Human Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible


Recommended Posts

FloatingFatMan

This BBC article would appear to have some relevance to the topic at hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483401.stm

Wearing cushioned running shoes may have changed the way in which many of us run, new research suggests.

Using slow-motion footage, scientists have discovered that experienced barefoot runners land very differently from runners who wear shoes.

The researchers showed that runners who have trained barefoot tend to strike the ground with their forefoot or mid-foot, rather than their heel.

The team described their findings in the journal Nature.

Barefoot runners, the scientists say, may be at less risk of certain types of injury than those who wear cushioned running shoes.

Many of Petrossa's arguments are based on the impact suffered from running with shoes; which shoe technology attempts to overcome but isn't completely satisfactory at. It would appear that barefoot runners don't suffer this level of impact (though the article does later discuss increased stress on the calves and Achilles tendon, requiring careful introduction to this running style).

So perhaps, assuming the OP article is right and speeds of 40mph are possible, perhaps it would only be so if the runner is barefoot, for the required cushioning obtains from using this styke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn
Lol. Not much of porn fan obviously; Well that shows you have a clean mind. For the record: Above 30 pornstars are very active. Look up the acronym MILF on a porn site.

I said most, not all ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
lamminium

We had the 'healthy' exercise discussion already and i've shown conclusively that there's no scientific foundation for it. Being fit yes, but fit doesn't equal healthy. People can suffer from life threatening diseases and still be fit.

About the running.

I don't your background but i am sure you have some engineering in there. If you do my center mass/curved spine comparison you can see the lines of force running straight through the back of the spine and distributing part of that load towards front via the disks at every step you make.

Coupled with the extremely high proportion of hernia's at any age, one can conclusively state that even mere walking already does enough damage to the back. I mean you are not going to get hernia's sitting in a chair and if most hernia's were due to a false movement and /or heavy lifting of objects you wouldn't see hernia's all over the cross section of the population.

That top athletes are self selected prime genetic material is more than obvious and as such are completely unrepresentative for the population. That even prime genetic material has it's limits is also obvious.

My lecturer covered this topic reasonably well. Pathoanatomy is one of his favourites.

I kept asking you to clarify your position because your proposal was very extreme. Disc injuries can have mechanical and/or genetic etiology. For the latter, it's something that naturally puts the patients at any age at risk. No questions asked. For the former, it is more debatable as to whether your assumption always holds. Clearly it doesn't. If it were always true, everyone would be hospitalised. One obvious explanation for the frequency of lumbosacral disc herniation and the fact that the nucleus is more posterior (nearer the back) is the fact the disc lies at the transition interface between the lumbar lordosis and sacral kyphosis. The line of gravity happens to meet this interface therefore exerts a great force resulting in the need to position the nucleus more posteriorly to absorb the pressure (This explains why we don't see anterior herniation but almost always posterior). Of all the discs in the spinal cord, greatest movement occurs at the lumbosacral section thus allows it to be susceptible to more compression at the front. When you walk, the design of this interface limits the risk of herniation, therefore for a person without genetic predisposition, the usual requirement for the condition to manifest is apply a huge pressure to the front (bending forward). This is why I couldn't follow your logic at the start of this thread.

The origin of this discussion is your claim that if one were to achieve the said speed of 40mph, he/she would suffer disc herniation at later age. Now that you added that the athletes who could reach that speed were genetically superior; in that case, our discussion ends here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

This BBC article would appear to have some relevance to the topic at hand.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8483401.stm

Many of Petrossa's arguments are based on the impact suffered from running with shoes; which shoe technology attempts to overcome but isn't completely satisfactory at.??It would appear that barefoot runners don't suffer this level of impact (though the article does later discuss increased stress on the calves and Achilles tendon, requiring careful introduction to this running style).

So perhaps, assuming the OP article is right and speeds of 40mph are possible, perhaps it would only be so if the runner is barefoot, for the required cushioning obtains from using this styke.

Most of petrossa's comments were based on the current situation: proper running shoes.

Just look at it from an engineering standpoint. You have increased your weight by speeding up. You need to push harder and give yourself enough momentum to go farther at each step. Therefore your body contains a lot of kinetic energy. Which needs to absorbed. Whilst the shoes cushion your feet, they do nothing for your upper body which only suffers the full impact of your landing after your feet have already touched ground.

The only reason runners can do what they do now is due to proper running shoes. Furthermore there's a limit were cushioning eats too much energy, you need firm ground to land on, otherwise why not run on springs?

The origin of this discussion is your claim that if one were to achieve the said speed of 40mph, he/she would suffer disc herniation at later age. Now that you added that the athletes who could reach that speed were genetically superior; in that case, our discussion ends here.

Current top runners have genetic advantage otherwise they wouldn't be top runners. Not everyone can become a top runner. That's the reason why at this point they don't suffer the consequences as much as you or i would.

If you increase the rate of wear and tear beyond even the capacity of the genetic advantage then you'll also suffer the consequences.

Seems blindingly obvious to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am Reid

This BBC article would appear to have some relevance to the topic at hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483401.stm

Many of Petrossa's arguments are based on the impact suffered from running with shoes; which shoe technology attempts to overcome but isn't completely satisfactory at. It would appear that barefoot runners don't suffer this level of impact (though the article does later discuss increased stress on the calves and Achilles tendon, requiring careful introduction to this running style).

So perhaps, assuming the OP article is right and speeds of 40mph are possible, perhaps it would only be so if the runner is barefoot, for the required cushioning obtains from using this styke.

When I used to sprint I was always told to land with the front/toes, not your heel, thats pretty common knowledge that if you want to run fast you land on your toes with or without shoes. Although I will admit that when I run barefoot I am pretty much 100% on my toes, its more natural.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

When I used to sprint I was always told to land with the front/toes, not your heel, thats pretty common knowledge that if you want to run fast you land on your toes with or without shoes. Although I will admit that when I run barefoot I am pretty much 100% on my toes, its more natural.

However you land at one time or another the kinetic energy needs to be transferred. Surely running toes ?is what all running animals do, it not only lengthens your stroke but also absorbs a bit of the downforce and cushions the blow. But anything that absorbs downforce absorbs also driving force so makes your push less effective.

Can't have it both ways (yet).

And as soon as the kinetic energy is transferred to the ground on landing the whole body releases its momentum and causes a shockwave to travel through the spine and the limbs.

The spine with it's curvature has been evolved somewhat to absorb the kinetic energy through its spinal disks and by bending the spine inwards.?

This causes the back of the disk to be compressed and the front to be released.

Now you write an entire doctoral thesis this not so, have it peer reviewed and concurred by all the peers here and on mars but that doesn't change the fact it is so.

Just simple physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vortex566

As someone who runs a lot I found the article on bare feet running to be interesting. I often spend around ?120 once every 6-9 months on a decent pair of running shoes. I like the idea that it might be better for me to run bare-footed? This would be no use for road running but on a track? Come the summer months I might give it a go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

As someone who runs a lot I found the article on bare feet running to be interesting. I often spend around ?120 once every 6-9 months on a decent pair of running shoes. I like the idea that it might be better for me to run bare-footed? This would be no use for road running but on a track? Come the summer months I might give it a go.

You'd need to start slowly to build up your skin layers. But from all the papers i've read nothing beats barefoot running. The shape of the foot is quite effective as it has evolved over the millenia.

Putting a box around it only hinders its function.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

However you land at one time or another the kinetic energy needs to be transferred. Surely running toes ?is what all running animals do, it not only lengthens your stroke but also absorbs a bit of the downforce and cushions the blow. But anything that absorbs downforce absorbs also driving force so makes your push less effective.

Can't have it both ways (yet).

And as soon as the kinetic energy is transferred to the ground on landing the whole body releases its momentum and causes a shockwave to travel through the spine and the limbs.

The spine with it's curvature has been evolved somewhat to absorb the kinetic energy through its spinal disks and by bending the spine inwards.?

This causes the back of the disk to be compressed and the front to be released.

Now you write an entire doctoral thesis this not so, have it peer reviewed and concurred by all the peers here and on mars but that doesn't change the fact it is so.

Just simple physics.

Yes; simple physics. Except, when running on toes, the downforce ISN'T completely absorbed, is it? It's stored temporarily by the elasticity of the Achilles tendon, and redirected back through the foot as part of the "push" when it flexes back; just like how a bungee cord works. SOME of the energy is absorbed, that is true; but no where NEAR all of it. The impact force that DOES get delivered to the skeleton from this running style is FAR less than that through heel impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Yes; simple physics.??Except, when running on toes, the downforce ISN'T completely absorbed, is it???It's stored temporarily by the elasticity of the Achilles tendon, and redirected back through the foot as part of the "push" when it flexes back; just like how a bungee cord works.?? SOME of the energy is absorbed, that is true; but no where NEAR all of it.??The impact force that DOES get delivered to the skeleton from this running style is FAR less than that through heel impact.

Sure. There is some energy stored. But at a certain tipping point your body can't store the energy anymore and does impart it on the ground. In fact the majority of the force is expanded else we could run without effort. Simple mechanics.

So it isn't FAR less, it is somewhat less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lamminium

Current top runners have genetic advantage otherwise they wouldn't be top runners. Not everyone can become a top runner. That's the reason why at this point they don't suffer the consequences as much as you or i would.

If you increase the rate of wear and tear beyond even the capacity of the genetic advantage then you'll also suffer the consequences.

Seems blindingly obvious to me.

Athletes do rest. So if you look at the whole picture, rest + reduced intensity at old age -> less risk of disc herniation at old age. This is why I didn't outright say your hypothesis was wrong but cautioned that it was very extreme and not always applicable.

As soon as we bring the genetic superiority into the discussion, it's when all common knowledge is challenged; that's why I don't want to discuss this any further.

Had you stated that disc herniation could be a consequence under certain circumstances, your statement would have sounded much more reasonable. I was curious by your sentiment that your hypothesis was 100% accurate (= always applies).

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Athletes do rest. So if you look at the whole picture, rest + reduced intensity at old age -> less risk of disc herniation at old age. This is why I didn't outright say your hypothesis was wrong but cautioned that it was very extreme and not always applicable.

As soon as we bring the genetic superiority into the discussion, it's when all common knowledge is challenged; that's why I don't want to discuss this any further.

Had you stated that disc herniation could be a consequence under certain circumstances, your statement would have sounded much more reasonable. I was curious by your sentiment that your hypothesis was 100% accurate (= always applies).

If it is possible the person doing it he would wish he hadn't after a short time of wearing his cartilage down to nothing due to the enormous stresses generated. Not to speak of his spine. Every disk in it will herniate.

Is what i OP'd. From the whole context it should be obvious that i'm overstating to make a point. I never made the definitive statement such as you claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lamminium

Doesn't hurt to make sure. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

If it is possible the person doing it he would wish he hadn't after a short time of wearing his cartilage down to nothing due to the enormous stresses generated. Not to speak of his spine. Every disk in it will herniate.

Is what i OP'd. From the whole context it should be obvious that i'm overstating to make a point. I never made the definitive statement such as you claim.

It looks pretty definitive statement to me. You state "would" and "will"; not "could" and "potentially". Like in many of your posts, you seem to take the black & white view, ignoring the multiple levels of grey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

It looks pretty definitive statement to me.??You state "would" and "will"; not "could" and "potentially".??Like in many of your posts, you seem to take the black & white view, ignoring the multiple levels of grey.

Come on FFM. That's being petulant. I just flung out a remark pointing out a very obvious error in the basic assumption of the OP article. The OP extrapolates just one side of the running aspect and blandly states that we can run as fast as 40 mph.

What i wanted to point out in a very simple sentence is that this assumption is based on another assumption, namely that the human body could cope with the stresses generated.

To me this was more than obvious. To everyone else it wasn't. Now i've spend typing my fingers blunt so that even Lam concurs (somewhat).?

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

Come on FFM. That's being petulant. I just flung out a remark pointing out a very obvious error in the basic assumption of the OP article. The OP extrapolates just one side of the running aspect and blandly states that we can run as fast as 40 mph.

What i wanted to point out in a very simple sentence is that this assumption is based on another assumption, namely that the human body could cope with the stresses generated.

To me this was more than obvious. To everyone else it wasn't. Now i've spend typing my fingers blunt so that even Lam concurs (somewhat).

The OP articles makes no such assumption. The OP article doesn't comment on long term affects at ALL, in fact. The OP article merely discusses that the previously thought limitation to speed might not be what was previously though; but might instead be related to muscle response time. Stresses involved are essentially a branch topic on their hypothesis.

Plus, the researchers showed that current top performing sprinters aren't getting anywhere near the force limits the human body can take, so your whole presumption of increased muscle response time causing herniation isn't really a valid viewpoint until you can show that such increased response time would increase skeletal stresses beyond tolerance limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

The OP articles makes no such assumption. The OP article doesn't comment on long term affects at ALL, in fact. The OP article merely discusses that the previously thought limitation to speed might not be what was previously though; but might instead be related to muscle response time.??Stresses involved are essentially a branch topic on their hypothesis.

Plus, the researchers showed that current top performing sprinters aren't getting anywhere near the force limits the human body can take, so your whole presumption of increased muscle response time causing herniation isn't really a valid viewpoint until you can show that such increased response time would increase skeletal stresses beyond tolerance limits.

Yes it does. Already assuming that past performance can be extrapolated just by looking at past progress is exactly that. And they didn't show no such thing as you claim. Their interpretation of stress was based on muscle clearance/burning rates not on the skeletal stresses.

You can put a V8 in a mini Cooper (some has done that actually, he had to sit on the back seat to drive) but if you go full throttle the wheels explode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

Again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming that the conjectured running speed of 40mph actually increases stresses beyond tolerable limits, and you don't know that. It MIGHT do so, and the net result MIGHT need to herniation problems etc later in life; but you don't KNOW that it will.

Therefore your assertion is nothing but a conjecture based on nothing but a layman's knowledge of the field, and can be dismissed until such time as its demonstrated to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lamminium

To me this was more than obvious. To everyone else it wasn't. Now i've spend typing my fingers blunt so that even Lam concurs (somewhat).

You see: I don't reject your hypothesis because in certain situations, it can happen. That's fair enough.

Given the premise and the right conditions, a certain effect may occur. I just don't agree when one makes a definitive prediction when the prediction itself suffers many unacknowledged constraints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming that the conjectured running speed of 40mph actually increases stresses beyond tolerable limits, and you don't know that.??It MIGHT do so, and the net result MIGHT need to herniation problems etc later in life; but you don't KNOW that it will.

Therefore your assertion is nothing but a conjecture based on nothing but a layman's knowledge of the field, and can be dismissed until such time as its demonstrated to be true.

I've already demonstrated that at present day with normal life patterns herniated disks makeup around 30% across the population.

That's just average joe walking about from his car to the office taking the elevator etc.

Just how do you imagine adding enormous stresses to the body doesn't influence this? The human spine is still between being quadriped and biped. It's not well suited for either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

I've already demonstrated that at present day with normal life patterns herniated disks makeup around 30% across the population.

That's just average joe walking about from his car to the office taking the elevator etc.

Just how do you imagine adding enormous stresses to the body doesn't influence this? The human spine is still between being quadriped and biped. It's not well suited for either.

And average Joe is usually a fat git who's back problems are caused by him carrying excessive weight and never getting off his fat arse and exercising.

I know that full well, as I *am* a fat git with back problems. I've also shrunk several centimeters because of it!

But you know what? I *am* getting off my fat arse and exercising, and the back problems are reducing. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

And average Joe is usually a fat git who's back problems are caused by him carrying excessive weight and never getting off his fat arse and exercising.

I know that full well, as I *am* a fat git with back problems.??I've also shrunk several centimeters because of it!

But you know what???I *am* getting off my fat arse and exercising, and the back problems are reducing. ;)

Strange, i got back problems due to exercise. Taking it easier took a 'load of my back' and i'm the better for it.

As always its balance that counts. ?Ask any gardener,cobbler, gravedigger what the effort does in their backs.?

Too much is as bad as too little.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

Strange, i got back problems due to exercise. Taking it easier took a 'load of my back' and i'm the better for it.

As always its balance that counts. Ask any gardener,cobbler, gravedigger what the effort does in their backs.

Too much is as bad as too little.

I agree that too much is just as bad as too little.

But one first has to define where the limits are, and each persons limits are not only different, but also variable. I, for example, would never EVER be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt can. Not even if I lost all the excess weight and trained hard. However, I would certainly expand what my current limits are by a considerable amount, and in fact, have already done so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

I agree that too much is just as bad as too little.

But one first has to define where the limits are, and each persons limits are not only different, but also variable.??I, for example, would never EVER be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt can.??Not even if I lost all the excess weight and trained hard.??However, I would certainly expand what my current limits are by a considerable amount, and in fact, have already done so.

That's because he is genetically favored. Mozart was favored for music, Einstein for thinking out of the box. A case in point is that overall Nigerians outrun anything on earth. Bolt isn't i know but just to make the point that running is largely genetically driven else why have so many good Nigerian runners?

People live to be 100+ regardless of their diet, style of life. People die at an early age despite being in top physical condition.?

Those are the exceptions.

Average joe isn't. So he suffers from herniated disks whilst not doing much. The human spine is not cut out for walking upright nor on all fours. It's in between and as such unfit for either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

And the OP article also isn't talking about Average Joe either. It's saying that it's potentially possible for top runners to go faster than now. Meaning people genetically favoured for running, not Average Joe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.