[HN Gopher] How fast can a human possibly run 100 meters?
___________________________________________________________________
How fast can a human possibly run 100 meters?
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 102 points
Date : 2024-07-22 14:21 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bigthink.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bigthink.com)
| boringg wrote:
| Better question why do we spend so many global resources on such
| a useless metric for humanity in its current life?
|
| When would you ever need to be so fast at 100m that you over
| train your body for one specific task?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Might I introduce you to the concept of sports in general? We
| build giant coliseums costing hundreds of millions of dollars
| devoted to keeping ice cold in the middle of summer just so
| people can answer the question of who is best at stick puck.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Sports serve a social purpose, and contribute positively to
| society's overall fitness since most people playing sports
| aren't pro athletes
|
| A 100m sprint, as fast as humanly possible is super
| impressive, but the person you're replying to does have a
| point: this is an extremely specific and narrow activity with
| no purpose other than competition. You don't socialize with
| sprinting, and most people wouldn't use 100m sprinting as an
| activity to improve their fitness
|
| At best, it's designed to test fitness, but it even fails at
| that really
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I don't think your second paragraph follows your first.
| Just because you're doing an activity like sprinting solo
| doesn't mean there aren't social elements. The Olympics
| this summer will prove that hundreds of million if not
| billions of people can come together around sprinting, and
| several dozen other extremely specific and narrow
| activities, if only for a brief time.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| This doesn't reflect reality as far as I've ever seen
|
| Hundreds of millions if not billions of people may
| _watch_ sprinting, or diving or any number of niche solo
| sports, but do they really care further than "I hope our
| guy wins"?
|
| Do they care about the technical aspects of running or
| discus or whatever else? Not a chance
|
| It's not even remotely close to how passionate people get
| about team sports. Millions of people will celebrate in
| the streets if their soccer team wins a medal. People
| will argue endlessly about the technical little details
| of a soccer match, the calls refs make, etc
|
| Solo sports aren't really comparable to team sports in
| the social aspect, either for society or for the players
| on the teams
| LargeWu wrote:
| Nobody who lived during the Cold War would say that solo
| Olympic sports weren't part of a team sport, the team
| being your nation. A solo gold medal in one of the
| premier events (100m dash, gymnastics all-around, figure
| skating) was just as intense as any professional league
| championship ever was. It's not an exaggeration to say it
| was proxy warfare and possibly prevented actual global
| war. It was a way for those nations to express dominance
| off the field of battle.
| Nashooo wrote:
| Just because it is not a team sport does not make it not
| social?
| drdaeman wrote:
| Can someone help me to understand this concept? In
| particular, _why_ so _many_ people watch it - _what_ drives
| them them do so?
|
| I'll try to explain my own vision, why I think I don't care -
| which, of course, is entirely subjective thing, so despite it
| may read as such it's not exactly meant to say "[some] pro
| sports are nonsense" but rather more of "[some] pro sports
| don't make sense for me".
|
| Say, Olympic games. I can watch the opening ceremony (it can
| be visually or aesthetically impressive), but I don't care
| about the actual event. Yea, some folks do some impressive
| things, that... utterly fail to impress me. I'll try to
| explain why, and I wonder how others are different in this
| regard.
|
| I can understand watching sports that have a significant
| strategy component to them. I would've probably watched Go or
| chess if I would be able to understand what's going on there
| (I don't), but I occasionally watch e-sports and those can
| impress me with how people think outside of the box, doing
| things that no one thought of - but that are so obvious in
| the hindsight. For those kind of sports, when I understand
| the game mechanics and when those feel interesting to me, I
| can relate and feel engaged.
|
| I have a suspicion that a number of people watch it (among
| other reasons) for the "this is _our_ athlete(s) doing it "
| vibe. This is something that doesn't click with me. Never
| really did when I was a kid (the country I was born in
| doesn't exist - and good riddance), and since then I've
| immigrated a few times, so - long story short - save for
| obligatory subconscious biases, I don't care about other
| folks' flags and passports. But even though this is not
| commonplace (I guess), this doesn't feel like a reason why I
| have no feelings for the Olympics. Back to the e-sports
| example, I watch international events, and people from
| different bubbles bringing their different strategies and
| play styles makes watching fun, as the games are more
| diverse.
|
| So, when someone's running, jumping, lifting, throwing,
| shooting, spinning, or alike... I honestly don't get what
| impresses so many _viewers_ so much everyone and their dog
| seem to be glued to the screens. Please don 't get me wrong,
| I _don 't_ want to diminish athletes' personal (or team)
| achievements. What they're doing is objectively impressive,
| but subjectively it's in some... detached, unrelated way.
| Also, as someone raised on sci-fi I can't shake off the
| feeling of it being sort of unimportant or meaningless on a
| global scale - I suppose I'm gonna give post-/trans-human
| Olympics a try, if I'll live to the day, maybe I'll find
| something to cheer for. Not sure.
|
| Either way, in the modern day, personally, I don't feel any
| engagement as I fail to relate with the athlete, leading to
| the total lack of the entertainment value for me. Best I can
| do is "uh, that looks fast/heavy/far/...", but 9s, 9.5s, or
| 12s are all the same for me - just "fast" - nothing in my
| brain fires off, as I don't have any experience of such
| speeds/levels of exertion anyway. So I wonder, does it for
| others, do they subconsciously tighten their muscles
| watching, do they feel connected or something? Maybe not,
| because people also watch races and I suppose they don't
| associate with horses?
|
| As you can see, with all this blabbering and guessing
| (sorry!) - I'm really confused here. I realize that even if
| someone explains it to me, I still won't feel that way, but
| what I'm missing is the idea - I only have guesses, and I
| have no clue how accurate they are. And I'm curious to
| understand others, even if a tiniest bit better.
|
| ====> tl;dr: If y'all watch the professional sports (esp. if
| aren't an athlete yourself), what makes you engaged and
| entertained watching it?
|
| Thanks!
| k__ wrote:
| Maybe, it's like art and math.
| cglace wrote:
| People want to see who is the best at X. As long as someone
| cares who is better at X, people will try to be the best. It's
| that simple.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| Without circuses you better hope everybody has bread.
| tbrake wrote:
| Before you asked the first question did you try to put yourself
| in someone else's (running) shoes and figure out their motives?
| If you haven't, try. Steel man the case for running and getting
| better at running before you just declare it "useless."
| shadow28 wrote:
| It's fascinating to see the physical limits of a human body
| being pushed as far as possible.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| And not just physical. There's an iron hard will in there
| pushing past those limits.
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| People like watching excellence in action, especially if it's
| in a domain they can relate to in some way. Almost everyone has
| tried to run as fast as they could at some point, so they're
| naturally curious to watch others who have spent years training
| to do it really, really well.
| jojobas wrote:
| People like all sorts of useless things, and their life gets
| worse once they get introduced to them. The amount of people
| involved in pro sport is lamentable.
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| How are sports any less "useful" than other spectation-
| based forms of entertainment like watching movies, reading
| novels, or listening to music?
| jojobas wrote:
| You get no getting new insight, catharsis or inspiration
| from watching someone run. Like chewing gum, it exploits
| your desire to watch, but there's no substance.
|
| Then again, there's the problem of how thousands of kids
| drop out of school to become pro athletes, and don't even
| reach college level, and the problem of colleges
| admitting illiterate athletes and letting them graduate
| illiterate for "prestige".
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Your initial complaint was about all pro-sports, would
| you say your argument:
|
| "You get no getting new insight, catharsis or inspiration
| from watching someone run."
|
| Applies to all of them?
| jojobas wrote:
| Yes. You have Einstein's "Dostoevsky gives me more than
| any scientist, more than Gauss!", and I don't think
| anyone of note ever said anything like that about any
| athlete. Yes, pro sports beget more pro sports, but
| that's not a positive feature.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| It seems like you're over-intellectualizing the human
| experience. You don't think anyone has been inspired by
| sports? I just watched my entire city come alive with
| Stanley Cup fever. People were having a great time, it
| was a party the whole time.
|
| I barely understand the sport itself, I'm not a team
| sports guy, but to deny the excitement, inspiration, and
| sheer joy seems ridiculous under the crushing weight of
| the energy sports can bring people. People use it to
| better themselves, not just trying to get more pro
| sports, and that's a goal I think every person should
| strive towards. We are thinking things, but we're also
| masses of tissue, and it's important to celebrate that
| connection and that part of us.
| aeyes wrote:
| > You get no getting new [...] inspiration from watching
| someone run.
|
| I'm an amateur runner and I get immense inspiration from
| watching pro athletes run, I'll never get half as good
| but it gives me a huge push to keep working towards my
| own goals.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I feel like people railing against these things are
| people who aren't aware of the various subcultures. It
| doesn't matter if you're a runner or a powerlifter, we
| all have people we see who inspire us. Just because Joe
| Schmoe doesn't know them doesn't mean no one does.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i get a lot of inspiration out of watching top sports
| teams perform. Basketball and American football
| especially. Basketball for the level of coordination
| between players and American football for the different
| specialized experts working together.
| el_duderino_ wrote:
| Just because you do not get any benefit from watching
| athletes excel does not mean it is devoid of substance. I
| find it inspiring to watch someone do something that they
| have spent years working to achieve. Seeing them do the
| "impossible" through hard work and dedication is a great
| moment.
| bglazer wrote:
| How many people and resources (dollars) would you estimate are
| involved in professional track and field?
|
| Bonus points if you express this as a proportion of total human
| population and economic activity
| LargeWu wrote:
| Sport, in general, is about the quest for excellence. It's a
| tradition that dates back millennia, across nearly all
| cultures, which suggests it is a deeply-rooted and possibly
| evolutionary trait in humans. Racing in general, and
| specifically the 100m dash, the crown jewel of track and field,
| might be considered one of the purest expressions of athletic
| excellence.
| boringg wrote:
| I understand the sentiment - and yes tradition is important
| in human culture. That said its like we've trained so acutely
| for the test but the test doesn't really answer any good
| questions.
|
| Historically running had a very important part of humanity.
| You needed to run from animals for hunting, if you were a
| warrior you needed to fight and run, etc. It feels like this
| is one of those races that was historically important as a
| human metric but no longer has the heft of value except for
| nostalgia.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| What are physical tests that are actually important to a
| modern day human? I don't think there's anything that can
| be taken to an extreme that is a good measure of an
| activity that is valuable to modern society.
| boringg wrote:
| Long distances sports actually have excellent returns on
| emotional regulation, health and well being. Very
| important to modern day humans.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Well, if you want to view it in that broad of light,
| pretty much all physical activity has excellent returns
| on emotional regulation, health, and well being,
| including sprinting.
| LargeWu wrote:
| I mean, you could say the same thing about art. What value
| does art provide? We don't need it for survival.
|
| Art and sport are things that make the human experience the
| human experience. That is their value. They exist and are
| important for their own sake.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| There are worse things we could be doing with our time.
| Personally I'd rather watch the synchronized swimming.
| piva00 wrote:
| Because humanity is not about minmaxing a game where output is
| the most important metric. We are humans, and a human thing to
| do is sports, we love being impressed by other's physical
| prowess even if they are narrow and of no economic value.
|
| Why do people paint? Or make music? Or play football (whatever
| version of it)?
|
| Because we like to do it.
| zepolen wrote:
| Mainly because it sells, but also because the pioneers never
| needed a reason beyond why not.
| Jarmsy wrote:
| Aren't the numbers at the start of the article mixed up?
|
| It starts by saying "Other than Bolt, no human has ever run 100
| meters in under 9.73 seconds" Then just below there's a table of
| records showing 3 other runners with sub 9.73 times.
| Grifnag wrote:
| They might have changed the article. It now says "Other than
| Bolt, no human has ever run 100 meters in under 9.69 seconds".
| The table then shows Tyson Gay and Yohan Blake have matched
| that time, but not beaten it.
| chakintosh wrote:
| > Tyson Gay
|
| Shouldn't even be considered due to his history with doping.
| noarchy wrote:
| >Shouldn't even be considered due to his history with
| doping.
|
| People are naive about how much sports are riddled with
| PEDs. It certainly isn't just Tyson Gay. You only know
| about the ones who get caught. But there is enough info out
| there to suggest that getting caught is just a matter of
| slipping up.
| chakintosh wrote:
| I'm talking about him in relation to Usain Bolt. The
| latter is yet to be caught doping (if he is on juice to
| begin with).
| noarchy wrote:
| >I'm talking about him in relation to Usain Bolt. The
| latter is yet to be caught doping (if he is on juice to
| begin with).
|
| Of the top men's 100m runners (in terms of times) only a
| few escaped the testing dragnet unscathed, one of which
| is Bolt. As entertaining as Bolt was to watch I have
| little faith that he was clean at his peak.
| SirMaster wrote:
| I mean for fair competition no. But the article doesn't
| seem to be caring about that. Just how fast can a human
| possibly run. I don't know that chemical based enhancements
| should necessarily be off the table. But physical
| augmentations should probably be off the table.
| Grifnag wrote:
| I think Bolt is the only one of the 5 sprinters named in
| the table in that article who hasn't tested positive or
| served some kind of ban for doping.
| ry4nolson wrote:
| right before that line it says bolt ran it in 9.58, no one
| else has ever ran UNDER 9.69
| ericmcer wrote:
| It's crazy how all the records are him and people who competed
| against him. Really shows how strong competition can bring out
| the best in you.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Really shows how strong competition can bring out the best
| in you.
|
| In cycling there is also a tech, nutrition and physiology
| aspect to it. Obviously the tech side is much reduced in
| running (though clothing and shoes might get some) and Bolt's
| diet was notoriously poor.
| tcfunk wrote:
| I've never seen Usain Bolt's speed in terms of mph before this
| article. A top speed of 27.8 mph is seriously incredible. Granted
| I'm no professional sprinter, but when I try to go much beyond
| 14-15 my balance can't keep up with the cadence and I start to
| trip over myself.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I'm betting there are people who can barely go 27.8 mph on a
| bike at their top speed
|
| That's unbelievable to imagine honestly, someone on a bike
| going as fast as they can and this guy sprinting past them
|
| But it's reality
| martopix wrote:
| I would say the _majority_ of people would not reach that
| speed on a bike in normal situations
| bluGill wrote:
| A downhill where a road bike can reach that speed is pretty
| normal. I reach those nearly every day on my to work
| commute and I live in Iowa - there is a reason we are known
| for being flat so if I can find a hill to reach those speed
| surely anyone else can too. Of course I am riding a road
| bike, kids and mountain bikes may have limitations (tires?)
| that slow them down.
|
| Reaching those speeds on level ground doesn't seem possible
| for a normal human, but level ground is rare.
| toast0 wrote:
| I can hit 45 mph going down hill on my 1980 road bike...
| but that's just balance, carrying enough potential
| energy, being too stupid to slow down to a reasonable
| speed, and having hills that I have to walk the bike up
| most of the time. There's some skill and physical
| conditioning there, but not a whole lot; at that speed,
| there's a lot of instant feedback on form, which helps
| encourage one to get low and tight.
|
| I think if we're talking about how fast you can get your
| bike to go, flat land, still air is implied. I don't have
| a lot of those conditions to try, but I'm happy to cruise
| around 15, and maybe push it to 20 if I don't need to
| save my energy for a nearby hill.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I'm not sure what you might mean by a "normal human".
|
| I used to be a back-of-the-front-of-the-pack triathlete,
| with a previous history as an ultramarathon and touring
| cyclist. In my best shape (probably aged around 46), I
| was training on a flat loop course with some younger very
| strong but not professional cyclists where we would
| generally pull the group at 28mph for about between 20-60
| seconds at a time.
|
| I appreciate that there's a distance between that sort of
| thing and an "average person", but it's not a whole lot
| larger than the distance between the people who were in
| the group and, say, professional tour cyclists.
| alfiopuglisi wrote:
| Most people won't be able to even reach 27.8 mph on a bike,
| you need a decent road bike and some training.
| kazinator wrote:
| I suspect that "most people" even includes the guy who
| sprinted at 27.8 mph. The crank lengths and gearing are all
| wrong on a bike for an explosive sprint, preventing all the
| right muscles from being recruited to the job. No matter
| the speed and gear, your feet are constrained into spinning
| around the same smallish circle. And wile you can use your
| whole body in order to sprinting on a bike, it's not the
| same like when a running sprinter uses their entire body.
| alfiopuglisi wrote:
| Mmmhh, not sure about that. Most people, even if not
| reaching high speeds, can still go substantially faster
| on a bike than running. Even grandmas, it's all relative.
|
| People like Bolt should be compared with bike sprinters,
| who top out at around 45mph.
| lostlogin wrote:
| You can look at Tadej Pogacar's recent rides on Strava.
|
| It's awe inspiring. His times are just so fast, and over
| hilly terrain in the heat, for day after day.
| thrownblown wrote:
| apples to oranges. Look up this meatball
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F%C3%B6rstemann
| thrownblown wrote:
| Top level competitive flying 200's are sub 10s. That's an
| average speed over the timed distance of 72km/h or 44.75
| mph with a peak around 75-77km/h.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_tr
| ack...
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| Or just go downhill.
| klyrs wrote:
| When I was in my 20s, I was in great shape, riding thousands
| of miles a year (distance riding, not racing). On a flat,
| straight track in still air, I'm pretty sure my top speed was
| around 32mph. And while pro cyclists would scoff at my
| personal best there, most people aren't even coming close to
| that.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I was going to say only 32? Then realized it was miles per
| hour.
| mp05 wrote:
| Flat land 32mph? That's pretty good! I can barely get
| over 30.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| On indoor tracks, bikes do something like 45mph
| amalcon wrote:
| A class 3 ebike (the kind legal on most streets but illegal
| on most rec paths due to their speed) has a top speed of
| 28mph, so I would say so. Barring a steep decline of course.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I wouldn't go near that speed on a bike wearing a tour de
| france outfit. Crashing at those speeds will be very, very
| painful.
|
| A friend of mine had a low speed crash on his bike, and
| knocked his front teeth out. After that, both he and I bought
| full face helmets.
|
| When I ride dirt bikes, I wear a full set of armor. I look
| like a storm trooper. But I've crashed many times, and was
| unhurt. The armor is worth every penny. (The only way to
| learn how to ride a dirt bike is by crashing it.)
| Svoka wrote:
| few people can go over 45 km/h on bike on flat ground.
| kazinator wrote:
| I did about that speed for about half a mile once, but I was
| drafting close behind a 2 ton truck. :) The truck's driver
| was taking it easy for whatever reason. I noticed that and
| slipped into the slipstream. Once in the slipstream, it felt
| like no effort; like bicycling downhill.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| How close did you have to go to the truck in order to make
| use of the slipstream?
| kazinator wrote:
| If I were to guess today, I'd say that my front wheel was
| within about 2 meters or so of the tail gate.
|
| This is obviously dangerous, but the truck was going
| slow; slow enough that if it slammed on the brakes, I
| would have been able to react (and failing that, not get
| badly hurt).
|
| It was a strange sensation. It took effort to pedal up to
| the tailgate, but then you feel the effort drop off, as
| if you went over an invisible ridge.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Not op - you can get a similar but limited version of
| this from sitting behind other bikes. e-bikes are a prime
| target if your heading into the wind.
|
| They are usually speed limited to below what a road bike
| travels at, but in bad weather they are very useful
| windbreaks.
| kazinator wrote:
| I think that used to be true in the early wave of
| e-bikes.
|
| Today, I regularly see e-bikes and scooters easily
| keeping up with traffic that is moving upward of 50 km/h.
|
| If there are still e-things on the market today with
| speed limitations not related to their power capacity,
| people must be easily working around those limits
| somehow, with firmware patches or secret codes or what
| have you.
|
| Most of the stuff comes from China, which is an
| uncontrollable entity that doesn't care about regulations
| in North America and elsewhere.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| In a reasonably sized pack of cyclists, being in the pack
| instead of being the lead cyclist requires 30% less
| power.
| chakintosh wrote:
| That's in part why sprinters are jacked. They need to keep
| their core from leaning forward at such high speeds.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| My reference for "jacked" would be more like a bodybuilder.
| Sprinters aren't really "jacked" more like lean and muscular.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Professional bodybuilders all use steroids. There are
| "natural" bodybuilders that don't use steroids or PEDs, and
| a few competitions for them, but the sport in general is
| saturated in drugs.
| hanniabu wrote:
| As a runner I find this comment hilarious. Not sure what type
| of relationship you see between speed and leaning forward,
| but there is none.
| glitchc wrote:
| I think if Bolt really pushed himself, he could have broken sub
| 9.5 seconds at the peak of his ability. In all races where he
| dominated, we see him slack off right near the end once he
| realizes how much further ahead he is of everyone else.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Not to mention the diet of chicken nuggets, particularly in
| Beijing where that was basically all he ate for weeks.
| iknowSFR wrote:
| He broke his own WR in 2009 in Berlin.
| hanniabu wrote:
| For both the 100m and 200m
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| Is it slacking off or was it simply his limit.
| Vvector wrote:
| Did you watch his races?
| nervousvarun wrote:
| At this short of distance it would be slacking off. However
| if you watch his world breaking run (vid below) to me it
| appears he's likely not doing that.
|
| Personally would argue these guys do this same
| sprint/distance so many times in practice/competition that
| they generally implicitly know when they're running a WR
| type time and generally don't slack off (in this video he's
| not in any threat of being caught but still presses on for
| the WR).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nbjhpcZ9_g
| jccalhoun wrote:
| I've always said they need to have a non-athlete run next to the
| athletes so we can tell just how fast these runners are.
| kazinator wrote:
| Elite race walkers embarrass recreational runners with sub-40
| 10 km times.
|
| There you are, running your heart out, and some guy walks right
| past you.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| It's hardly "walking". It's basically just a silly way to
| run.
| ketzo wrote:
| "Race walking" is distinguished from "running" based on
| technique. In this case, "walking" is defined very strictly
| as "never having both feet off the ground."
|
| Yes, obviously it's just a silly way to run, if "run" is
| "move fast on foot".
|
| It's just that "race walking" is fewer words than "a silly
| way to run where you have to keep one foot on the ground
| always."
| inglor_cz wrote:
| This isn't strictly enforced, though.
| swores wrote:
| It's not that it isn't enforced, it's that the rule is
| very specifically that it must appear that one foot is
| always touching the ground when watched in real time with
| human eyes, the rule isn't that one foot must technically
| always be touching the ground.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| That very well may be the rule, but you can't then argue
| that it isn't a "silly way to run". It clearly is if both
| feet can be in the air at the same time.
| kazinator wrote:
| There is also a rule about a straight leading leg. That
| puts a limit on the leaping. A leg not being straight is
| pretty visible.
| glitchc wrote:
| We can't call it running if at least one foot has to be on
| the ground at a time. That requirement also drastically
| limits stride length, giving an inherent advantage to the
| runner.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| If you watch professional speed walkers they frequently
| have both feet off the ground.
|
| Just like in the NBA many players travel all the time,
| but it just isn't called.
| crustaceansoup wrote:
| It's an open secret that "cheating" (i.e. not having both
| feet planted) is ubiquitous, to the point that since 1996
| the official rule is now "not naked-eye visible loss of
| contact, or visibly bent knee". You can watch any slow-
| motion video of racewalkers and they seem to lose contact
| on every stride.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| And they seem to break that break even that very loose
| rule when they think they can get away with it. With
| cheap modern tech I am sure they could enforce the
| contact rules.
| klyrs wrote:
| A bomb on a pair of deadman switches? You don't need
| modern tech...
| LanceH wrote:
| They aren't embarrassing anyone. If that's walking fast, I'm
| walking slow.
| klyrs wrote:
| Hilariously, I got passed by a runner on my bike just
| yesterday. We were both trudging up a mountain. I suggested
| she carry my bike; she demurred. Eventually when the terrain
| leveled out a little bit, I left her in the dust.
| mcbutterbunz wrote:
| The 4-minute-mile is an average of 15mph. I haven't measured
| how fast I can sprint, but at my age (40s), I doubt its
| higher than 15mph for any timespan longer than a few seconds.
| So milers effectively sprint for 4 minutes straight. Its mind
| boggling what the human body can do.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I don't think you're familiar with the performance levels
| of masters (40+) atheletes.
|
| I'm 60 now, but in my 40s I was a moderately good marathon-
| to-ultramarathon runner, and with a little bit of speedwork
| training, I managed to run a 5:30 track mile. That's not
| even fast - I had friends of the same age who could run
| 4:30.
|
| It is truly remarkable what the human body can do - the
| world record for the marathon involves running 26.2 miles
| faster per mile than I could ever run 1 mile.
|
| But if you can't sprint faster than 4mph for a few seconds,
| that's fine but it's not indicative of "at your age".
| Unless you have some actual health issue that prevents it,
| I would very surprised if you were incapable of hitting
| 6mph for a mile with some training, and a lot of people
| would not find it tremendously hard to hit 6.5-7mph if they
| had the time and motivation to train.
| dorkwood wrote:
| "Beat the Freeze", a half-time show the Atlanta Braves used to
| put on, is pretty close. It's where a member of the crowd takes
| on a former collegiate sprinter in a 160m race, and they're
| given a five second head start.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3UzW1aJXRUw
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| That last one is very unlucky -- it was never a full 5 second
| head start!
| teruakohatu wrote:
| I hadn't heard of this event before but watching the video
| it does seem like the last one might have beaten the freeze
| if they had got a full 5 seconds head start. Makes you
| wonder if the freeze head start is based on how fast you
| run / how fit they think you are.
|
| It seems like when the freeze is beaten, he is beaten by a
| hardcore amateur:
|
| https://www.mlb.com/video/braves-fan-beats-the-freeze
| js2 wrote:
| It's clear from his form that he's an experienced runner.
| I googled a bit. He ran track in HS and at least the
| start of college. These were his HS senior times:
|
| > Was the Region 6-AA Champion for finishing first in the
| 5k in 2010... Finished third in the state in the 5k in a
| time of 17:46.66 during the 2010 season.
|
| https://ksuowls.com/sports/mens-track-and-
| field/roster/parke...
|
| https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/new-dad-atlanta-braves-
| supe...
| fckgw wrote:
| It's likely when the challenger happens to pass a certain
| part of the field, and most people cross that around 5
| seconds in.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| The dudes they pick utilize poor strategy. They come out the
| gate hot, and are gassed by 50% of the race. Really, they
| should be running at a pace they can just barely maintain to
| the end, and then push all out the last 20m
| js2 wrote:
| I've run over two dozen marathons. Even at that distance,
| it takes a lot of discipline to not go out too fast. These
| are random people they find in the stands who are going to
| be very amped up in the moment. Strategy is the furthest
| thing from their minds and even if weren't, it takes
| practice to know what your ideal pace is.
| bfung wrote:
| Strategy is only good for really, really good runners.
|
| At ~160m, (similar to the 200m), at-pace speed for the pro
| is already all-out for the average person.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| > half-time show the Atlanta Braves used to put on
|
| halftime in baseball?! :P
| toast0 wrote:
| Yeah, halftime in baseball is after the first two quarters,
| and before the third and final quarter. :P
| dzonga wrote:
| here's [0] a NFL bound defensive lineman weight over 340 lbs
| running a 40 yard dash in 4.82 .
|
| i'm half his weight and change. yet he would be faster than me.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Ozz3rgKHU
| FredPret wrote:
| Imaging colliding with this guy. Like shouldering a
| locomotive
| cb321 wrote:
| Statisticians think it can be gotten down to 9.51 seconds (
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806080343.h...
| ), though, as with most things statistical, knowledge of the
| underlying sampling process (biology/physiology & physics in this
| case) may shed more light. { Similarly, knowledge (& tweaking!)
| of OS schedulers may be able to reduce measurement noise more
| than pure statistics in a project to time software like
| https://github.com/c-blake/bu/blob/main/doc/tim.md .}
| herendin2 wrote:
| That research was published before Bolt hacked another 0.1
| seconds off the record, when he cut it down in one event from
| 9.69 to 9.58
|
| I don't think the research stands up.
| cb321 wrote:
| They would certainly have to add that new data point to their
| analysis. :-)
|
| I expect it moves the estimate down by less than the 100 ms
| record beat, though. That's how converging to a true minimum
| tends to work (at least, like I said before, in the purely
| statistical modeling sense which is never quite as strong as
| a detailed micro-model).
| goatlover wrote:
| How do you know Bolt isn't close to the maximum? He is
| definitely an outlier.
| farceSpherule wrote:
| How fast? Is this with or without performance enhancing drugs?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I can read all these technical extrapolations of physics but I
| don't think humans can run much faster than Usain or they would
| currently do so. Without more performance enhancing drugs and I'm
| assuming we don't want that. We are going to live in a weird
| world in the future when we realize things can't just continue
| forever up and to the right on all charts. We may just live at
| the plateau for eons. I believe we are all very lucky to have
| lived at a very special time in human history.
|
| https://www.cold-takes.com/this-cant-go-on/
|
| And I think it is smart to prepare yourself for when the world
| realizes that stuffing money into stocks can't give 10% every
| year forever. And all hell will break loose because that is what
| our whole world is currently built upon. I don't know when that
| will happen, but mathematically we can prove that it must happen
| eventually.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| I was reading this carefully looking for the reason of "why
| this can't go on", and seemingly this is the reason
|
| > if the economy were 3*1070 times as big as today's, and could
| only make use of 1070 (or fewer) atoms, we'd need to be
| sustaining multiple economies as big as today's entire world
| economy per atom
|
| What kind of argument is that? Sounds like someone had an idea
| and went looking for evidence to support it.
|
| > mathematically we can prove that it must happen eventually
|
| Please explain, and not using a reasoning comparing dollars to
| atoms
| Mistletoe wrote:
| The math for increasing 10% per year over any long length of
| time gets so crazy that you have to use how many atoms exist
| as an absurd placeholder. Dollars don't work anymore.
|
| The rule of 72 says at 10% per year (historical returns in
| the stock market for the past 100 years) means you are
| doubling the value of the stock market every 7.2 years.
| Things like economies can't grow like that and if you are
| questioning why it's because you and I grew up in this era
| where they could for a brief blinking in time. Human
| reproduction is slowing, we've harvested all the low hanging
| fruit, "free" land is all taken. I feel like we are probably
| at the part of the 100m dash curve talked about here.
|
| https://condellpark.com/kd/sprintlogistic.htm
|
| At our current rate, the record of 9.48s will be reached in
| 500 years if you plot it. But I don't think people are going
| to maintain interest for 500 years to get there from 9.58
| seconds.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| > Things like economies can't grow like that
|
| says who?
|
| if i were born and living in the 1500s, how could i predict
| the economy would soon grow 10%/year for over a century?
|
| you're just stating things like facts which have never been
| predictable. nothing about our current growth was
| inevitable, neither is a gigantic slowdown.
|
| i think these kinds of predictions are:
|
| 1. far more difficult than we realise
|
| 2. so difficult that there is almost no value in making
| them.
| likeclockwork wrote:
| The Church of Infinite Growth has been riled.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| \\_(tsu)_/-
|
| the writer of the article could have just as easily
| predicted an epic slowdown as infinite growth. that's how
| much evidence and reasoning they provided. it's the
| monkey throwing darts
| n4r9 wrote:
| > Without more performance enhancing drugs and I'm assuming we
| don't want that.
|
| I mean, what are the arguments against PEDs? I guess that they
| carry risks for the athletes and unfair advantages. It's
| conceivable that future tech will enable us to legalise and
| regulate drugs in much the same way as we do equipment now. If
| that leads to records being smashed, I think the general public
| will probably come round to it.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| For myself, I don't like them because I know they come with
| health risks and that makes me watching the events like a
| roman citizen watching gladiators die for their
| entertainment. And I try to stay away from that as much as
| possible.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Sure. But it's conceivable that future tech will produce
| drugs and doping regimes that minimise the health risks.
| mikestew wrote:
| And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it
| hops. You asked for the argument against PEDs, and right
| now the argument is that they have adverse effects on
| health. If the health effects ever change in the future,
| then we can revisit.
| mikestew wrote:
| Even in events you _don't_ watch, like the Bumphuck Senior
| Games 40+ Steeplechase, people are doping. And as a
| competitor in endurance sports, I don't want to have to
| take PEDs and risk my health just to stay competitive in
| bullshit, no-one-cares-but-your-Mom local amateur events.
| gadders wrote:
| "There is evidence that the pattern of banned substance use
| in elite athletes is high, yet morbidity and mortality of
| elite athletes is not greater than the general population,
| and former elite athletes live longer and healthier lives
| than age-matched controls. There is evidence that misuse of
| PEDs, often obtained from the black market, without medical
| guidance or intervention contributes to morbidity and
| mortality in recreational athletes, but this pattern is not
| evident in elite athletes."
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211
| 2...
| drdaeman wrote:
| > they come with health risks
|
| Professional sports inherently come with health risks. They
| are unhealthy almost by definition.
|
| If someone wants to risk their well-being for achievement,
| fame, big money and/or anything else (which is crazy, but
| people do crazy stuff) - it is more beneficial for the
| society if it's all transparent and goes into scientific
| papers and not some anti-doping agency or court papers.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _If that leads to records being smashed, I think the general
| public will probably come round to it._
|
| I'm not so sure this is a given. See: Barry Bonds.
| generic92034 wrote:
| > Without more performance enhancing drugs and I'm assuming we
| don't want that.
|
| Depends on the "we":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Games
|
| I do not think it is very responsible to increase the
| incentives even more for exploiting your own body. Also, a
| mindset like that might easily spill over into "normal" jobs.
| b450 wrote:
| I guess this is just a silly little thought experiment, but the
| final estimate (6.97s 100m) is quite ridiculous on its face.
|
| The heavy lifting seems to be done by the study linked in the
| "anatomical studies suggest peak speeds up to 15.6-17.9 m/s
| (35-40 mph) are achievable" line. I'm not sure where those exact
| numbers were pulled from - I can't find them with a cmd+f. One
| line in the study uses some nearby numbers:
|
| > If, for simplicity, we assume no change in contact lengths or
| the minimum aerial times needed to reposition the swing limbs at
| top speed, the average and greatest individual top speed hopping
| forces (Favg) of 2.71 and 3.35 Wb would allow top running speeds
| of 14.0 and 19.3 m/s and of 50 and 69 km/h, respectively
|
| But the study concludes that, even though our leg extensor
| muscles can produce much higher maximum forces than those
| generated during sprinting, the "contact length" imposes a
| constraint on these "hopping forces":
|
| > Because humans have limbs of moderate length and cannot gallop,
| they lack similar options for prolonging periods of foot-ground
| force application to attain faster sprinting speeds at existing
| contact time minimums. Consequently, human running speeds in
| excess of 50 km/h are likely to be limited to the realms of
| science fiction and, not inconceivably, gene doping.
|
| So the craziness of the original estimate seems to follow from on
| a misreading of that study.
| buildbot wrote:
| Humans can't gallop?
|
| https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-humans-pre...
|
| https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/216/7/1338/12063...
| jamiek88 wrote:
| We don't do it efficiently or effectively would be better
| than saying we cannot do it.
|
| It's only useful for going downhill quickly which we've all
| subconsciously or perhaps even mindfully done.
|
| From your link:
|
| > Gallopers exerted that effort unevenly, with the front leg
| doing more work than the back leg. And the galloping stride,
| researchers saw, demanded more from the hips than running
| did.
|
| This tired people out quickly. Out of 12 treadmill gallopers
| in the study, 4 gave up before the end of their 4-minute
| session, complaining of fatigue and stress in their hips and
| thighs.
|
| (An intended 13th galloper couldn't figure out how to gallop
| on the treadmill belt in the first place.)
|
| When researchers calculated their subjects' metabolic rates,
| they found that galloping was about 24% more costly than
| running at the same speed. In other words, galloping burns up
| more energy, takes more effort, and is less comfortable than
| running.
|
| It's no wonder we don't usually opt for it
| buildbot wrote:
| > Because humans have limbs of moderate length and cannot
| gallop
|
| Yes, we don't because it's not great, but that's not the
| same as not being able to. (This is very pedantic sorry,
| it's just a stronger claim than it needs to be which
| bothers me).
|
| Also, I wonder if that changes if you have very uneven leg
| lengths?
| ohyes wrote:
| I mean, this is a bipedal gallop, standing upright. What if
| someone were to train for running on both their hands and
| feet, the way a horse, dog, or cheetah does? I've seen a
| video of a young woman doing this, and it looked very
| uncomfortable/unnatural and it was frankly terrifying to
| imagine a human running at you in this way.
|
| Mechanically it seems like the advantage would be using more
| muscles and being able to take advantage of your core and
| upper body when pushing off in addition to the legs. landing
| seems like it would be a challenge as fingers aren't really
| made for that.
| ljlolel wrote:
| In 2048, the fastest human on the planet will be a
| quadrupedal galloping man
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4928019/
| pfortuny wrote:
| "The winning time was fitted to a rational fraction curve
| for the quadruped records (r2 = 0.823, adjusted r2 =
| 0.787, F = 26.9, P < 0.05) and to a linear curve for the
| biped records (r2 = 0.952, adjusted r2 = 0.949, F =
| 336.1, P < 0.05; Figure Figure1).1)."
|
| Unfortunately, a linear extrapolation implies that at
| some time, the bipedal 100m will take negative time...
| js8 wrote:
| I saw a video about that which claimed that 4-legged
| running is in general faster than 2-legged running. The
| video concluded that it might be possible for humans to
| "run" faster with 4 limbs rather than 2 limbs, if trained
| properly. Btw they also mentioned the record in 100m 4-limb
| running is something over 15s.
| kawsper wrote:
| That guy Usain Bolt and his 9.58 seconds is nothing compared to
| my local Strava runners, all the segments are full of faster
| "runners".
| DrBazza wrote:
| I can't remember - did the aboriginal man one get debunked?
|
| Stride length, and on mud, was longer than Bolt - implying faster
| than the 100m WR on an awful surface?
|
| https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/prehistoric-man-faster-t...
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| > Elite sprinters can apply peak forces of 800-1000 pounds
| (3560-4450 Newtons) to each limb. Beyond ~1300 pounds, ideal
| human leg bones would surely break[1].
|
| I followed the link and it just said
|
| > If you're looking for the specifics to snap a piece of your
| skeleton, it takes about 4,000 newtons of force to break the
| typical human femur.
|
| So the sprinters are already producing that much force (900
| pounds) and the 1300 notion seems unsupported. Not to mention
| that applying the force with different amounts of torque might
| not break the bone, since bones are 10x stronger in compression
| so can withstand a lot more force longitudinally.
|
| 1: https://www.discovery.com/science/force-to-break-bone
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I can't access the discovery link from europe.
|
| From your quotes, there seems to be an important difference: in
| the first quote they talk about "ideal human leg bones" and in
| the second one about a "typical human femur".
|
| I'm certain that an elite sprinter blessed in genetics has leg
| bones significantly stronger than the average human. Bones also
| get stronger from repetitive exercise.
| Someone wrote:
| I would guess there also may be a difference between the two
| cases in that the force needed to break a leg wasn't measured
| by compressing it, but by exerting force perpendicular to its
| length.
|
| Even if it isn't, there are so many ways to measure breaking
| strength that it's unlikely the two cases are perfectly
| comparable.
| silisili wrote:
| This was my assumption. The original article implies
| parallel force, which I imagine is far higher than
| perpendicular. Eg trying to chop a 1x4 in half long ways
| probably takes quite a bit of force(and a touch of
| stupidity).
| WalterBright wrote:
| Your bones get stronger when regularly stressed. Bone is
| added on the inside, not the outside, so you won't notice it.
|
| I recall reading once that a pitcher's right arm had quite a
| bit more bone in it than his left.
| 1-more wrote:
| For a bit of scale on what we know the human leg can handle
| without breaking: the best drug tested, sleeves-only squat in
| the world is 490 kg (Ray Williams IPF Worlds 2019). Drop the
| drug testing and add multi-ply squat suits and the record is
| 590 kg (Nathan Baptist, UPA Utah Kick Off Meet 2021). Granted:
| these are two-footed squats and you run with one leg at a time.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Alternatively, look at Olympic weightlifting. While the
| weights used in the clean and jerk and snatch are less that
| used in the squat in powerlifting, the instantaneous forces
| are much greater. I don't think 1300 lbs is anywhere near
| enough to break a human femur if we're talking compressive
| forces, lateral force is a different story.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Olympic-style lifts are among the most powerful things a
| human can do. Elite athletes can push beyond 5kW at the
| peak of exertion. This is why technique is so important.
| The forces involved are insane once you go beyond 200lbs or
| so. The snatch can be extremely troublesome if you do it
| wrong. Clean and jerk is more tolerant to bad form.
| 1-more wrote:
| oooh yeah the speed is definitely something to consider
| for them. Hmm. Kinda wanna grab some hookgrip slow-mo
| edits and do JV science with them. Kinda don't because I
| have shareholder value to create.
| normie3000 wrote:
| And could you add Baptist's weight to that? He is probably
| more than 150kg.
| 1-more wrote:
| hahah dog he weighed 226.5kg.
| https://www.openpowerlifting.org/m/upa/2104#nathanbaptist
|
| Ray Williams weighed 190.4kg for his
| https://www.openpowerlifting.org/m/usapl/2019-03-02
|
| Also so sorry, I got the meet wrong but the year right. It
| was the 2019 USAPL Arnold SBD Pro American
| tomxor wrote:
| Not to down play the "what's possible", but it's important to
| note that bone strength depends on stimulus and nutrition
| just as much as muscular and connective tissue strength.
| Those athletes bones are likely far stronger than the average
| human of the same size without training.
| 1-more wrote:
| Oh yeah, in fact Gene Rychlak (first lifter to bench over
| 1000lb) said he could feel his bones bending during the
| lift. Training is getting your body adapted to the
| movement, and that for sure includes bone density. I'm
| guessing our 100m runners are also pretty dense.
| xattt wrote:
| Tendons may be the limiting factor here. They are soft tissue
| that has an elastic limit that is likely to be lower than solid
| non-deformable bone. Exceed that and tendons will either tear
| or pathologically lengthen.
| happyopossum wrote:
| Worth noting that the femur is the strongest bone in the human
| leg...
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| What I want to see is an olympic sprinting event where the first
| 20 meters are dry land and the last 80 are a non-newtonian fluid.
| bregma wrote:
| That would also be great for gymnastics. And swimming. And
| especially tower diving.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| You had me in the first half.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Sounds like a great way to break an ankle
| nothrowaways wrote:
| > However, anatomical studies suggest peak speeds up to 15.6-17.9
| m/s (35-40 mph) are achievable.
| moate wrote:
| So we have 2 different theses being posited by this article. The
| headline (how fast for 100 meters) and the whole rest of the
| article (how fast for 100 meters under racing rules).
|
| Just saying, these are different things.
| gadders wrote:
| Obligatory link to article discussing whether Usain was on PEDs
| or not:
|
| "When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest
| athlete of all time. But for someone to run 10.03 one year and
| 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the
| reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period." Carl Lewis
|
| https://archive.ph/R6DOs#selection-553.0-553.255
| htrp wrote:
| > One Australian physiologist calculated in 2014 that a sprinter
| with Bolt's force could maintain it while also cutting contact
| time with the ground to just 70 milliseconds (down from 80 or
| so). This would result in a top speed of 12.75 meters per second,
| or 28.53mph - and a new world record of 9.27 seconds.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/03/how-fas...
|
| -------------------------------
|
| A more realistic assessment
| EA wrote:
| BTW: if you are looking for something to latch onto with the
| Olympics starting this week, the USA vs Jamaica rivalry in the
| short distance trace events is a great David vs. Goliath story.
| The two countries have been battling back and forth with each
| other for the top spots for the last decade or longer. The
| runners have flamboyant personalities and these are some of the
| fastest sprinters we have ever seen; both men and women. There is
| a documentary on Netflix called 'Sprint' that sets the stage for
| this Olympics.
| ericmcer wrote:
| I wish that show had focused a bit more on technique/training
| and less on personality, but it was super entertaining
| regardless.
| aantix wrote:
| There's a famous trainer, Ryan Flaherty. He gets guys ready for
| the NFL combine.
|
| He utilizes the hex-bar deadlift.
|
| He has his football athletes complete the concentric phase
| (picking up from the ground) as fast as possible.
|
| They just drop the weight when they reach full extension at the
| top.
|
| He claims that the eccentric phase (lowering) is when all of the
| micro-muscle tears occur. These tears cause muscle growth.
|
| By dropping the hex-bar deadlift weight at the top, instead of
| lowering, you get most of the strength gain, without the muscle
| size growth.
|
| This is an effort to increase leg strength (for speed) without
| adding additional body weight.
|
| Getting faster by getting stronger but staying lighter.
| thrownblown wrote:
| working at gym after 4 Hour Body came out was pretty loud...
| pstorm wrote:
| I've recently come to believe the differences in hypertrophy
| are negligible between eccentric and concentric focused
| movements, but can't find any recent, compelling research that
| says so. There was a 2017 meta analysis by Brad Schoenfeld
| (basically THE hypertrophy researcher) that showed a pretty
| significant different in hypertrophy: an average of 10% vs
| 6.8%.
|
| I know Greg Nuckols from StrongerByScience believes this is
| mostly caused by lifters, especially untrained lifters which
| most of the research is on, having spent less time in eccentric
| phases so there is more opportunity for growth there, but it
| will eventually plateau.
| log101 wrote:
| Please don't do it, this will surely limit out potential!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-22 20:06 UTC)