who can easily out pull me over the same distance, even though they are not as fit and have poor technique. Thats why I do distance, not time. Then I crush them heheehe  </td></tr></table> Simon, Don't sell yourself short ( ) I am 44, 175 cm (5'9) and 67 kg (145 lb) and don't train, just row for general fitness and because I enjoy it. (I do like to compete for fun, but also know that I am not going to have such great times without the training, and maybe not then either.) I have beat 7, a few years ago, so I am think that you can do it as well. Good luck, and keep on erging. David

[old] SimonB · Post by **[old] SimonB** » January 14th, 2005, 3:08 pm

OK Ok, everybody is right. I'll be pulling sub 7's by the end of this year. I hope I don't feel dwarfed by the tall challange ahead !

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 14th, 2005, 4:40 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Janice @ Jan 14 2005, 05:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> You can say height doesn't matter all you want, but it does to a certain extent. If height didn't matter, they would let girls who are 5'7 onto more university hwt teams, but they don't, and many of them require you to be at least 5'8 last I heard from some friends.  </td></tr></table> I said height doesn't matter, not that "they" are intelligent.

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » January 14th, 2005, 4:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Diesel, With all that height, their watts per kilo is less than that of Ebbesen and Luini. So their height is not helping them all that much. If they were 152 pounds do you think they could row 6:02.6..... No way.  </td></tr></table> Wait a minute, John! You can't really say that now can you? We'll never know if they could pull a 6:02 at 152. Would Ebbesen be able to crank out a sub 5:45 if he bulked up 40 lbs... ? somehow I doubt it. It's that diminishing returns phenomena that is individual to every athlete. there are too many genetic/ training variables to make blanket assumptions like the ones you are making in an attempt to prove your point. I think the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming there is some kind of linear relationship - I think it's fair to say there isn't. However, you do raise an interesting point.... what is the most EFFICIENT height/weight combo for oarsmen?? hmmm.....

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 14th, 2005, 5:07 pm

Ebbesen is not a hero, but he most certainly is an excellent role model for rowing. Whether or not World Record holders are a statistically significant population, their performances are important. Often studies are found to have significant differences that are not important. This importance is what counts. Yes both Ebbesen and Luini row in boats as well as on the erg. They are both World Champions and Olympic Gold Medal winners. Also they both rated 39 spm at Athens. And both of them are quite fast!

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 14th, 2005, 7:03 pm

What concerns me (not really but it is a good way to start the sentence) about people who are looking for conversion factors to 'equalize' their performance with those who may be taller or heavier is - how do they also factor in hours available for training, genetic factors, years of previous training, previous athletic ability or not, age etc. There are certainly a lot of smaller lighter ergers out there who are much more gifted and may have the circumstances to put in a lot more hours on the erg / training than I do - should I not get compensation for that as well. regds George

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » January 14th, 2005, 8:15 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Jan 14 2005, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> There are certainly a lot of smaller lighter ergers out there who are much more gifted and may have the circumstances to put in a lot more hours on the erg / training than I do - should I not get compensation for that as well.  </td></tr></table> NO you shouldn't! (George will know that this is a joke, but for those others that don't know me, this disclaimer will hopefully disclose that this is...a joke)

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 14th, 2005, 11:45 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Coach Gus @ Jan 15 2005, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> (George will know that this is a joke, but for those others that don't know me, this disclaimer will hopefully disclose that this is...a joke)  </td></tr></table> Hell now people are going to start talking

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » January 15th, 2005, 5:27 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Jan 12 2005, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Ralph Earle @ Jan 12 2005, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Data from the US team trials indicates that among elite ergers one inch more in height gets you a half-second faster 6K pace. And, yes, I did control for weight.  </td></tr></table> Did this hold for both genders? Certainly not across genders?  </td></tr></table> This morning I added the US 6K team trial from 2002 to the 1999 and 2001 data. Here are the results of robust regression of 6K time on height and weight : Group n s/inch signif? s/pound signif? Rsq signif? HM 152 -3.4 No -0.4 No 0.07 No LM 107 -5.8 Yes -2.3 Yes 0.31 Yes HW 122 -11.9 Yes 0.3 No 0.22 Yes LW 63 -8.5 Yes -2.0 Yes 0.21 Yes For 152 heavyweight men (avg 6'4", 205lbs, 19:41 6K) one inch of height was worth about three seconds and one pound was worth about a half a second; neither amount was a statistically significant reduction. For 107 lightweight men (6'0", 162, 20:43) one inch was worth about six seconds and one pound was worth about two seconds; both reductions were statistically significant. For 122 heavyweight women (5'10", 168, 22:56) one inch was worth about twelve seconds but one pound was worth almost nothing; the reduction due to height was statistically significant. For 63 lightweight women (5'7", 134, 23:57) one inch was worth about eight seconds and one pound was worth two seconds; both were statistically significant. Those who believe "height matters" are correct, although it mattered very little among heavyweight men. But the Rsquareds were low (0.07, 0.31, 0.22, 0.21), which means that there are many exceptions to this "rule." So to PaulS -- Happy Birthday, you don't have to bother with getting taller or heavier. And to John Rupp -- You would be faster if you got taller and/or heavier, but there are lots of shorter, lighter but faster people to emulate instead.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 15th, 2005, 6:22 pm

Ralph, Posting "statistics" then jumping to conclusions is not relevant. Also, at over 6 feet, one inch in height is an average of 6 pounds, not one pound. I would agree, however, that taller rowers can probably jump higher. But that has no relevance to how fast they can run a mile, run a marathon, or row 2000 meters.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 21st, 2005, 4:55 pm

John, I'm puzzled - the "ideal" weight of a person who is 5'8" is approx 155lbs, about the average of the two very impressive lightweights you mentioned. So for their weight they are very tall. How, then, is height not important? Where are the 5'8" world record holders? Cheers, Paul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 21st, 2005, 5:25 pm

Paul, You are probably puzzled because 5'8 and 155 is average for a sedendary (not grossly overweight) population, but far from ideal for athletes. To the contrary, world class distance runners who are 6' tall average 144 pounds. Thus EE and EL are HEAVIER as compared to world class distance runners of their height. But they are not "taller" than world class distance runners of the same weight.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 21st, 2005, 5:31 pm

There are questions to ask with statistics. #1- Is this "significant"? #2- Is this IMPORTANT. If we tested all sub 14 5k runners, we might find that 80% of them wear running shoes, whereas less than 10% of couch potatoes wear running shoes. If only looking at "significance" we might determine that wearing running shoes is a criteria for running a sub 14 for the 5k, and even a prerequisite or determinant. However, we might also find that more than 70% of those who have bettered 13 for the 5k have been barefoot for most of their lives. In the latter case, it could be shown that running shoes are counter productive.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 21st, 2005, 5:33 pm

I'm sorry, I missed the bit where I said anything about average. 5'8" is the *ideal* weight, I'll bet the average is a fair bit higher than that, even excluding the obese. I also missed the bit where we were talking about running. The fact is the rowers you mention are tall, within the bounds of their weight. I ask again, where are the 5'8" world record holders? If height wasn't a factor then the world record holders would be expected to spread pretty evenly across the range of heights (with the lower limit being mechanically unable to operate the erg, and the upper limit being the tallest the human body is able to get at 165lb). Cheers, Paul

Concept2 Forum

Is Height A Factor ?

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General