why are cross country girls so SMALL?!

soo i run cross country. I'm not that good at it or anything (although i wish i were), but i still love to run and junk. So i keep at it.

but I knoticed how all our "very good" varsity runners are so TINY and SKINNY.

are they good because they're small or are they small because they're good?
would i be better if i got smaller and lighter or would they be better if they got a little chunkier?

I don't know their real height , weight, nor bmi, but they're OBVIOUSLY smaller than most of the school's population and they're known as the "skinny girls".

what do you guys think?

Both. They do a lot of running, especially if they are good, they probably practice a LOT. This helps them stay/get thin. They have less fat on their bodies holding them back, so they can run farther and faster, which helps them excel at the sport.

but are they healthy skinny or unhealthy skinny? like the top 3 runners seem to be under 100 pounds but atleast 5ft something, and their stomachs so FLAT and ab'ed. but i could see some rib bones but thats normal? (i'm kindof jealouse). but the seem fine...
 could you be underweight be be a great athlete?

would they be faster or slower with more muscle?

And just like doing ballet will not automatically make you look like a ballerina (nor will pilates), doing cross country won't automatically make you look like a long distance runner - some things are just genetic.

Or an even better example... playing basketball won't make you taller :)

I've forgotten who it was, but I remember a quote from a female marathon runner who said, "I don't run because I have a runner's body, I have a runner's body because I run."

From Rachel Cosgrove's No Business Running

To quote Mike Boyle, "Women who run successfully for long periods of time were made to run. They look just like men runners. Good female runners generally don't look like plus-size models. It's not a question of cause and effect; it's a question of natural selection. You can't run to get that cute little runner's body. It's actually reversed. You have to have that cute little runner's body to survive running."

Original Post by xcsosxc:

but are they healthy skinny or unhealthy skinny? like the top 3 runners seem to be under 100 pounds but atleast 5ft something, and their stomachs so FLAT and ab'ed. but i could see some rib bones but thats normal? (i'm kindof jealouse). but the seem fine...
 could you be underweight be be a great athlete?

would they be faster or slower with more muscle?

 It's impossible to tell if they are healthy or not just by saying they're super skiny xc runners.  I think being at an unhealthy low weight they wouldn't have very good endurance.  strengthening their legs would help them, but if they put on more muscle mass it might slow them down. I can't say for sure cuz I'm no specialist, that's just my guess.

Some of it is lucky genetics.  A lot of it is unhealthy.  That is my gut feeling, anyway.

it has to be a combination of the two.

like, for each person, imagine you have some span of ability for running (or whatever, really) and if you were overweight you'd be not so great, and if you were emaciated you'd be not so great, and somewhere in the middle is your personal peak which combines health and strength with being lightweight and agile. I personally am a faster runner when I have less ass to cart around with me.

So it's up to each person to find their personal peak physique (if they want to optimize their ability). Then of course, each person's peak performance is different. Some people have the potential to be world-class athletes if they maximize their ability. Other people, for various reasons, are just not built to be elite athletes.

So how you stack up to someone else is a combination of what the (predetermined) best possible you is, and how close to that ideal you are (a combination of finding the right physique, working on your form, hydration and nutrition, and training).

Everybody here has pretty much the right idea (except one guy who i think wrote his quote backwards accidentally). Bottom line, don't compare yourself to others. Make you a you you love (hopefully including many more qualities than just body image), admire others for their strengths, and live a happy life. Easier said than done, so get crackin!

how old are these running girls??

I ran XC in high school and I understand where you're coming from.  I was small (5'2" 97 - 108 lbs) but the two best girls on the team were TINY!  One was 5'2" and 83 lbs and the other was 5'6" and ~95 lbs.  In both their cases, it was definitely genetics.  They both had slim parents, and they ate  - a lot!  I would see them eat -- at team spaghetti dinners, at school lunches, at team meets, etc.  They were both born with awesome metabolisms.

I think they were good because they were skinny.  But, that wouldn't happen for me.  I noticed that when I lost weight, I felt exhausted and had no energy to run.

So they were blessed with naturally awesome runner bodies.  But, don't lose hope: even those of us who were not born with perfect runner bodies can work ourselves to reach the point of being great runners.  To be a better runner, don't focus on getting skinny -- focus on getting in great shape.  Eat lots of vegetables and fruit and protein, cut out junk (for the most part), and eat carbs to fuel your runs.  Push yourself during practice, and go all out for meets.  Perhaps also consider weight training (especially on your lower half).  And definitely perfect your running form (stand up straight, shoulders back, belly tight, arms pumping).  One of my favorite tricks when I thought I couldn't run any faster was pumping my arms faster -- my feet would automatically pick up the pace.  Oh and make sure you have a good pair of running shoes -- they can make a huge difference! 

Have a great season!  I really miss XC!

One of my daughters ran HS cross country and she was pretty good her first two years, until her natural body (that is hips and thighs) made it so she wasn't a "small" girl any more.  From what I can tell of the girls on that squad, 5 of the ones I knew fairly well have all gained quite a bit of weight, although only one is what would be called overweight.  Only 1 of the 6 girls I am thinking of has stayed thin; and she is still really thin because of genetics more than anything else.  It would be interesting to see all the girls from all the schools who run HS cross country at the State Meet 20 years later.  I am guessing that the majority stayed small until their natural body growth dictated that their body was going to change.  The ones who stayed thin would be the ones who were genetically wired that way.

well from all you know, some of them can be sufferinf from female atheltic triad. Like some of them dont have their periods b/c of such a low bf% and excessive exercise

As a pre-teen and early teen, I was a natural at cross-country - did well even when I didn't train much (unless walking the dog round the block counts). I noticed that the other 'naturals' were of a similar build: short and slight and constantly eating (I mean 'constantly' - by mid-afternoon I'd have eaten half a loaf of bread, loads of cheese and an energy bar). It's hard to say what would have happened as I developed wider hips because we moved house when I was 17 and I couldn't make training any more. Shortness and slight build was genetic and helped my running; thinness was due to the amount of energy used in training. When I stopped running I put on 10lbs that year.

I guess it depends on the person. Of our 2 best runners on the team, one was at least 5'7/5'8 and a healthy weight (stomach not completely flat, but clearly skinny, especially her legs), and the other was about 5'4 with similar traits, but a flatter stomach. We had girls who were far skinnier and smaller, but just weren't as good.

As a sprinter who joined cross country, I was always stockier and more built than they were- I lifted and had a bit more muscle. I was never the worst on my team, but there was no chance I would ever be the best. So to cut my rambling short, yes, genetics plays a part (especially in the distance vs. sprint talent), but it's not as though ONLY girls of X, Y, and Z body types make the best runners.

In high school I was about 5'2 and 105 lbs when I ran XC.  I was actually one of the smaller people on our team, and our team was fast overall.   The very best runner on our team looked much older than she was.. by that I mean, she actually had a woman's body, with curves and everything, and was by no means overly skinny.. just very trim.  If I had to guess I"d say she was 125 or so.   No one could even come close to her in a race. 

I don't think it's as simple as smaller=better, though I've noticed that the more like a boy I look, the faster I am. 

The real reason I was quick in HS is because I played soccer and ran 4 miles every other day in middle school.   I started running with my dad when I was about 6.   It has more to do with training than size, I think, though the 2 are kind of correlated.  It's tough to keep weight on when you're running so many miles a week.

Yes, genetics:

Take a gander sometime at the male Kenyans and Ethiopians long-distance runners, for example, who run at world class level and who often win Olympic and World Championship medals.  They are often smaller than a lot of HS girl cross country runners.

This looks like a good place to suggest the book, Born to Run by Christopher McDougall. I just finished it earlier this week. It'll change your outlook on a lot of things, including running. It's more about long distance running, like ultra marathons, but still an excellent read.

It'll show you great runner's are not genetically "better". I promise.

Original Post by pilgrimdude:

Yes, genetics:

Take a gander sometime at the male Kenyans and Ethiopians long-distance runners, for example, who run at world class level and who often win Olympic and World Championship medals.  They are often smaller than a lot of HS girl cross country runners.

 It's more based on their lifestyle. They grew up running. Running barefoot nonetheless. Which is what gives them a very efficient stride. That stride can be taught to anyone. Simply requires patience and the willingness to understand most podiatrists are wrong recommending "stability shoes" and orthodocs. Those things weaken the foot. They temporarily mask the pain, when the feet need to be strengthened.

It seems odd to me--with all the great track coaches in the USA and all the scientific data available and all the knowledge about training and all the athletes that want to be world-class--that USA long distance runners can't, then, be more competitive on the world stage.  I don't know enough about the science of the human body and I don't want to get into racial-profiling arguments, but I will remain doubtful that genetics is not the ultimate determining factor in the success of world-class track runners (including sprinters), all other factors being equal.  I could very well be wrong, and admit it in advance if I am.

And back to the OP--the tiny girls, for the most part, are born tiny and many of them will remain tiny as adults.  That is generally genetics, unless some of them do some really intense things with their diet and exercise regimen as they mature into women.

I don't really know much about the science of running, but I will try to give a clear example of what I meant by "genetics" being a determining factor.  If Blanka Vlasic, the women's world champion high jumper, and Allyson Felix, a world champion 200 meter runner, both had spent the same energy and effort on learning to high jump, Vlasic would always win.  Conversely, if the two had both equally trained as hard for the 200, Felix would always win.  That is what I mean by "genetics."

Original Post by bmx419:

 It's more based on their lifestyle. They grew up running. Running barefoot nonetheless. Which is what gives them a very efficient stride. That stride can be taught to anyone.

That's a very ignorant comment. Plenty of Kenyans and Ethiopans live in cities or towns like everyone else - not many of them are nomadic tribesmen running round barefoot all day! Certainly not the ones who receive coaching and sponsorship. American kids who join running groups also grow up running, but they're not the ones winning everything.