Interesting stuff but probably impossible to do in actual performance.
https://www.livescience.com/animals/human-speed-limit-running-100122.html
Humans Could Run 40 mph, in Theory
-
-
Participant
-
Participant
LMAO!
Who paid these scientists to figure out that: “The top speed humans could reach may come down to how quickly muscles in the body can move. ” Really?? 🙂
My car could also go 300mph if I could get the axle to spin faster and pistons to pump more rapidly.
-
Participant
Interesting stuff but probably impossible to do in actual performance.
https://www.livescience.com/animals/human-speed-limit-running-100122.html
So humans can run at 40mph (compared to 28mph currently)…At risk of sounding like a broken record (for those that remember the days of records) in contrast to this article everyone seems to base their speed improvement program on more vertical force production (as per the results of the Weyand study). However we are already capable of producing 30% more (according to this article) vertical force production on one leg so why bother training to improve it further by squatting mutliple times body weight (between 2 legs)?
“The top speed humans could reach may come down to how quickly muscles in the body can move”. 😉 How do we move our muscles quicker?
“Their results showed the critical biological limit is imposed by time – specifically, the very brief periods of time available to apply force to the ground while sprinting”
😉 For top speed running, why don’t we train instead to apply (small horizontal plus large vertical) force in shorter periods of time? -
KeymasterNot possible if you ask me. Consider this…the person would quite easily run under 7 seconds in the 100m if they followed acceleration patterns even remotely similar to today’s sprinters, their maxV would be 17.9 m/s compared to the 12.6 m/s that are observed today (in only the VERY best sprinters), they’d have a flying 10m split of 0.55, and likely go through 30m and 60m in 2.65 and 4.49 seconds (both from blocks with reaction time mind you) and would beat Usain Bolt by over 30m in the 100m and would have run almost 70 yards by the time your average NFL skill player would take to run 40 yards.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Not possible if you ask me. Consider this…the person would quite easily run under 7 seconds in the 100m if they followed acceleration patterns even remotely similar to today’s sprinters, their maxV would be 17.9 m/s compared to the 12.6 m/s that are observed today (in only the VERY best sprinters), they’d have a flying 10m split of 0.55, and likely go through 30m and 60m in 2.65 and 4.49 seconds (both from blocks with reaction time mind you) and would beat Usain Bolt by over 30m in the 100m and would have run almost 70 yards by the time your average NFL skill player would take to run 40 yards.
If running speed is limited by ground force production time running with substantially shorter contact times is still possible (if we could find a way). The gct’s of Usain and company of 80ms approximately are within that of a human muscle single twitch of 55-88ms (Eberstein and Googold 1968). However we don’t know how much pre-activation of the muscle occurs prior to the gct. Just looking at single twitch times as the limitation it seems plausible that human can run faster with gct’s possible of around 55ms (18 m/s) but we would be faced by two problems at least.
1 – how much force can we produce in a single muscle twitch?
2 – how much coordination is required by all the working muscle groups if we are relying on a perfect first time recruitment pattern? I’d hate to think what it would look like if the recruitment pattern went wrong!Any more problems that we can think of?
As impossible (and fascinating) as it seems by identifying the limitations (muscle contraction time or force produced in a single twitch) we are a step closer to approaching our limitations.
Thoughts?
-
Participant
Am I the only one that is reminded of that part of the Ani-Matrix where the guy runs so fast he actually leaves the Matrix during a race and wakes up in the real world, but is put back into the Matrix in a wheelchair?
Now you all know I’m a nerd.
-
Participant
A couple of things and Mike already pointed what the requirements would be following todays acceleration pattern to achieve such speeds so lets take this one step further. What fuel are they going to need to use to create the energy necessary to achieve these speeds? ATP system, so phosphate is the fuel and that’s an awfully heavy fuel to be carrying around. Now couple that with our current skeletal and muscular structure and you have 2 huge limitations to sustain the current acceleration curve significantly or alter initial acceleration to reach such speeds. I don’t think you have to go to the fibre level to find this impractical as I am pretty sure contraction times in fast twitch muscle among mammals is not all that different and I am almost positive that all mammals share around the same maximum range of phosphate storage.
-
Participant
LMAO!
Who paid these scientists to figure out that: “The top speed humans could reach may come down to how quickly muscles in the body can move. ” Really?? 🙂
My car could also go 300mph if I could get the axle to spin faster and pistons to pump more rapidly.
You can change the gear ratio and size of tires to make it go faster. Which in a sense is either the biggest or second biggest major anatomical problem humans have in not running near the top of the food chain.
-
Keymaster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A05_UIVp3E
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
A couple of things and Mike already pointed what the requirements would be following todays acceleration pattern to achieve such speeds so lets take this one step further. What fuel are they going to need to use to create the energy necessary to achieve these speeds? ATP system, so phosphate is the fuel and that’s an awfully heavy fuel to be carrying around. Now couple that with our current skeletal and muscular structure and you have 2 huge limitations to sustain the current acceleration curve significantly or alter initial acceleration to reach such speeds. I don’t think you have to go to the fibre level to find this impractical as I am pretty sure contraction times in fast twitch muscle among mammals is not all that different and I am almost positive that all mammals share around the same maximum range of phosphate storage.
ATP is so old-school. If you want to run 40mph you’ve got to tap in to AQP…Adenosine QUAD Phosphate.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A05_UIVp3E[/youtube]
That video is awesome
-
Participant
[quote author="Daniel Andrews" date="1269860964"]A couple of things and Mike already pointed what the requirements would be following todays acceleration pattern to achieve such speeds so lets take this one step further. What fuel are they going to need to use to create the energy necessary to achieve these speeds? ATP system, so phosphate is the fuel and that’s an awfully heavy fuel to be carrying around. Now couple that with our current skeletal and muscular structure and you have 2 huge limitations to sustain the current acceleration curve significantly or alter initial acceleration to reach such speeds. I don’t think you have to go to the fibre level to find this impractical as I am pretty sure contraction times in fast twitch muscle among mammals is not all that different and I am almost positive that all mammals share around the same maximum range of phosphate storage.
ATP is so old-school. If you want to run 40mph you’ve got to tap in to AQP…Adenosine QUAD Phosphate.[/quote]
I am starting to think Weyand is a quack. He patented a formula for estimate running speed, not sure how the Patent Attorneys let that pass inspection. Now he’s changed his mind and made outlandish quotes over the past couple of years. I should visit BearPowered to see if Barry and Ken are still in agreement with Dr. Weyand. I am sure I told Ken the major problem with top speed is likely to be gct, because acceleration ends when gct’s become consistent (ie stop decreasing).
-
Participant
A couple of things and Mike already pointed what the requirements would be following todays acceleration pattern to achieve such speeds so lets take this one step further. What fuel are they going to need to use to create the energy necessary to achieve these speeds? ATP system, so phosphate is the fuel and that’s an awfully heavy fuel to be carrying around. Now couple that with our current skeletal and muscular structure and you have 2 huge limitations to sustain the current acceleration curve significantly or alter initial acceleration to reach such speeds. I don’t think you have to go to the fibre level to find this impractical as I am pretty sure contraction times in fast twitch muscle among mammals is not all that different and I am almost positive that all mammals share around the same maximum range of phosphate storage.
It would be interesting if there was a training modality that resulted with an increase in phosphocreatine storage. Without digging up old wounds, it would also be of interest to know if certain genetic make-ups have higher phosphocreatine levels or were more likely to increase phosphocreatine storage from training. As far as I can see no such situation exists but if anyone has any information to that effect…
Re Weyand’s patent: I don’t get why you would patent a running speed formula. Does that mean that if you quote it you have to pay? Who in their right mind would pay or patent without getting it right first? Sigh…If only I had patented 1+1=2
-
Participant
[quote author="Daniel Andrews" date="1269860964"]A couple of things and Mike already pointed what the requirements would be following todays acceleration pattern to achieve such speeds so lets take this one step further. What fuel are they going to need to use to create the energy necessary to achieve these speeds? ATP system, so phosphate is the fuel and that’s an awfully heavy fuel to be carrying around. Now couple that with our current skeletal and muscular structure and you have 2 huge limitations to sustain the current acceleration curve significantly or alter initial acceleration to reach such speeds. I don’t think you have to go to the fibre level to find this impractical as I am pretty sure contraction times in fast twitch muscle among mammals is not all that different and I am almost positive that all mammals share around the same maximum range of phosphate storage.
It would be interesting if there was a training modality that resulted with an increase in phosphocreatine storage. Without digging up old wounds, it would also be of interest to know if certain genetic make-ups have higher phosphocreatine levels or were more likely to increase phosphocreatine storage from training. As far as I can see no such situation exists but if anyone has any information to that effect…
Re Weyand’s patent: I don’t get why you would patent a running speed formula. Does that mean that if you quote it you have to pay? Who in their right mind would pay or patent without getting it right first? Sigh…If only I had patented 1+1=2[/quote]
No Really, how about patent on X^0=1
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
Are you insinuating that if we could just reduce GCT a little more, we could acclerate longer and run faster? The cause and effect is out of order. GCT follows velocity which follows acceleration. The athletes velocity maxes out when he can accerlerate no further, so GCT, which is a function of velocity, also stops decreasing. But shorter GCT’s are actually the cause of the inability to accelerate furtner because they limit power output. Further reduction in GCT from any source other than the velocity itself would not improve velocity, it would impede it, and the athlete would slow.
-
Participant
Always an interesting read.
https://plus.maths.org/content/no-limits-usain
https://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/06/cheetahs-vs-humans-sprinting-limits.html
[img]https://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/articles/2011/usain/graph2.gif[/img]
Certainly is an interesting read but only trivial information really. The prediction that humans could run at 40 mph is based on the easily observable ‘old’ testament flawed theory that humans can produce much more vertical force than they actually choose to produce when sprinting. The amount of vertical force needed to be applied to a formula with no basis in physics; it had no relationship to Newton’s laws of motion; it was a formula used to describe a (linearly assumed) relationship observed on a graph of runners and 3 elite sprinters on a treadmill (no air resistance)and was not derived from first principles.
Pity about the 9 seconds website; it had some interesting titles particularly the type IIb muscle fibers; pls update when u figure out how to access it
(PS glad to see you’ve gotten over your obsession with tendon elasticity)
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
Hi Jeremy, Regarding the sentence(s) [i]“The prediction that humans could run at 40 mph is based on the easily observable ‘old’ testament flawed theory [b]that humans can produce much more vertical force[/b] than they actually choose to produce when sprinting”[/i].
And the [i]“obsession with tendon elasticity”[/i].
Don’t you believe an increase in tendon elasticity will result in an increase in humans being able to produce greater vertical forces?.
Regarding the 9 seconds website, I’m going to visit a few internet cafes in my area to see if there computers can access the articles, if so, I will save them all to a USB disk & copy/paste them here.
Perhaps you haven’t lost your obsession with tendon elasticity yet.
I don’t want to hurt people’s feeling especially when they’ve held on to views (importance of vertical force) and promoted it but… horizontal force was not measured by Weyand (2000) in the study in which he promoted vertical force as the holy grail for fastest running. For slower speeds vertical force is important because it does allow greater heights (though no where near maximal) from which tendons (of the ankle) can be loaded and the spring utilised to enhance running economy. If you want to see some type of proof look at the benefit of plyometric exercise; its been proven to benefit sprinting but all the gains are in the first 10m where speeds are slower or more importantly ground force production times are longer. This is important because it takes time to load up the tendon in order to get the benefit of spring. On the other hand plyometric exercise has been proven to benefit endurance running (there are studies on this site that you can refer to on this). Another observation you could make instead of relying on studies is the video tape. Look at distance runners and you’ll see greater oscillation in vertical height. Also you’ll notice in sprinters that the oscillation gets smaller as the speeds near maximal.
In fact studies support the fact that sprint running demands stiffness in the ankle not springness. However if you really need to know that tendons can help sprinting look at the hamstrings. There is plenty of time and range of movement to load up the tendons whilst the leg is not in contact with the ground.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1314718196"]
I don’t want to hurt people’s feeling especially when they’ve held on to views (importance of vertical force) and promoted it but… horizontal force was not measured by Weyand (2000) in the study in which he promoted vertical force as the holy grail for fastest running.Can you see the importance of producing greater vertical forces with a tailwind?.[/quote]
My gut feeling is no.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone change their mechanics and “programmed” rhythym.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone make sprinting a conscious task. It must be reflexive.
Maybe you could collect data from sprint races carried out with and without a tailwind and compare how many steps they take; it might give us a clue as to what elite sprinters do. Better if you can estimate how high they run. You’ll need a large sample of data to get a significant difference.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1315416095"]My gut feeling is no.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone change their mechanics and “programmed” rhythym.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone make sprinting a conscious task. It must be reflexive.
Maybe you could collect data from sprint races carried out with and without a tailwind and compare how many steps they take; it might give us a clue as to what elite sprinters do. Better if you can estimate how high they run. You’ll need a large sample of data to get a significant difference.
I’m just thinking back to my golfing days. With a tailwind, the higher you hit the ball from the tee the more distance/flight you would achieve.[/quote]
True that the strength of the wind is greater the higher you go, an increase in vertical height to say 5 cm from the 1 or 2 cm that world class sprinters use is not going to make much difference. Therefore it would be unwise to change mechanics just to tap into the favourable winds. The tailwind will still provide the same force whether the runner is mid-flight compared to when they are in contact with the ground so no need to increase vertical height. Ultimately, a tailwind will only reduce the net effect of drag; a tailwind of 2m/s will obviously reduce the drag encountered by the world class sprinter at 12m/s to an equivalent 10m/s; a tailwind is not a sail – you still have to run -
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
In this link it says “All signs point to the being faster”, but it never actually details or says the signs.
Seems like more of your non research research that you use.
Maybe, if we run like Cheetahs, with a spear, barefoot, while being chased by woolly mammoths and velocsa raptors, we will finally be like Bolt, Blake, Lewis, Johnson, Gay, Spearmon, Jones, Montgomery, Merrit, etc who continue to find new ways to train.
But wait…if the cavemen, indeed, looked like the Geico cavemen, then wouldn’t they run even faster without that hair? Maybe that can be your next BS, they effect of arm hair on sprint speed…
-
Participant
not to mention the article uses the ancient aboriginal’s footprints to determine max V whereas they compare it to Bolt’s average speed, not his max V of around 44km/h
Still putting my money on Bolt in spikes.
-
Participant
Ive taken to sleeping in a cave overnight to best replicate our ancestors approach. I also like to draw on walls, which hasnt gone down well with my girlfriend.
On a more serious note, my main issue with barefoot running is that there is less friction between foot and track when compared to wearing spikes. As friction is one of the forces that take us forwards, I can only see a lack of friction as a disadvantage.
-
Participant
[b]Cavemen faster than Bolt?.[/b]
https://www.thesatellite.com.au/story/2011/10/30/aboriginals-faster-bolt/
There’s that barefoot vibe again.
Running with a spear?, well I’m up for anything, lol.
“Scientists believe that these aboriginal ancestors would have been capable of speeds of more than 45km/h if they’d had the same modern advantages as Usain Bolt,” Duncanson writes.
Let’s not get carried away here; those scientists made the assumptions based on stride length (pls correct me if I’m wrong). Presuming I’m correct about those assumptions, the notion of stride length being associated with running speed is ridiculous. Triple jumpers have enormous stride lengths so why don’t sprinter’s choose to bound instead of running.
-
Participant
[b]Is there a limit to human capacity?.
The likes of sprinter Usain Bolt extend the bounds of the possible faster than science can draw them.[/b]
https://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000679023
Unfortunately the article brings up a point which is continually ignored in spite of measurements/evidence to prove that humans possess the potential.
Firstly, the article draws reference to the superfast twitch fibre in top sprinters; this was put forward years ago in media. The opportunity exists to put forward any evidence for peer-review in scientific journals. If no conclusion has come to light thus far from current experimentation to prove such, the opportunity is available to list the trial anyway; but I have seen no evidence of this being presented.
Likely the superfast twitch fibre does not exist in humans. However it has been well studied that fast twitch fibre exists for which many experiments that have passed the peer-review process showing that instead of graded recrutment of muscle fibre, pre-programmed movements typically seen in ballistic exercise reveal that simultaneous recruitment of fibres is possible. This allows greater rate of force development which Weyand now presents as the primary factor drving top speed. Logic would suggest that training for simultaneous recruitment of fast twitch fibre will, if transferable to sprinting, result in greater running speeds in humans.
1. Fast twitch fibre exists in humans
2. Ballistic pre-programmed movements and simultaneous recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres is proven
3. Simultaneous recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres results in greater rate of force development
4. Hakkinen et al. (1985) show that this rate of force development can be trained to increase dramatically compared to improvement from typical strength training in time frames typical of maximal sprinting speedsSprinters or coaches following such a logical argument is a realistic explanation why greater running speeds are being achieved today and suggest that greater speeds are possible in the future as these training methods and programming become better understood.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Viewing 36 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.