There have been riders on shorter cranks for performance reasons since they've bee around. I started riding 150mm cranks with a mid-foot position some ten years ago or so, I can't remember exactly. I'm 74" tall with 36.5" floor to crotch bone and my largest foot measures 11-7/8 inches, a size 14. I'm at this point as riding up to 185mm cranks didn't equate to better use of what power I do have. Theory is one thing, riding is another. I often hear "longer cranks = more leverage" repeated but that doesn't make sense to me in practice, actually riding. I've also moved my saddle much more forward, about 40mm from where it once was. Just because you're "however you identify yourself" doesn't mean short cranks can't work for you, and I have no physical limitations. This just feels right for me. The best way I describe what I experience I found in this article :
https://biketestreviews.com/cranklength/
Some parts that I related to ..
What is optimum for each person can only be determined by trial and error experimentation.
But, what about climbing?
Everyone “knows” that to climb well you need the leverage that a longer crank offers. So, what happens when you try to climb with short cranks. First, as I have shown, it is simply a myth that you need long cranks for the leverage to generate power. The leverage that is important is not the leverage between the pedal and the
bottom bracket axle but
the leverage between the pedal and the rear wheel. Since there are several links in the leverage chain it is possible to adjust the leverage using gearing to make up for “loss” of crank arm leverage.
And, there is one more lever in the chain that people generally ignore, the knee. The more you bend the knee the more “leverage” you lose (can you press more weight with a full squat or half squat?). Increasing crank length reduces knee leverage such that there is no net leverage benefit using longer cranks within a large range.
Climbing is not about leverage it is all about power so you should have the crank length that optimizes power, not a crank that “optimizes” one aspect of the overall leverage equation.
The science revisited
How can this short crank length benefit be explained scientifically? There are two major scientific papers here. First is
Determinants of maximal cycling power: crank length, pedaling rate and pedal speed by Martin and Spirduso of the University of Utah. This paper concluded that while the power was maximum with a crank length of 145 mm there was little lost by most riders when using 170 mm cranks because the difference was only about 1% and the difference was not statistically significant. Further,
the paper concluded that the most important variable that affected power was pedal speed, not crank length.
]
Really though you gotta read the whole article to get the context.