Home

Does it matter how long legs a cyclist have?

If a person has longer legs compared to stature than averege it means that more of your total body weight will be used to spin those pedals. Or..?

Would be interesting to know if there is a realistic difference.

According to anthropometric data of 11'000 american soldiers from 1988 your legs should statistically be around 46-48% of your total stature - for men and women.

That means measuring the height from the floor right up to your crotch (be careful with those family jewels)

Come on, I know you are going to check.  19

That concludes this weeks cycling math!  26

11 comments

Avatar
Gkam84 [9080 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Hmmmm, 45.71% my legs are, i just divided my trouser leg length by my height and multiplied it by 100, thats right aint it?

ALSO, thats American soldiers its based on, European men are different aren't they?  39

Avatar
seabass89 [212 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Usually us Euroes are a bit taller than Americans, though I assume our body proportions would be about the same. Though since I don't have any data on that, I don't know  20

Your right about that math there:P

Mine are about 46%

Would be fun to see if somebody who has cycled actively since they where in their teens have gotten longer legs by evolution  39

Avatar
Daza [14 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

i thought most americans were just phat as fook lol  3 can they see there legs  19

Avatar
Daza [14 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

i thought most americans were just phat as fook lol  3 can they see there legs  19

Avatar
Simon E [2610 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Does it matter how long legs a cyclist have?

No, not really.

And anyway what can you do about it? Nothing. Just work with what you have inherited from your parents / play to your strengths. And anyway statistics can deceive, just ask the World Champion.

Avatar
Squiggle [403 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I remember an interview a few years ago with either Dave Zabriskie or Christian Vandevelde who said that he can get into a more aero TT position because he has a long back and short legs.

Avatar
Hihosilver [12 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I have read that women have proportionately longer legs than men (proportionate to their height). Women are significantly shorter than men on average, of course, so legs are generally shorter too, despite the higher leg to torso ratio. Don't know what relevance this does or does not have for cycling, though.

Avatar
Rob Benington [16 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

My legs are different lengths - by about 0.4 cm. Its enough to cause problems. Any body else?

Avatar
robert_obrien [118 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

It's complicated. Women have longer thighs and shorter calves than men. The thighs are used more in pushing down and the calves in pulling up. The latter only being effective if you are bound to the pedals in some way. I have short legs and a long back but the thing preventing me from adopting a aerodynamic position is not my leg to height ratio, it's my waist to chest ratio.

Avatar
the_mikey [158 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

my legs come out at 51% , I'm 166cm tall with 85cm legs...

Avatar
msw [113 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
seabass89 wrote:

Would be fun to see if somebody who has cycled actively since they where in their teens have gotten longer legs by evolution  39

Not exactly evolution. That's Lamarckism right there - not a bad idea but unfortunately a wrong one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics