How long are your legs?!


by seabass89 on September 25, 2011 - 22:38

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. Devil

That concludes this weeks cycling math! Nerd

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? Thinking

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [3278 posts] 25th September 2011 - 22:48

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 Crying

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 Thinking

seabass89's picture

posted by seabass89 [166 posts] 26th September 2011 - 8:48

i thought most americans were just phat as fook lol Wink can they see there legs Devil

Head down, arse up

posted by Daza [15 posts] 26th September 2011 - 20:27

i thought most americans were just phat as fook lol Wink can they see there legs Devil

Head down, arse up

posted by Daza [15 posts] 26th September 2011 - 20:27

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.

Simon E's picture

posted by Simon E [767 posts] 28th September 2011 - 18:52

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.

Sq

Squiggle's picture

posted by Squiggle [279 posts] 3rd October 2011 - 20:27

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.

posted by Hihosilver [11 posts] 4th October 2011 - 21:47

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

Injury Prevention Manager
NHS Bristol

posted by Rob Benington [9 posts] 5th October 2011 - 9:18

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.

posted by robert_obrien [23 posts] 5th October 2011 - 16:11

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

posted by the_mikey [106 posts] 6th October 2011 - 21:06

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 Thinking

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

posted by msw [73 posts] 10th October 2011 - 11:58



Calendar