Home Forums Marketplace Table of Contents Events Member List Site Map Register Mark Forums Read



Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.

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 (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Tags: ,

How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Reply
Submit Thread >  Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Google Submit to Yahoo! This Submit to Technorati Submit to StumbleUpon Submit to Spurl Submit to Netscape  < Submit Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 15th April 2012, 02:56 PM
NewsBot's Avatar
NewsBot NewsBot is offline
The Admin that posts the news.
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Zoo, where all good monkeys should be
Posts: 13,604
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 53% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 584 Times in 474 Posts
Default How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads
Press Release:
How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly
Quote:
Usain Bolt can achieve faster running times with no extra effort on his part or improvement to his fitness, according to a study published today in Significance, the magazine of the Royal Statistical Society and the American Statistical Association. Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Sciences John D. Barrow illustrates how, based on concrete mathematical evidence, Bolt can cut his world record from 9.58 seconds to 9.45.

Usain Bolt holds the current 100m world record, at 9.58s, and has been described as the best sprinter there has ever been, dramatically reducing his running times since he first won the world record in 2008. Previous scientific studies have been carried out aiming to predict his maximum speed, yet have failed to take all the relevant factors into account, and Bolt has already surpassed the speeds they predicted.

Today's Significance study highlights the three key factors instrumental in improving Bolt's performance, which combined produce an improvement of 0.13s.

Firstly, Bolt's reaction time is surprisingly poor, in fact one of the longest of leading sprinters. By responding to the gun as quickly as possible without triggering a false start, with 0.10s, he would shave 0.05s off his world record to 9.53s.

Secondly, advantageous wind conditions can help athletes improve their times, although this is supposedly taken into account. Bolt's Berlin record of 9.58s benefitted from a modest 0.9m/s tailwind. If he were to benefit from a maximum permissible tailwind of 2m/s, he would expend less effort on beating wind drag and reduce this record further by 0.05s to 9.48s.

Thirdly, running at altitude reduces the air density in the wind drag calculation, as was witnessed at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City (2240m above sea level), where significant improvements over short distances were displayed (although for longer distances the altitude makes running more difficult). As a result, athletics world records are only permitted at altitudes of up to 1000m, but this still allows Bolt to reduce his time by a further 0.03s to 9.45s if he runs at this altitude.

"With the relatively big chunks we've seen Bolt take out of world records, we are still a long way from understanding the limits of his, and others', sprinting speeds," said Professor Barrow. "What this study serves to illustrate is the insight maths can give into sports performance, which has not been done previously to such a degree of accuracy."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 15th April 2012, 02:58 PM
NewsBot's Avatar
NewsBot NewsBot is offline
The Admin that posts the news.
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Zoo, where all good monkeys should be
Posts: 13,604
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 53% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 584 Times in 474 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Link to original article:
http://www.significancemagazine.org/...ortlessly.html
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 15th April 2012, 03:36 PM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,484
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,133 Times in 1,174 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsBot View Post
Press Release:
How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly
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!
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15th April 2012, 04:17 PM
Lisa L Lisa L is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NSW
Posts: 22
Join Date: Feb 2011
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17th April 2012, 05:27 AM
wdd wdd is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: france
Posts: 581
Join Date: Aug 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

I think they missed the fourth and most important element.

The tongue must be placed firmly in the cheek.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17th April 2012, 07:47 AM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 542
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

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:

Quote:
The last note. The foot drills will also make you faster. I mentioned the slight “wobble” of each foot strike. More accurately described, a “wobble” is lateral, side-to-side motion. Speed is generally straight ahead. If, on each foot strike there is the wobble or lateral motion before there is the forward motion, there is lost time – not much, but some. If one’s ground contact time can be reduced 1/100th of a second (it takes 14/100ths to blink an eye,) the cumulative effect can drastically improve one’s performance.

Consider this – if one takes 50 steps in the 100m, 50 x 1/100 = 50/100 seconds, or ½ a second. One half second is the difference between the 9th place spectator and the Olympic Gold Medallist. In a mile, this reduced ground contact time translates to an 8-10 second difference and in the 10K it means between 50-60 seconds. An improvement made in the blink of an eye, one step at a time. Simple, easy and free.
Hmmm... now what was Usain's world record again? ... 9.58 sec.
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18th April 2012, 12:12 AM
wdd wdd is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: france
Posts: 581
Join Date: Aug 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

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.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30th June 2012, 01:23 AM
NewsBot's Avatar
NewsBot NewsBot is offline
The Admin that posts the news.
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Zoo, where all good monkeys should be
Posts: 13,604
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 53% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 584 Times in 474 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Bolt just got beaten in the Jamaican Olympic trials:

Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 28th July 2012, 04:03 PM
Admin2's Avatar
Admin2 Admin2 is offline
Administrator
 
About:
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 3,895
Join Date: May 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 139 Times in 123 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

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]
Quote:
Even Usain Bolt, currently the fastest man in the world, couldn't outpace greyhounds, cheetahs, or the pronghorn antelope, finds a light-hearted comparison of the extraordinary athleticism of humans and animals in the Veterinary Record.

As Olympic competition starts in earnest today, Craig Sharp from the Centre for Sports Medicine and Human Performance at Brunel University, highlights a range of animals whose speed and strength easily trumps that of our most elite athletes.

Humans can run at a maximum speed of 23.4 miles per hour (37.6 kilometres/hour) or 10.4 metres per second, which gives them the edge over the Dromedary camel.

But only just, as these animals can run at a top speed of 22 mph (35.3 kph) or 9.8 metres/second.

A cheetah is around twice as fast as the world's top sprinters at 64 mph (104 kph) or 29 metres/second. But the pronghorn antelope also puts in a very respectable 55 mph (89 kph) or 24.6 metres/second.

And let's not forget the North African ostrich, which at 40 mph (64kph) or 18 metres/second, is the world's fastest running bird. Or sailfish, which reach a swimming speed of 67 mph (108 kph) or 30 metres/second.

Then, of course, there are thoroughbred racehorses, the fastest of which has managed 55mph (88kph), and greyhounds at 43 mph (69kph).

And birds would win a few gold medals too. Peregrine falcons can reach speeds of 161 mph (259 kph), while ducks and geese rival cheetahs, with speeds of 64 mph (103 kph) in level flight.

And when it comes to power, pheasant and grouse can generate 400 Watts per kilo—five times as powerful as trained athletes. The tiny hummingbird can manage 200W/kg.

And in terms of strength, an African elephant can lift 300 kg with its trunk and carry 820 kg. A grizzly bear can lift 455 kg, while a gorilla can lift a whopping 900 kg.

Human beings have adapted fantastically well to marathons and long distance running, says Professor Sharp—long legs, short toes, arched feet and ample fuel storage capacity all help.

But they might find it hard to beat camels, which can maintain speeds of 10 mph (16kph) for over 18 hours, or Siberian huskies, which set a record in 2011, racing for 8 days, 19 hours, and 47 minutes, covering 114 miles a day.

And just to set the record straight.....

Usain Bolt ran 100 metres in 9.58 seconds; a cheetah ran the same distance in 5.8 seconds
Usain Bolt ran 200 metres in 19.19 seconds; a cheetah covered the same distance in 6.9 seconds, Black Caviar (racehorse) in 9.98 seconds, and a greyhound in 11.2 seconds
Michael Johnson ran the 400 metres in 43.18 seconds compared with 19.2 seconds for a racehorse and 21.4 seconds for a greyhound
David Rushida ran 800 metres in 1 minute 41 seconds, compared with 33 seconds for the pronghorn antelope and 49.2 seconds for a greyhound
An endurance horse ran a full marathon in 1 hour 18 minutes and 29 seconds, compared with the 2 hours, 3 minutes and 38 second record of Patrick Makau Musyoki
In the long jump, a red kangaroo has leapt 12.8 metres compared to the 8.95 metres Mike Powell achieved. Its high jump of 3.1 metres exceeds Javier Sotomayor's at 2.45, who is also trumped by the snakehead fish, which can leap 4 metres out of the water

"Citius, Althius, Fortius [Faster, Higher, Stronger] is the Olympic motto, but if we allowed the rest of the animal kingdom into the Games, and it was to select the peregrine falcon (161 mph), Ruppel's vulture (37,000 feet) and the 190 ton blue whale as its representatives, we could not offer much competition," writes Professor Sharp.

"Or even if restricted to terrestrial animals, we could be up against the cheetah (65 mph), the red kangaroo (3.1 metres) and the 12 ton bull African elephant—worth a thought when viewing the adulation given to our species' Olympic outliers in July," he continues.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 28th July 2012, 06:21 PM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 542
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 30th July 2012, 11:12 PM
wdd wdd is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: france
Posts: 581
Join Date: Aug 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR View Post
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.
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.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 31st July 2012, 12:51 AM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 542
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

It would appear you are addressing my previous post Bill, hence...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
The particular combination of physical and mental characteristics displayed by each animal is what makes each animal unique.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
To have a human animal deciding that the combination of physical and mental characteristics it displays is in some way ultimately superior is laughable.
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
In what sense do human physical and mental characteristics make them more diverse/versatile than any other creature on the planet?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
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.

Bill
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).
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 31st July 2012, 01:18 PM
wdd wdd is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: france
Posts: 581
Join Date: Aug 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

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.

Enjoy.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 1st August 2012, 04:39 AM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 542
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
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.
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
My use of the word 'superior' was based on your use of the word 'most', which I think is a superlative?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
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.
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??? ...


"Peter Singer - The Genius of Darwin..." ... 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".
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 1st August 2012, 07:44 PM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,484
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,133 Times in 1,174 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2nd August 2012, 07:23 AM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 542
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby View Post
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.
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
Quote:
Abstract:

The spring mass model has widely been used to characterize the whole body during running and sprinting. However the spring mass characteristics of the world's fastest men are still unknown. Thus the aim of this study was to model these characteristics for currently the 3 fastest men on earth (Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell). This was done by using data collected during the 2009 World championships in Berlin and the modelling method of Morin et al. [21]. Even though Bolt achieved the greatest velocity (12.3 m.s − 1) over the 60-80 m split compared to his competitors, his estimated vertical stiffness (355.8 kN.m − 1) and leg stiffness (21.0 kN.m − 1) were significantly lower than his competitors. This reduction in stiffness is a consequence of Bolt's longer contact time (0.091 s) and lower step frequency (4.49 Hz). Thus Bolt is able to run at a greater velocity but with lower stiffness compared to his competitors.
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2nd August 2012, 11:08 AM
NewsBot's Avatar
NewsBot NewsBot is offline
The Admin that posts the news.
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Zoo, where all good monkeys should be
Posts: 13,604
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 53% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 584 Times in 474 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Press Release:
Usain Bolt could break his own record with the help of altitude and the wind
Quote:
The 100 meter final will take place on Sunday at London 2012

Imagine the following situation. The 100 metres finals in the London Olympic Games. The Jamaican Usain Bolt wins. Up to this point everything sounds normal except for the fact that he would break his own record again with a time of 9.48 seconds. According to the New Zealand researchers, this would be his record if there were a 2 metre per second tailwind (maximum allowable wind) and the race took place at an altitude of 999 metres. This record will of course have to wait because London lies just 24 metres above sea level. Scientists are sure though that environment conditions affect sports performance even to a great extent.

On the 16 August 2008 the fastest man in the world, the Jamaican Usain Bolt, took a first world record in the Olympic Games in Beijing, China after running the 100 metres in 9.69 seconds. One year later during the world championships in Berlin, Germany he broke his own record with 9.58 seconds.

Independently of the athlete's talent and training, there are various factors that could influence Usain's records: altitude below or above 1000 metres above sea level; the venue, whether the race takes place indoors or outdoors; the type of competition (world, Olympic or other): or whether an electronic timer or stopwatch is used, etc. In his case, the difference between the two races was the wind.

On the day that Bolt made his first record in the Olympic Games there was no wind whereas in the world championships, there was a tailwind with a speed of 0.9 metres per second. "Was the new record helped along by the wind?" questions Steve Hollings, lead author of the study that was published in the European Journal of Sport Science. He also works in the Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand of the Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand).

In their search for the answer, the team employed an empirical approach in order to estimate the effects of wind speed, altitude and other environmental factors in 44,000 results from 619 male athletes. The study allowed for the identification of additional environmental and other factors such the competition level, the time-keeping method and if the athletes competes inside or outside a venue.

According to performance calculations in Berlin, the Jamaican would have to have run 100 metres in 9.62 seconds without wind. "The wind therefore improved the record by 0.04 seconds," as outlined to SINC by Hollings. But, the scientists go even further and suggest that Bolt could beat his own record again with 9.48 seconds as long as the speed of the tailwind is 2 metres per second and the race takes place at an altitude of 999 metres. For now though, the London Olympic Games do not meet all of these requirements.

Altitude helps athletes with the sprint

"Measuring wind speed during the 100 metres, 200 metres and the 110 metres hurdle has been one of the most controversial topics in sports since its introduction in 1936 (and in 1950 for the 200 metres)," states Hollings. Popular belief though is that measurements are not always valid or trustworthy.

Nonetheless, by considering current competition data, the researchers have calculated that a tailwind of 2 metres per second (maximum allowable wind) could provide an advantage of 0.07 to 0.09 seconds during the 100 metres race.

As well as the wind, altitude and the competition level also have an influence on the performance of athletes in different track and field disciplines. In the five sprints (100, 200 and 400 metres, and the 110 and 400 metres hurdle), the greater the altitude, the faster the athletes ran.

"At altitudes, the athletes could withstand shorter races because air resistance is lower. But in the 1500 metres, 5000 metres and 3000 metres hurdle races and the 10000 metres, shorter times were recorded," points out the researcher, who goes on to outline that racing at altitudes reduces the amount of oxygen available and thus the aerobic performance of the athlete.

The expert confirms that in this type of competition, "analysis demonstrates that athletes run faster in the 100, 200 and 400 metres and the 110 and 400 metres hurdle when competing in a world championship compared to any other race." According to Hollings, the goals implied in each tournament differ and there is a greater expectation to break records in sprints during world competitions.

As the scientist stressed, "in fact, time performance in big competitions improved slightly by 0.7% in the 400 metres and by 0.8% in the 400 metres hurdle, whereas it worsened by 0.6%, 1.2% and 0.2% in the 1500, 5000 and 10000 metres respectively."

###
Reference:

Hollings, SC; Hopkins, WG; Hume, PA. "Environmental and venue-related factors affecting the performance of elite male track athletes" European Journal of Sport Science 12(3): 201-206 DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2011.552640, 2012
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15th August 2012, 08:30 AM
wdd wdd is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: france
Posts: 581
Join Date: Aug 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

[quote=BEN-HUR;272154]... & that’s all it really is - man’s reasoned definition

Isn't that what every definition is, ie man's reasoned definition? Your use of the word 'all' seems to imply that we require to use something other than man's reason to define things or are you saying that it is just one definition of animal and that you can supply another definition that places humans in another category from animals?

If the given definition of 'animal' is a generally accepted definition of animal and humans display the defining characteristics then they are animals.

overwhelming evidence of the distinct differences (uniqueness) of which you & I posses over the other creatures that fit into that holistic sterile definition.

Yes there is overwhelming evidence of humans' distinct differences and similarities with respect to other creatures but you use the word 'over' suggesting not difference but superiority?

Why is the definition 'sterile'?

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...

You were happy to put the hypotherical aside earlier on in your post so it would seem reasonable to maintain that logical consistency.

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 all the above vehicles can be grouped under the definitions, vehicles or modes of transport.

Would you find it acceptable if I tried to convince you that aeroplanes, because of their unique qualities were not vehicles or modes of transport?

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.

You seem to be selecting certain animal characteristics that are well developed in humans and concluding that humans' particular form of uniqueness means that they should not be defined as animals.

Why are you placing such value on these particular human attributes?

On behalf of dogs I wish to protest my inclusion within the definition of animal. My sense of smell is so superior to you mere humans that I am able to form multidimensional images in my brain and gain as much information from smell as you do from sight.


I will always stand by my position on the view that we humans are vastly different (unique) to “animals”...

Humans are unique in the animal kingdom. Gorillas are unique in the animal kingdom. Each animal is unique. But why should that uniqueness remove them from inclusion within the definition animal?

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.

Is it 'clear' too what extent human conscious decisions are determined by the subconscious mind or to what extent ultruism is a selfless act?



I personally feel there may in part be a relationship with the size of the frontal lobe of the animal’s brain.

You might be too specific but it's certain that structural diffference/s in the anatomy of each animal result in the function difference/s.

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.

Isn't what you are calling 'progess' another way of saying 'survival within their environment'?

All these apparently very unique attributes

Why 'very unique' atributes and not just 'unique' attributes?

debasing human value & meaning...

Now you are getting to it. Perhaps you would like to state clearly what human value and meaning are?

& with not a shred of sound scientific evidence to support it...

If you are talking about evolution, there is masses of sound scientific evidence to support it. Would you argue the same way against geology, biology, chemistry or physics? Where is your sound scientific counter-evidence?

... an underlying fear of the unknown & subsequent speculated consequences of having a... “metaphysical foot in the door”.

'An underlying fear of the unknown' would seem to be a pretty good survival feature to me and one which is shared by believers and non-believers alike, ie it's an evolved characteristic and without it survival is likely to be short.

I think it's likely that you have written a lot about evolution versus creationism?

Do you have specific threads where you have been involved in a direct open debate on evolution and creationism?


Bill
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15th August 2012, 08:32 PM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 542
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: How Usain Bolt can run faster -- effortlessly

Thanks Bill for eventually responding... watching the Olympics were we? (inside joke there).
Anyway, like I've stated before when responding to you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR View Post
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...
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 . Anyway, to further clarify on some...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
... & that’s all it really is - man’s reasoned definition

Isn't that what every definition is, ie man's reasoned definition? Your use of the word 'all' seems to imply that we require to use something other than man's reason to define things or are you saying that it is just one definition of animal and that you can supply another definition that places humans in another category from animals?

If the given definition of 'animal' is a generally accepted definition of animal and humans display the defining characteristics then they are animals.
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
Why is the definition 'sterile'?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
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.

You seem to be selecting certain animal characteristics that are well developed in humans and concluding that humans' particular form of uniqueness means that they should not be defined as animals.

Why are you placing such value on these particular human attributes?
No, I selected certain human characteristics that are less developed in animals . 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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
On behalf of dogs I wish to protest my inclusion within the definition of animal. My sense of smell is so superior to you mere humans that I am able to form multidimensional images in my brain and gain as much information from smell as you do from sight.
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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
I will always stand by my position on the view that we humans are vastly different (unique) to “animals”...

Humans are unique in the animal kingdom. Gorillas are unique in the animal kingdom. Each animal is unique. But why should that uniqueness remove them from inclusion within the definition animal?
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
I personally feel there may in part be a relationship with the size of the frontal lobe of the animal’s brain.

You might be too specific but it's certain that structural diffference/s in the anatomy of each animal result in the function difference/s.
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...


Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
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.

Isn't what you are calling 'progess' another way of saying 'survival within their environment'?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
debasing human value & meaning...

Now you are getting to it. Perhaps you would like to state clearly what human value and meaning are?
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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
& with not a shred of sound scientific evidence to support it...

If you are talking about evolution, there is masses of sound scientific evidence to support it. Would you argue the same way against geology, biology, chemistry or physics? Where is your sound scientific counter-evidence?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
... an underlying fear of the unknown & subsequent speculated consequences of having a... “metaphysical foot in the door”.

'An underlying fear of the unknown' would seem to be a pretty good survival feature to me and one which is shared by believers and non-believers alike, ie it's an evolved characteristic and without it survival is likely to be short.
"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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdd View Post
I think it's likely that you have written a lot about evolution versus creationism?

Do you have specific threads where you have been involved in a direct open debate on evolution and creationism?


Bill
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.
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Translate This Page

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Usain Bolt in slow motion NewsBot Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 11 3rd January 2012 10:01 AM
Halozyme's Ultrafast Insulin Generates Faster-In And Faster-Out Profile For Type 1 Diabetes Patients Using Insulin Pumps RSSFeedBot Latest Diabetes Medicine Research & News 0 16th April 2011 12:20 AM
What Gives Bolt the Edge?-A.V. Hill Knew it Already! Kevin Kirby Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 0 2nd September 2010 06:55 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

Finding your way around:

Browse the forums.

Search the site.

Browse the tags.

Search the tags.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 AM.