Curious, are there any top triathletes that have a high lbs to inches in height ratio (> 2.6)

Not this sparkplug.  My ratio would be 2.69 and with a 26" inseam and legs built like tree trunks it takes a lot of energy to get them swinging.  My fastest pace has been just below an 8 minute mile in a 5K race and I felt like I was flying. 

I would find it highly unlikely that someone with a genetic build that would push them above 2.5 ratio would have much chance of getting a podium spot.  However, does not mean that I can't race and compete against myself and have fun doing it.

there might be a better chance for someone of those characteristics to swim fast in spite of the height/weight as body mass (BM) is not as much limiter as it is technique (at least at the level you asked). Though it might be harder to find a case in running since BM does affect stuff like VO2max (ml/kg/min) and economy.


Edited by JorgeM 2010-09-16 9:21 AM

Vic Perini, an old pro from the Memphis area (maybe med school at the time and now a dr or medical administrator), was one of the top non-drafting pros in the US throughout much of the 90's.  He was pretty built...definitely over 2.6 lbs:inches.  We're talking 5'11"- 6'0" and 190-200.  That's 2.64-2.81.  He had an awesome swim and equally awesome bike, and then could hang on during the run.  I've even seen his name more recently in some AG results...I think he's mid 40's now.

I am at 2.5 and just swam an Oly swim leg against a current in 24:30.  In a pool I'm good for 22:30 or so.  On the other hand my 10k pace is nowhere near 6:30, even standalone.  Standalone I'd be a bit over 7. 

Why do you ask?

I am curious as to the point of the question too.  There are fast-looking people that are slow and slow-looking people that are fast

I'm between a 2.4 and 2.5 (5'8", 165-170 lbs) and typically place in my age group and a couple of times the top ten at local sprints.  I've also run a sub 20 5k and sub 40 10k.

i'm at 2.4 and my run is the worst. fastest standalone 10k is 45 min.  I think weight affects running more than cycling.  I'm still not the best at climing hills, but i'm at the front of the pack.  Right behind those guys with carbon disks and aero helmets

I am about 5'6", 150 lbs, which puts me at about 2.3 lb/in and I am guessing that most people think I lift, or was a wrestler or something. . I do not look like a runner/triathlete.

Standalone 10k = 40 mins = 6:27 min/mile
Best 10k in OLY = 42 mins = 6:45 min/mile

Most of my lack of speed on the bike/swim can be attributed to the fact that I have not put in that many miles over the last few years.  My 'semi-serious' approach to Tri's does have its drawbacks

Hi all,
The point of my question was to see how other folks, with a similar ratio as to mine(2.6 @ 5'3  165lbs), are performing. I was looking to get some hope/insight as to whether or not certain times at the swim, bike, run were achievable at the sprint, Olympic, and 1/2 Ironman distances. Since I don't see too many people at my height and weight range, I figured maybe a ratio of 2.6 or more, would help me see what times I can achieve before having to lose fat and muscle.

 

The 2.6 ratio you're talking about isn't that big.  There are plenty of guys out there built like that doing the times you've mentioned or better.  A friend of mine is ~6'/180lbs or so and he goes about 2 hours flat for Olympic distance races.

Being a little bigger isn't necessarily a disadvantage in the water on on the bike if you have a flat course.  Running is a different story though.  Once you get to the pointy end of the run pack everyone starts to look pretty much the same.  You don't see the stocky guys throwing down 5:30/mi splits for an Oly run.

I'm 6'1" and went from ~175 down to ~155 between my first two tri seasons.  At 175 I was decent, I'd get on the AG podium here and there at local races.  At 155 I'm competing for overall wins.  That 20lbs makes a huge difference, especially on the run.

Would you happen to know what your BF was before and now?

I don't think there is a linear relationship between height and weight to determine ones 'stockiness'.

I am also pretty sure if various by gender as well.

No idea.  But just by looking in the mirror I'd bet as much money as I could beg, borrow or steal that it's significantly lower than before.

I'm 6'1 215 lbs which puts me at 2.94 lbs per inch and my best oly swim is a 20:09. I'm not that fast of a runner, but there is another local around here (ex D1 offensive lineman) who is the same as me (6'0, 215), who can run a sub 19 min 5k. So yes it is very possible.

Edited by JoshR 2010-09-16 5:55 PM

How are his swim and bike?

I'm 6"1 200lbs. In the swim it is an advantage. In the bike (on a flat course) it is a wash. In the run it is a problem. Sure there are exceptions but as pointed out by others..not many 200lbs guys are going to be putting down 6 minute miles for a 10K. Fast running  =  light body mass (short and stocky is going to have the same issue)

He's a mediocre swimmer and an animal on the bike. During an olympic this summer he had a :30/1:03/:39 splits. He finished 11th overall.

I am 6' tall and 185 although you would never call me stocky, I just have heavy bones I guess.

When I was 32 and in my best shape I could swim sub 25 and run low 6 minute pace.

Pool 1650 time was 16:30
Track 5k time was 17:50

-j

How about I skew things the other way?

At 6'0, 155 pounds, I'm a 2.08. My fastest 10k has been @ a 7:30 pace, although I expect that I will go sub 7:00 this year. I can't swim for the life of me and my ONLY recorded 1500 was in 37 minutes. I did have a really bad panic attack during that swim and I subsequently swam so far off course that I wasn't sure if I was in the race anymore, but still...it was bad.

Biking is something that I'm good at and I tend to move at a fairly nice clip for that.

I'm at 2.4. I'm 160# & 5'7".

My Oly swim is 23:xx. My oly swim in a pool is closer 20:xx. My Oly run is 1:04. My stand alone 10k is 1:00:41.

Just recently my 10k time has gone down to 52:xx.

Ok, so what does that mean though?

The OP has 2 questions, 1 in the title and 1 in the first post.

Dude, your swim times don't add up.  a pool 16:30 is not even close to a sub 25:00 1.5k.  Plus, USMS has zero registered 16:30's or faster in the 30-34 age group the last 7 years as verified through USMS: http://www.usms.org/comp/meets/toptimes.php.  In fact, only 3 people in any age under 35 have broken 16:30 in the last 7 years.  All this does not count elite US swimmers, of which, as you should know, a 16:30 is not; so they would be much faster.  If you swam a 16:30 "back in the day" (HS or college) that's one thing, but otherwise...just sayin'

There's exceptions to everything.

For instance, many people consider super fast sprinters to be stocky muscular guys that can just absolutely power their way through 100m....enter 6'5" Usain Bolt.

A lot of people think big time power pitchers in baseball have to be 6'5" like Roger Clemens and Nolan Ryan....enter 5'9" Billy Wagner.

It's all about making the best of what you've got.  Lance Armstrong may be the greatest cyclist ever at 5'9" 175lbs (2.54 so borderline to your 2.6 threshold).  Compare that to Andy Schleck who's 6'1" 150lbs (just barely over a 2.0) and Alberto Contador who is 5'9" 130lbs (1.88!!).  While Schleck and Contador are great, I don't think anyone would say they're better endurance athletes than Lance ever was just because they have the more "typical" build.