Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by NewsBot, Apr 15, 2012.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Press Release:
    How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

  3. How is Usain Bolt going to make the wind blow harder? How is Usain Bolt going to decrease air density when running at sea level? Come on, you need "maths" to understand that having a tailwind and running at altitude (we've known that for 44 years since the Mexico City Olympics) will make a sprinter run faster?!

    I really can't see how an author can title an article "How Usain Bolt Can Run Faster Effortlessly" when most of the factors he is using to describe how Bolt could run faster are something that every elite sprinter and experienced track coach already know and have known for four decades?! Do you really need "maths" to write a whole article about environmental factors that the athlete has little control over when running in their competitions?! Unbelievable!:bash::bang::mad:
  4. Lisa L

    Lisa L Member

    It does seem rather irrelevant to include this element in the calculation if the high altitude is not permissible in regards to official athletic world records.
  5. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    I think they missed the fourth and most important element.

    The tongue must be placed firmly in the cheek.
  6. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Oh to have the credibility of Professorship (at Cambridge mind you) & have... "concrete mathematical evidence" at the same time when attempting to substantiate statements on Olympic interest topics such as this (this being an Olympic year & all)... How Usain Bolt can run faster – effortlessly (PDF).

    I'm surprised the following hasn't surfaced yet... it should appear a bit more valid under the circumstances (i.e. a potential greater control element) as opposed to environmental factors such wind & altitude conditions for a set given race. Then one can also talk about surface/track "stiffness" as well for performance enhancement.

    The Foot Drills:

    Hmmm... now what was Usain's world record again? ... 9.58 sec. ;)
  7. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who has noticed that when UB is running he stops going forwards for a hundredth of a second at each stride?

    If he could stop having fifty starts in each race I am sure he would run faster.

    Where's my tongue?

    OK no need to be like that.

  8. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Bolt just got beaten in the Jamaican Olympic trials:

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  9. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

    Press Release:
    Even Usain Bolt can't beat greyhounds, cheetahs...or pronghorn antelope
    Animals still trump extraordinary Olympian athleticism on speed, strength and endurance

    [Animal athletes: a performance view Veterinary Record July 28; 171; 87-94]
  10. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Good point - this what makes humans quite unique (in the physical realm)... then we have the mental faculty (i.e. imagination, contemplative, learning, problem solving capabilities to name a few). Thus holistically, humans are the most diverse/versatile than any other creature on the planet.
  11. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    The particular combination of physical and mental characteristics displayed by each animal is what makes each animal unique.

    To have a human animal deciding that the combination of physical and mental characteristics it displays is in some way ultimately superior is laughable.

    In what sense do human physical and mental characteristics make them more diverse/versatile than any other creature on the planet?

    With all these 'superior' qualities, in the long term, humans can't even keep ahead of pathogenic microorganisms, which, by bumbling along in their totally brainless way, eventually 'outsmarts' humans.

  12. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    It would appear you are addressing my previous post Bill, hence...
    Yes of course each animal kind is unique, did I imply otherwise? For example, dolphins are rather unique compared to another mammal, the elephant. I did state that... "this what makes humans quite unique" in relation to a quote from the cited article. Some other humans (man/woman) may also find that their particular kind (i.e. homo sapien) is quite unique in comparison to fauna within the animal kingdom (which was the nature of the article in question). This view should hardly be debatable/controversial.

    I'm not a "human animal" Bill, I'm a human being (problems can arise from such debasing views). That said, I sometimes wonder about the mindset of some humans but to infer to that as “animal” is rather insulting to the animal kingdom. However, your comprehension is rather "laughable" Bill. Did I use those words Bill... "ultimately superior"... did I imply that? No, just simply... "quite unique" as well as state... "holistically, humans are the most diverse/versatile than any other creature on the planet". Which brings us to the next point...

    Ummm... look around you Bill. Look at the geography of which we humans habitat (i.e. from pole to pole), look at the technology we have created which has enabled us to also leave this planet & inhabit space & likely visit another planet in the future (moon aside). Look at the Olympics - whoops, I forgot, you don't watch/like such things (going by another thread) because of the speculated prevalence of drugs that those athletes (developed by chemists/scientists) you assume are taking to alter their physiological state.

    Now that’s laughable... I assume you are referring to antibiotic resistance. These "microorganisms" are simply trying to survive in any environment they are subjected to. Many die, some live... the process sometimes referred to as antibiotic resistance, "natural selection" (note: this is not – repeat – not... "evolution") in which case they will adapt to their environment based on the confines of (within) their genome (i.e. genetic mutation in some cases of which there is a loss of information). Yet these microorganisms will always remain microorganisms (despite the millions of bacteria generations which have been researched in the hope to show otherwise).

    However, humans will continually research ways to control potentially harmful microorganisms’ natural ability to survive, multiply & potentially cause health problems for us humans in the future. Yet this is hardly a battle of wits between humans & microorganisms... it’s a battle of something else.

    Enjoy the Olympics... a global show where one species reveal their physical & mental potential (equestrian aside).
  13. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    No single species matches the physical versatility of human beings ............

    I would go along with that. Although I would disagree that 'that is what the games are designed to display........' They may display it but they were not consciously designed to display it. But if they were why would anyone want to design games to show such a thing?

    Thus holistically human beings are the most diverse/versatile than any other creature on the planet.

    No I wouldn't go along with that. Selecting a narrow range of areas in which humans display a greater range of versatility does not allow you to generalise about human versatility. How versatile are we in terms of variation in atmospheric pressure, pH or surviving atomic blasts? The list is endless. Combine a few of them and you can create any result you want, eg rats are the most versatile animals on the planet or bacteria are more versatile than human beings.

    My use of the word 'superior' was based on your use of the word 'most', which I think is a superlative?

    Call yourself what you like but you are, like the rest of us, an animal and to find that 'debasing' would seem to add support my use of the word 'superior' to describe your view of humans with respect to other animals and plants.

    Yet it's hardly a battle of wits between humans and microrganisms.

    True but the one with the wits is always playing a game of catch up and is frightened witless at the prospect of the brainless competitor outwitting him, so to speak.

    I will come back on the drugs in sport one later in another thread.


  14. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Bill, I really do think you need to read posts more carefully in future & not put your own slanted spin on what one is intending to say on a topic... this is known as a straw man argument... & this discussion seems to be going round in circles...
    The cited article i.e. Even Usain Bolt can't beat greyhounds, cheetahs...or pronghorn antelope. Animals still trump extraordinary Olympian athleticism on speed, strength and endurance [Animal athletes: a performance view Veterinary Record July 28; 171; 87-94] did state... "But no single species matches the physical versatility of human beings, he concludes, and that is what the Games are designed to display to best effect." This seems to be just the opinion of the author of what the Games (Olympics) does consequently reflect; which is a valid observation in the context of comparing humans with other creatures of the planet. Some may find the comparative analogies interesting... I did, & subsequently wrote... "Thus holistically, humans are the most diverse/versatile than any other creature on the planet" in response with logical reasoning to substantiate my opinion i.e. when also including the mental faculty (i.e. imagination, contemplative, learning, problem solving capabilities to name a few). You choose to interpret the topic differently. Fair enough Bill.

    What "narrow range" was that? Was I supposed to provide an essay on the full extent of human versatility... I did include space travel & inhabitation of environments from pole to pole on the planet... & through human ingenuity we are able to accommodate for various "atmospheric pressure" states (the space travel point should have alluded to this). I think you also may want to look at the achievements of "rats" & "bacteria" a bit deeper, particularly in light of the opening word of my comment - "holistically".

    That's really pushing it... but if that's the way you wish to interpret it. It may be best just sticking to the grammar used by the person you are quoting... & in the context of the wording in future.

    No, I'm not an "animal" Bill (& neither are you), but if you choose to continue to see yourself as one then so be it Bill. If you don't want to see that humans are in any way special & should be placed in a different light to an animal or a plant (& subsequently/consequently treated as such) then this may say something with deeper undertones. This mindset can be the result of an erroneous premise with regard to the origin of human kind & can subsequently lead to the atrocities we have experienced in human history... that's not to say that everyone will condone this of follow this line based on a belief in this premise. Yet according to the following disturbing interview between Dr. Dawkins & Professor Singer there appears to be some "logically consistent" reasoning behind following a particular premise – which is a scientifically, logically & morally bankrupt premise... "human cannibalism" anyone??? :confused::confused:...

    "Peter Singer - The Genius of Darwin..." :pigs: ... what a load of nonsense!

    The fact that I believe you & everyone else as a more valuable being over an animal or plant should not be contestable... it is my opinion (backed up with valid facts in relation to the topic thus far) & a harmless one at that (some may say enlightening... potentially uplifting). I am also vegan for many reasons, two of which include optimal health for the human body & concern for the welfare of animals... as well as the biosphere.

    *** Now back on topic... "How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly".
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  15. Yes, Mathew, you are a member of the animal kingdom, and therefore, you are an animal, like the rest of us here on Podiatry Arena, since you probably fall under the following preferred definition for animals:

    Animal (definition): a multicellular organism that has a well-defined shape, usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli.
  16. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Kevin for the definition of the word “animal”... & that’s all it really is - man’s reasoned definition (those previous words speak volumes in the context of this discussion) of the creatures which fall into that category (albeit only outlining the physical parameters thereof). Whilst reading it I wondered would this definition also be ascribed to a “multicellular organism” found on another planet (anyway, we’ll leave this hypothetical alone). Thus the definition is a basic generalised one & does not elaborate further to support your view that humans are animals.

    Of course the definition you found to define “animals” is a valid one... but its association with homo sapiens - man/woman is???... could another quite rightly say that your association of humans with the “animal” definition you found is an... association fallacy (guilt by association)... particularly in relation to what should be overwhelming evidence of the distinct differences (uniqueness) of which you & I posses over the other creatures that fit into that holistic sterile definition.

    Anyway, can humans fit within the above definition – of course they can... stands to reason really for any living complex (multicellular) organism living within the same biosphere (of the same planet) in order to survive. I could go on further & say that the definition ascribes most life forms on this planet as it could in part be of a blue print engineered from the workings of a common designer (heaven forbid if I were to use the word “intelligent” as in the notorious word association - Intelligent Design). Let’s put metaphysics aside on this post... for want of a better analogy we classify cars, boats & aeroplanes naturally in different categories, yet they may have similar driving mechanisms - mechanical parts due to a common designer – i.e. Rolls Royce making engines for vehicles within these three categories yet serving very different end roles/purposes.

    However, as I have briefly outlined before, humans are different to the creatures defined within the animal kingdom for a number of reasons i.e. highly formed rational faculties which most here on Podiatry Arena are exercising when conveying their thoughts on this intricately designed/engineered cyberspace medium. Our ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions & frame hypotheses far out cedes any within the animal kingdom. Of course this is done via the use of language (& the potential to understand/use many languages) with the use of a vast vocabulary. All of this is the result in part to our strong sprit of inquiry... i.e. mathematics – astronomy; chemistry – pharmaceuticals; biology – medicine; physics – biomechanics, engineering etc... Then we have the realm of philosophy – where did we come from, who are we, where are we going (the search of origin & destiny)... this passionate (for some) quest for meaning... inquiry unlike any creature within the animal kingdom.

    Then we humans have this creative ability, some with a creative impulse... to produce music, dance, poetry, paintings, stories... to then collate these attributes into films/movies, albums, plays/theatre... along with the use of humour & drama to invoke certain emotions within us (i.e. inspiration). I don’t think I need to elaborate further on the issues surrounding morality & love when comparing between humans & “animals”.

    I will always stand by my position on the view that we humans are vastly different (unique) to “animals”... it goes far deeper than the physical/molecular level & should not be assessed within the narrow confines of that “animal” definition. That said, I acknowledge that many animals have fascinating behaviours (i.e. those of dogs, dolphins & elephants). Yet it isn’t clear to what extent this is ‘instinct’ & to what extent there is distinct conscious decision or behaviour in an altruistic manner. I personally feel there may in part be a relationship with the size of the frontal lobe of the animal’s brain. Yet, whilst humans continue to progress as a species (i.e. technology, education, creativity etc...) year after year throughout known history (particularly since the 19th century), animals seem to have continued to do what they have always done... simply survive within their environment. That said, I see humans should play a custodian role for animal welfare as well as the welfare for the planet... & each other (but something has gone wrong along the way).

    All these apparently very unique attributes (in relation to the animal kingdom) are more than just mere higher cognitive ability... they reveal something else... in fact a few things... one of which is free will & choice, of which consequently we also have this ability to take for granted these beautiful qualities, abuse them... dumbify them to the mere hypothetical consequences of uncaused, uninspired, undirected, random chance events from microbes to man evolution with some non-existent famous (or infamous) bipedal primate springboarding to homo sapien ... effectually debasing human value & meaning... & with not a shred of sound scientific evidence to support it... just a bankrupt historical philosophy, glorified by academia (materialists, Neo-Darwinists) within the sciences (evolution/naturalism) due to what could be seen as an underlying fear of the unknown & subsequent speculated consequences of having a... “metaphysical foot in the door”.

    Back to the crux of the original topic, I came across this interesting paper recently in analysing the running speed of the "fastest men on earth" (Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay & Asafa Powell) via Spring Mass Model data...

    Spring Mass Characteristics of the Fastest Men on Earth

    M.J. D. Taylor (1), R. Beneke (2)

    1. Centre for Sports and Exercise Science, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom
    2. Department of Medicine, Training and Health, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany
  17. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Press Release:
    Usain Bolt could break his own record with the help of altitude and the wind
  18. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

  19. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Bill for eventually responding... watching the Olympics were we? ;) :D (inside joke there).
    Anyway, like I've stated before when responding to you...
    I really don't have time to rehash on points (i.e. going round in circles) quite clearly outlined previously... albeit, I still often do :confused: . Anyway, to further clarify on some...
    You missed the point Bill... the definition was that ascribed to "animal"... animal OK... one of many such definitions... based on ones interpretation & world view & subsequently that of the reader when also interpreting & ascribing the definition in association to humans (i.e. guilt by association - an association fallacy) as outlined...
    Well in association to the above point... & as the word implies; the definition lacks substance, clarification... it is superficial in relation to the association with humans. "Sterile" in my dictionary also states... "lacking inspiration or vitality"... hence my use of it in this context.

    No, I selected certain human characteristics that are less developed in animals :D. See how it is a matter of interpretation based on ones underlying premise/belief. Besides, a lot of characteristics could be considered "universal" between living creatures - particularly the considered "more intelligent ones"... interesting fact in itself, of which I won't muddy the waters further with explanation.

    Besides, how much further do I need to go on elaborating on attributes? My posts are long enough as they are (I'm sure most here will agree) without needing to delve into every possible aspect of my position. It seems you just don't want to understand the gist of my point - that is humans have quite unique attributes that set us apart from the animal kingdom. I have outlined some key points that most could grapple with. Funny enough, when some animals express like characteristics in similar manner we then like to associate it with human traits (& not vice versa).

    Yes, thank you - case in point. Animals do have varying developed/sensitive characteristics than humans (i.e. eyesight, hearing also come to mind). This should be an obvious concept to most & we can then delve into other uniquely developed attributes of other animals but I have simply outlined some unique attributes associated with humans which have put us on a different path to those within the animal kingdom (cue: look out your window now... see what we’ve done).

    I've made that point quite clear before in my previous post Bill. Like I've said, if you don't want to see it then that's your prerogative. If you want to continue to see yourself, your family, friends & patients as animals then so be it. However...

    I don't!

    ... & have outlined to reasonable extent on this thread as to why I feel this way (the audacity of me).

    Oh, I'm now being "too specific" now. I think the nature of our cognitive processes plays a big part in what makes an organism the way it is... & yes, I agree that the result is a functional difference... to say the least (hence this mindful discussion on this medium known as cyberspace - hint, hint)... next point...

    Yes... "'survival within their environment'"... & way beyond for us humans... oddly enough apparently (hence this discussion on cyberspace). Please don't put a simpleton slant on this point - our stated attributes above goes far beyond "survival" to which we must simply defend ourselves, find food & procreate... we don't require advancement of "technology, education, creativity etc..." for that.

    Yes, thanks... "debasing human value & meaning" is "getting to it" (in part)... & should cause the penny to drop for most if they were to objectively think about it long enough... & the potential consequences of the "humans are animals" perspective. I have "clearly" outlined some aspects relating to "human value & meaning" & see no point making this post any longer by clarifying further... besides to do so I would like to think would be an insult to your intelligence. You just need to remember what Obi Wan Kenobi said to Luke Skywalker... "search your feelings" (for want of a better analogy).

    Hmmm, well that figures... you don't believe in the value of things before your eyes yet believe in the historical assumptions/interpretations associated within the fields of sciences you can't see/observe/analyse. I'm am not referring to observation/experimental sciences but to the sciences that ascribe historical assumptions/interpretations that are quite frankly bankrupt of logic & reason but there to prop up a failing ideology i.e. Geology with it uniformitarianism (which many Geologists have big problems with) & Biology with the apparent acquisition of millions/billions bits/bytes of information accumulating (from who knows where) in an apparently organised process to gain specific structure/function i.e. molecule to man evolution (which many Biologists have big problems with). Here are just a few quotes by those within the fields in the past year or two...

    - “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.” - Kate Wong, ‘First of Our Kind’ Scientific American, April 2012, p. 32.

    - “We thought we had just about nailed human evolution, now everything is up for grabs again.” - Ed Yong, New Scientist, July 30, 2011, p. 35.

    - “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.” - Bernard Wood, paleoanthropologist, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 15, 2011.

    - “The last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans remains a holy grail in science....” - Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News, 2010 Discovery Communications.

    But... I'm not about to turn this thread into an evolution debate. We have gone too far off topic as it is - you have asked questions & I have given you the courtesy of a reply. Yet the title of this topic is... "How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly." Of which I have interest in because of my long standing involvement with athletics.

    "Fear" is an appropriate reaction in the presence of danger & subsequently is a "good survival feature"... but I would like to think that I clearly wasn't alluding to physical danger here... I was clearly alluding to knowledge/academia/enlightenment. Fear is not appropriate if it stagnates progress & enlightenment... ironically, this is what has separated humans from the animals (i.e. technological progress & cognitive enlightenment) - so I can see why some would resonate with this debasing viewpoint - particularly if they still wish to see themselves as an "animal".

    Yes I have... two that come to mind has been the infamous (epic) Barefoot Running Debate. I had issue with one aspect of it starting at post # 411 (here) ... of which you can see some of the concerns & in subsequent posts.

    The other one is naturally the Evolution thread... starting here at post # 71.

    Like I said, I am not going to turn this thread down this path; if people want to use evolution for their reasoning, I have the right to put forward an alternative perspective which better fits the science & laws of logic as we currently know. It would seem most topics (i.e. foot mechanics, running footwear views etc...) can handle such alternative inquiring &/or competition - apparently not evolution... which should speak volumes about its shaky grounding.

    Good bye & all the best Bill... of which I will continue to view this mindful discussion with a human being, purposely made & special among the human kingdom - not an animal within the animal kingdom.

Share This Page