The Physics of the World's Fastest Man

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Physics of the World's Fastest Man

Posted by Unknown on Friday July 26, 2013 @06:26AM from the robotic-legs dept.

cylonlover writes "The Honourable Usain Bolt (Order of Jamaica; Commander of the Order of Distinction) is often held out as the world's fastest man. The reigning Olympic champion in the 100-meter and 200-meter sprints as well as a member of the Olympic champion 4x100 meter relay team, Bolt is the first man to win six Olympic gold medals in sprinting, and is a five-time world champion. Long and lanky at 6 ft 5 in (2 m) tall, he towers above the (mostly) much shorter sprinters. How has he managed to come out on top for the past five years? A team of physicists from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) has analyzed Bolt's past performances in the 100-meter sprint to understand what makes a record-breaker."

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

worlds fastest women mad at him? by peter303 · 2013-07-26 06:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Nothing makes you run faster than fleeing.
1. Re:worlds fastest women mad at him? by arth1 · 2013-07-26 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Except, of course, vehicles
  To my knowledge, Andy Green is still the fastest man on Earth, and Stafford, Young and Cernan the fastest overall.
2. Re:worlds fastest women mad at him? by Tablizer · 2013-07-26 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  There's a reason Bush was quick to duck the shoes.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
3. Re:worlds fastest women mad at him? by tragedy · 2013-07-27 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Vehicles make you _run_ faster? At first I thought you were making a joke about being chased by vehicles as opposed to the GP's world's fastest woman. Then you mentioned people who have gone fast in vehicles and now I'm sort of scratching my head. I suppose you were just replying to the story title rather than the GP's comment.
4. Re:worlds fastest women mad at him? by arth1 · 2013-07-27 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Vehicles make you _run_ faster?
  Yes. How do you run to the grocery store? Or run across the sound? Did Burt Reynolds put on sneakers in Cannonball Run?
  Anyhow, got to run.
5. Re:worlds fastest women mad at him? by tragedy · 2013-07-27 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think that language argument works in context.
The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Viol8 · 2013-07-26 06:38 · Score: 1

Why? Because sprinters - and all pro runners - wear running shoes and they make running somewhat more efficient than running barefoot. I'd wager money on very few if any sprinters being able to do 100m in under 10 sec if running barefoot.
1. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  False. The rules are to wear shoes, like no longer allowing standing starts. A sprinter could were rubber style gloves if they were stong enough, but they are banned.
2. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Seems rather counterintuitive to state that, as kinetic energy is surely being converted to heat as shoe cushioning absorbs impact. Would be nice to see some research that backs your claim of greater "efficiency" through shod running vs. barefoot (says the AC who didn't bring any evidence to back his own claim).
3. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  As one AC to another (about a third), I would armchair-hypothesize that the rubber surface of a shoe has such a higher frictional coefficient than human flesh that such minor kinetic energy loss is irrelevant.
4. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Because sprinters - and all pro runners - wear running shoes and they make running somewhat more efficient than running barefoot. I'd wager money on very few if any sprinters being able to do 100m in under 10 sec if running barefoot.
  More likely because of the spikes on track shoes that give runners a lot more traction, which is especially useful when accelerating at the start.
5. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by OhSoLaMeow · 2013-07-26 07:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  More likely because of the spikes on track shoes that give runners a lot more traction, which is especially useful when accelerating at the start.
  And in high school while running track, I found out the hard way that spikes are also great at increasing your deceleration.
  
  --
  They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
6. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Shetan · 2013-07-26 07:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  IAAF Competition Rules, Rule 143
  Shoes
  2. Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet.
  The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and
  stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes,
  however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair
  additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any
  technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage. A shoe
  strap over the instep is permitted. All types of competition shoes must
  be approved by IAAF.
7. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by cdrudge · 2013-07-26 07:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Right. And a speed skater is more efficient than someone who is sliding on bare feet. The bow makes the archer much more skilled then just trying to throw the arrow with their bare hands. And don't even get me started about the new Trampoline sport...I think they should have to do all those moves with just jumping with their legs.
8. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily so. Primate's feet fingers are evolutionary left overs from tree dwelling and are currently not of a very efficient design for running, walking or even branch grabbing. Compared to cat's paws they lack the retractable claws for grip and compared to hooves they lack absorption and protection.
  Overall, humans have been emphasizing upright walking and thinking for a very long time so our muscular and skeletal design are just not that good. So It's very possible shoes, despite added weight, would actually improve power output with to no extra energy cost.
9. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Viol8 · 2013-07-26 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Running tends to get pushed as an example of pure unaided human physical performance - which it isn't. The sports you mentioned are not.
10. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-07-26 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  And don't even get me started about the new Trampoline sport...
  What, have they finally gotten around to building courts for playing Kosho?
  Be seeing you.
11. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Kielistic · 2013-07-26 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  The shoe doesn't create the impact!! How would it make you faster to absorb it in your joints than in shoe padding? Ignoring the fact that track shoes are designed and optimised for this exact purpose how would they possibly slow you down? Gah! mount stupid indeed.
12. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by arth1 · 2013-07-26 07:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  feet fingers
  We call those toes. Well, my family does, at least.
13. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  All types of competition shoes must
  be approved by IAAF.
  IAAF? I Am A Farmer? What makes farmers qualified to approve sprinting shoes?
14. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by JeanCroix · 2013-07-26 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Are any of these races even run on the old cinder-type tracks where spikes would be allowed and make a difference? All the tracks look like the modern all-weather types to me - no spikes needed.
15. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by JeanCroix · 2013-07-26 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind. Apparently spikes are still worn. Interesting.
16. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by dimeglio · 2013-07-26 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Running tends to get pushed as an example of pure unaided human physical performance
  I never heard of it as such but it is rather evident, with swimming being even purer.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
17. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by edxwelch · 2013-07-26 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  I call fingers "hand toes". People think I'm wierd.
18. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by snadrus · 2013-07-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Far from it. Because of the suit improvements, in the last Olympics we saw 3rd-place ahead of the previous record line. And that was in a number of the races. There were support teams for some people helping them stretch. Their meals are carefully made for them while they train. What's unaided?
  
  --
  Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
19. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by jkflying · 2013-07-26 09:07 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  No, most of the energy is stored in the rubber so as the foot leaves the ground it gives a push. Using rubber makes you faster.
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
20. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  He'll be here all week, folks!
21. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  There's quite a bit of research into this sort of thing if you want to go digging, but generally folks running barefoot [1] tend to put their foot down more softly than those who have some sort of cushioning sole. You can test this for yourself.
  Track shoes are a very thin, very slight cushion. This allows the runner to move at peak efficiency (hence more speed).
  [1] Yes, barefoot or "minimalist" running is generally more injury free than running in more cushioned shoes, and if you're not a world class athlete it's probably a better way to run. Note I said *better*, not "faster" or "more efficient". By "better" I mean healthier for the rest of your life. Less damage to all things concerned. If you can run fast enough to be competitive with The Bolt, then you do what it takes to make enough money to pay for the rehab.
22. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by ILongForDarkness · 2013-07-26 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah because he is a slow runner.
23. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by ILongForDarkness · 2013-07-26 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  As well there is some limit to the pain/strain that you can take. If you can expand the duration of the push just enough to make it not painful but not so much that it changes your pace/balance too much you might be better off. Muscle has a static and dynamic strength. It would all be a matter of what point in your stride you make contact and how far forward you fall before your flesh/shoes catch you enough to push you up off the bottom.
24. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by ILongForDarkness · 2013-07-26 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  And where does that push come from? From it slowing you down on the down stroke. You'll never get all that energy back. It is more of a matter of the timing I think not the energy it gives you but that it gives it to you when you are trying to move against gravity and takes it away when you are moving with gravity. It levels the max effort a bit across the whole stride.
25. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by skegg · 2013-07-26 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  At one point, swimming was much less "pure" than even running.
  I don't know what would constitute a "pure" sport: wrestling? gymnastics? judo?
26. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by MisterSquid · 2013-07-26 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  I call my penis a "groin finger".
  Uhh... never mind.
  
  --
  blog
27. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by davester666 · 2013-07-26 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  No reason. But how else are they going to get people to wear shoes with tiny spikes to aid with planting seeds?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
28. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by jkflying · 2013-07-26 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  The energy comes from your foot hitting the ground, energy which would otherwise be absorbed by your joints and muscles. Of course you'll never get all of it back, but you'll get more of it back than if you didn't have the rubber there.
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
29. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by tragedy · 2013-07-27 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  The back and forth on this is a bit amusing on both ends. I'm just going to interject here that your joints, tendons and muscles are also designed to store back energy and release it in your next step. So, claiming that the running shoe is more efficient because it absorbs energy that would otherwise be absorbed by your joints and muscles really doesn't say anything about the relative efficiency of the two systems being compared.
30. Re:The true max human 100m time is probably higher by jkflying · 2013-07-27 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  SHHHHH!!! I'm trying to win an argument on the internet :-p
  Leaving out information you know that the other person doesn't is one of the key methods of winning debates ;-)
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
need biochemists by KernelMuncher · 2013-07-26 06:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

To analyze why Bolt is the fastest man, instead of a team of physicists they should hire a team of biochemists. Who wants to bet Bolt is entirely clean of steroids ?

[ Note that Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson, two top Jamaican sprinters, both recently tested positive for banned stimulants. ]
1. Re:need biochemists by h4rr4r · 2013-07-26 07:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why is this a big deal?
  If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. I just wish we would be totally open about it. Since we can probably assume all the runners are at least trying to do something like that, we can just ignore it.
  This is like trying to find a winner for the tour de france that was not doping in some form, good luck. That sport is more properly referred to as cheating on two wheels.
2. Re:need biochemists by Viol8 · 2013-07-26 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is if you make sport a performance drugs free for all then people are going to overdose and kill themselves. Its better the way it is.
3. Re:need biochemists by pspahn · 2013-07-26 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Also note that documents revealed from the Biogenesis scandal apparently name a bunch of athletes from other sports, not just MLB, including boxing, tennis, basketball, NCAA athletes, and MMA (was there ever a doubt about those guys, though?)
  Ryan Braun (a deliciously ironic last name) is suffering the worst of the witchhunt right now, but rest assured that a year or two from now, you're going to be hearing about folks across the entire sporting spectrum that have been taking these macho cocktails. People like to rip on baseball as the sport with the steroids problem, but in reality it's going to be every sport that has a problem, and baseball was simply the one that shined light on the whole thing.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
4. Re:need biochemists by Vegan+Cyclist · 2013-07-26 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, keep in mind there are also athletes who want to push their natural limits without PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) - this doesn't really leave them many opportunities (i'm from the cycling world, and have read heartbreaking stories of racers who opted out of doping to the ruin of their career, while dopers profit...)
  
  There are other factors too, such as 'safe' limits for doping products. Everyone's going to want to push it even more of course... I'm in favor of clean sport.
5. Re:need biochemists by smooth+wombat · 2013-07-26 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  people are going to overdose and kill themselves.
  
  And the problem with this is. . . ?
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
6. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  If you only regard sport as pure shlock entertainment that it is, no problem.
  The rampant hero worship most people have for some form of professional sports? Not helped by steroids.
7. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying
  That's a non sequitur. "Trying" is about enhancing your performance through practice, training, technology, drugs, etc. "Cheating" is about being a fraud, lying, and claiming accomplishments that you haven't performed.
  "Trying" is what advances the human race. "Cheating" is what holds us back. If you are going to break the rules, then break them, but be honest about it.
8. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  people are going to overdose and kill themselves.
  And the problem with this is. . . ?
  They tend to OD off-camera?
  If you can't broadcast it, you can't sell advertising.
9. Re:need biochemists by Kielistic · 2013-07-26 07:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Worse than that. It will practically be a requirement to overdose and kill yourself to be competitive.
10. Re:need biochemists by pla · 2013-07-26 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Note that Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson, two top Jamaican sprinters, both recently tested positive for banned stimulants.
  
  Stimulants != steriods, Doctor.
  
  And for reference, caffeine counts as a stimulant banned by the IOC.
11. Re:need biochemists by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-07-26 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  The real competition, is who can take the most drugs . . . and not get caught. So sports are actually a very nerdy business. You need an excellent medical team to push the level of drugs just right to the line . . . without going over it. There is probably a lot of interesting biochemical technology behind all that.
  Tour de France? More like, Tour de Drugs.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
12. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  caffeine is regulated by amount, not existence per se. It is assumed that there is a "normal" amount of caffeine consumption, like 8 triple-shot espressos per day or something like that.
13. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Here's the secret to elite sports: the people who design the drug tests are the same people who help athletes to subvert them. Athletes rarely test positive because it would not make sense to design a perfect drug test if you plan to make money on the backside. But organizers of sports like the perception of clean athletes and they love the never-ending breaking of world records that bring in fans and money. If anybody was actually serious about stopping doping they would go after the doctors.
14. Re:need biochemists by Gman2725 · 2013-07-26 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Notice how they tested positive for banned stimulants and not steroids. They were trying to cut body weight. Bolt has always been really lean naturally since even his younger days.
15. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  just sour grapes because being a roid ranger is the 'American' way.
16. Re:need biochemists by biometrizilla · 2013-07-26 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  As they did with bodybuilding they should have both a "clean" and an "anything goes" Olympics. Any and all forms of drugs, genetic mods, etc. are allowed in the latter. I would love to see a human run the 100m in 6 seconds, then burst into flames after crossing the tape, swimmers with gills, etc.
17. Re:need biochemists by Synerg1y · 2013-07-26 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yep to compete, "clean" athletes would no longer have a choice but to join their doping counter parts. Doping is a lot more complex than just steroids though, one can argue that taking a performance multi vitamin introduces non-natural performance enhancements, it's however the more extreme stuff that's banned.
18. Re:need biochemists by edxwelch · 2013-07-26 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you are wrong. Bolt himself has stated 'Drugs scandals have harmed sport but I am clean'. There's never been a case in the history of sport where an athlete has been caught lying about taking drugs, so that's pretty much case closed.
19. Re:need biochemists by erice · 2013-07-26 08:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Worse than that. It will practically be a requirement to overdose and kill yourself to be competitive.
  Indeed. In racing, any advantage that is not forbidden is mandatory.
  So, if you eliminate rules prohibiting doping then all competitive athletes will have to max out on drugs, steroids, and red blood cell enhancements. "Max" will be whatever allows the most performance while still allowing the athlete the stay alive long enough to finish the race. Some will go over. The rest won't live much past their time in the spot light.
20. Re:need biochemists by quantaman · 2013-07-26 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I certainly wouldn't be shocked if Bolt was doping but he's the one champion from the traditionally dirty sports where I actually think he could be clean.
  Basically Bolt is a freak, he has a physique that is obviously different from other elite sprinters. If his a-typical physiology is inferior I don't see how he could dope enough to achieve the dominance he has. And if his physiology is superior then we don't understand the scale of the physiological advantage well enough to know that he'd need drugs.
  It's like when the Kenyans showed up on the distance running scene. If there were drugs the Europeans were taking they didn't make a difference, the Kenyans had an entirely different body type which gave them an advantage that drugs couldn't match.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
21. Re:need biochemists by quantaman · 2013-07-26 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why is this a big deal?
  If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. I just wish we would be totally open about it. Since we can probably assume all the runners are at least trying to do something like that, we can just ignore it.
  This is like trying to find a winner for the tour de france that was not doping in some form, good luck. That sport is more properly referred to as cheating on two wheels.
  Right now doping really only happens at the elite level, and the elite level athletes have elite doctors that stop them from hurting themselves.
  But if you allow it at the elite level then the far larger number of athletes in junior and the sub-elite level are also going to dope. And they don't have the elite doctors to supervise so a lot of them are going to seriously harm themselves.
  The current approach seems to be to allow the doping but to put up enough road blocks so the effect is kept relatively minimal.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
22. Re:need biochemists by umghhh · 2013-07-26 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  I actually do not see a major problem with that. I do not see any benefit of having professional athletes anyway. The olympic ideals are all overdue.The countries that control better do not get medals at Olympic Games. This is as simple as that. If one accepts this as entertainment then all is ok. The only problem is the actual sports fans that do the sports for fun and to get better. Come to think of it this way you can have two venues - ones with sexed up entertainment agents and the other ones where hard work and talent is all that is allowed. I am afraid you would have to still transfer some funds from one to support the controls in another and I guess that is a real problem.
23. Re:need biochemists by filthpickle · 2013-07-26 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  the worst of the witchhunt right now,
  Witch-hunt kinda implies that he isn't guilty. He isn't appealing this decision....baseball players ALWAYS appeal....they must have him dead to rights or he and the union would be pitching a fit over it instead of going along with it.
24. Re:need biochemists by jkflying · 2013-07-26 09:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What we really need is two competitions: one with as much doping as you think your body can take, and another which is as strict as possible. That way we still have the 'pure human' competition, but we can also see crazy muscleheads with no testicles getting into full rage mode on the uphills.
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
25. Re:need biochemists by hawkinspeter · 2013-07-26 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  It can hardly be worth restricting your caffeine-blood level like that just to be allowed to compete. Guess I'll never be a sprinter.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
26. Re:need biochemists by thePig · 2013-07-26 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  This is slander. Unless he is tested positive, it is extremely unfair to him and the hours he put in to be labelled a cheat without a shred of evidence against him. Cynicism is all well and good - but this goes beyond that. Shame to the mods also.
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
27. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Can't tell if implying he uses steroids, or is just a natural phenom.
  Either way, the physical factors involved make a strong case that he is just a peak runner of humanity. If you don't know what factors I'm referring to, it is fairly well known that people of African descent have slightly different lower leg formations than European or Asian descendants, that in turn result in improved performance for leg biomechanics. Combine that with hieght, proper training and nutritional regimen, and general natural ability, and it's not hard to see that he is a peak of humanity for the given task. Yes, he's a statistical outlier, but until proven otherwise by the IOC and IPC (World Anti-Doping Agency), I hold hope that we, he, can move that fast by natural, non-steroid performance enhancing means.
  This may be a naive outlook, since the Olympics, and international competition is rife with steroid use, but I'm trying to be a 'glass is half full', kind of guy these days.
28. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Right now doping really only happens at the elite level, and the elite level athletes have elite doctors that stop them from hurting themselves.
  But if you allow it at the elite level then the far larger number of athletes in junior and the sub-elite level are also going to dope. And they don't have the elite doctors to supervise so a lot of them are going to seriously harm themselves.
  The current approach seems to be to allow the doping but to put up enough road blocks so the effect is kept relatively minimal.
  No, it doesn't and no, they don't.
  We see high-school kids "scoring" steroids, HGH and other performance enhancers (sometimes given to them by their parents) to get on their HS teams, to get college scholarships and a shot at the pros.
  It's already happening.
29. Re:need biochemists by number17 · 2013-07-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I cheered for Ben Johnson until they caught him. Bolt is now the champ in my book, unless they catch him or someone else beats his time.
30. Re:need biochemists by wvmarle · 2013-07-26 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Losing too many high-performing athletes.
31. Re:need biochemists by ILongForDarkness · 2013-07-26 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  What value do they bring to society? They are famous/inspirational because they can run fast jump high or whatever. Do you think if a drug comes out that would make your doctor smarter/better at diagnosis but had equivalent health risks and you had the choice you'd go with the "natural" doctor? Wouldn't want him/her to be taking unnecessary risks after all. People that define themselves by their career will do whatever it takes to be the best. That is what it means to be competitive.
32. Re:need biochemists by Kielistic · 2013-07-26 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You don't see any problem with people killing themselves because they were told their entire life by their coach, parents etc. that winning X was the single most important thing?
  You don't like professional sports (not that I blame you) but some people do. Should they have to throw their lives away just so they can participate?
  To make it a little more personal to you what if the government decided it was okay for corporations to choose their employees based on their willingness to take performance enhancing drugs? And I'm not talking about caffeine here; I mean the real powerful ones that are illegal. A lot of corporations won't care that they turn you into a slobbering vegetable in 5 years- they got what they wanted from you. But in those 5 years many other companies have had to introduce similar rules to stay competitive. Now you can't get into your chosen profession unless you are willing to take the very real risk that you will ruin your life doing it. Is that fair?
33. Re:need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  see crazy muscleheads with no testicles
  Pffft, who wants to watch Republicans run
34. Re:need biochemists by oreaq · 2013-07-26 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  They tested positive for Oxilofrine. That's an amphetamine, not coffee.
35. Re:need biochemists by umafuckit · 2013-07-27 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  I actually do not see a major problem with that. I do not see any benefit of having professional athletes anyway. The olympic ideals are all overdue.
  The Olympic ideals are a modern myth that was born when the Olympics were rebooted in the modern era. The original Olympics did not live up to this ideal. This article is well worth reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/22/olympic-games-ancient-modern
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
36. Re:need biochemists by Reziac · 2013-07-27 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's a good idea. If you can't stop it, at least put it out where everyone knows what's going on. Participate in whichever sport you wish, but once you go PED, you can't go back.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
37. Re: need biochemists by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  You meant Republicrats, obviously. Same shit, different pile right?
38. Re:need biochemists by dargaud · 2013-07-28 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  I actually do not see a major problem with that. I do not see any benefit of having professional athletes anyway.
  Same here, but the solution I see is to simply ban professional races (no prize money and sponsored athletes are not allowed to race). But some say that big competitions are an alternative to war. Seems to work for football in Europe...
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
39. Re:need biochemists by umghhh · 2013-07-30 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to believe that the athletes are innocent and take drugs unwillingly which I find very unlikely. If that were true.they (or their) families would have suied the ass out of the guys that did provide them the drugs yet there are not cases I can hear about where that is true.
  I do not like professional sports - this is true. Not because I do not appreciate hard work and skill that results from it but because I am annoyed by amount of money and hypocrisy flowing around it. You say that they have to throw their lives away to participate - yes they do. That is if they want to pursue this line of career then they do. There is not much leeway there.I think the hole premise that sport is healthy is wrong. It is hard work and you pay your price. If you are not ready to do it then do not. I am sorry but that is the way it is. It is good that you mentioned the corporations and work in general. I differ in view on that tho - I think people like me who work for a living, are not (and have no real chance of being) paid obscene loads of money that the top athletes get. From this I draw conclusion that sport is more like entertainment and we all know that hard work in entertainment means you consume drugs and drink loads of alcohol - some survive (Lemmie did so far) some do not (Jimmi H. and many others did not). They produced the flame we all admire but they burnt in it too. It is clear there that this is the case in entertainment industry - it is possibly less clear in sports that it is so. I think is regrettable but professional sport is entertainment industry with all consequences. If one wants to be do sports as amateur then the actual fact of being first is not that important. Like in martial arts or in my preferred example of game of go - the fact that I lost makes me sad but if the game was good I see it as my contribution as well as the person that won. Coming back toy your example - corporations do indeed do such things - vide Apple in China as one example. They are punished for what they do also by customers. Rightly so - Apple employs indirectly slightly more people than tour de France does. As long as drugs enhancing is limited to entertainment I do not care. Work for living as millions of people (have to) do is different.
  So bottom line is: you do sports for yourself then you do not take drugs and you do not really care that much whether some suckers do. You do it professionally then you may be obliged to take drugs but you do it consciously. You may have to conceal the fact not to get caught. That is also part o the game. To make another and last analogy. There was a chess game between two masters.One of them used a cigar and walking etc as means of distracting his rival. There was an uproar but I think, not nice as it was, it was allowed. I would not accept that in my private game but they played for the glory and money and the trick was allowed so we have to agree with the result (and change rules if we did not like it).
40. Re:need biochemists by hawkfish · 2013-07-30 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  To make another and last analogy. There was a chess game between two masters.One of them used a cigar and walking etc as means of distracting his rival. There was an uproar but I think, not nice as it was, it was allowed. I would not accept that in my private game but they played for the glory and money and the trick was allowed so we have to agree with the result (and change rules if we did not like it).
  The cigar smoker was Emanuel Lasker and there was an agreement before the match that Lasker would not smoke. About 10 moves in, he pulled out a cigar and laid it on the table. His opponent called over the referee and complained that Lasker had agree not to smoke, but the ref pointed out that he had not in fact lit the cigar. To which his opponent replied "But Lasker himself has often said that the threat is more important than the execution!"
  
  --
  You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
41. Re:need biochemists by Kielistic · 2013-07-30 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  You've missed the point entirely and verbosely. You have decided that it's just entertainment and you don't care about it so to hell with everyone who does- they should die if they want to participate. That's a pretty useless viewpoint in society.
  You come off as bitter that a few athletes get paid a lot (many of them do not) and so you think they should suffer. Rambling about a few individual musicians that did recreation drugs is about as off-topic as you can get here. There is no performance enhancing drug you have to take to become a musician that will kill you in a few years. That is the issue here: if enhancing drugs are allowed in something based entirely around competition then essentially they are required.
  
  (and change rules if we did not like it).
  
  That is exactly what we are talking about... Except in this case the rule is already in place and I was giving the reason (one of many) why it is in place.
42. Re:need biochemists by umghhh · 2013-08-03 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Talking about misunderstanding....
  I am not bitter that some earn silly amount of money - I just do not see the point of making an effort to stop them from using drugs if they want to. This has never worked. Keeping the delusion that professional sport is the same sort of activity that we mortals can indulge in, if we only wanted, is just silly. It is also counterproductive and potentially dangerous for these few that would live the illusion of say Olympic dream. Example is again in any discipline - we start looking closer or there is sudden change and/or improvement in detection methods and suddenly people get cought, other make confessions etc. If any rules should be in place then that nobody can be forced to take them. This seems to be the key of another argument that is being made: if some use it then all other will have to use it too. This is a fallacy. There is no direct connection. The companies can of course force people to do bad things - it was always like this but there is a difference if you are really forced to and a situation where you have a choice and you actively make it. Contrary to what you believe, not everybody is ready to use methods, drugs etc which are known to have dangerous consequences. I have been offered drugs many times in my life and refused because I knew consequences and did not see the point. There are people that think differently - I accept this and let them die prematurely if they want to.
He's certainly the best for by ackthpt · 2013-07-26 06:51 · Score: 2

The 44,183.2722 & 88,366.5444 potrzebie sprints.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Eat lots of jerk chicken mon by stevegee58 · 2013-07-26 06:54 · Score: 0

That's what made me the fastest man in the world too.
1. Re:Eat lots of jerk chicken mon by coldsalmon · 2013-07-26 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This also worked for the fattest man in the world.
2. Re:Eat lots of jerk chicken mon by Valdrax · 2013-07-26 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you are what you eat.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
3. Re:Eat lots of jerk chicken mon by filthpickle · 2013-07-26 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I read this link as "Physics of the worlds fattest man" when I clicked on it. I was mildly disappointed. That would be more interesting.
4. Re:Eat lots of jerk chicken mon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  To the lab, my colleague!
5. Re:Eat lots of jerk chicken mon by nickersonm · 2013-07-26 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  That should be easy: "Assume a spherical human"
Article had crazy typo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 06:57 · Score: 0

Usain Bolt's acceleration at the start is 9.5 m s^-1 which is on the order of gravity.
They pretty much lost me at that point.
1. Re:Article had crazy typo by fisted · 2013-07-26 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, are you new here? It's TFA. You did what, read it? /.ers...ridiculous.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Bolt? by Andrio · 2013-07-26 06:59 · Score: 3, Funny

I'd probably be that fast too if I had "Bolt" in my name.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:Bolt? by Tablizer · 2013-07-26 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Rusty seconds that.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:Bolt? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-29 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Not if your name preceeding "Bolt" was "Dead"
Data Genetics by danbert8 · 2013-07-26 07:11 · Score: 1

Of course, some awesome mathematical analysis from Data Genetics: http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/july32013/index.html

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
1. Re:Data Genetics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  This qualifies as a time motion study, along with some nice graphs, but hardly "mathematical analysis". Hell, they didn't even attempt to estimate his air drag.
  I'm an engineer so I'm going to make some rough "back of the napkin" estimates (please try this at home, kids). Based on a drag coefficient of something like 1 (a bit less than a flat plate), frontal area of 7ft^2 and 27 mph (q = 1.86 lb/ft^2 [dynamic pressure]).
  Air Drag ~ 1 * 7 * 1.86 or something like 13 pounds
  Power used to overcome air drag:
  Convert (for the formulas that I've got memorized) 27 mph = ~40 ft/sec.
  Power = force * velocity = 13 * 40 = 520 ft-lb/sec.
  1 horse power defined as 550 ft-lb/sec, so aero power is 520/550 = about 0.95 horsepower
  or for the Imperial-challenged, 743 Watts = 1 hp, so 0.95 hp = 705 watts
  We've measured cyclists of this approximate size (big tall guys) at about 1600 watts for 10 seconds. From this I draw the rough conclusion that running must be a lot less efficient than cycling (?)
Steroids by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:16 · Score: 0

Remember all the ass kissing articles about how Lance Armstrong was some super amazing superhuman?
Now we got the PR out in full swing, right after a couple of Bolt's teammates got busted for doping.
Don't be so fucking naive. They're ALL juicing in some way or another.
different kind of news for nerds by bazorg · 2013-07-26 07:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know what I'd love Usain Bolt to do? Or if not him, another top sprinter like him? While in their prime years, take a couple of seasons off and not participate in competition. Then announce he's going to take performance enhancing drugs just to see just how much faster it would be possible to run if it were not for sports rules.
1. Re:different kind of news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Plenty of major athletes can juggle their time even better than this. They take performance-enhancing drugs _and_ compete in major competitions!
2. Re:different kind of news for nerds by bazorg · 2013-07-26 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  true (and +5 funny, of course), but if the athlete/test subject did not have worry about rules and his long term health, then we could find out just how fast a man can run, rather than how fast a man can run without being caught breaking the rules of his sport.
Physics of the worlds fattest man... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:32 · Score: 0

Now that would be more appropriate for slashdot.
Misread as Fattest by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:38 · Score: 0

I initially read this as "The World's Fattest Man." Pretty disappointed now that I see it's a completely different article.
There is no physics involved by ArcadeMan · 2013-07-26 07:44 · Score: 2

The guy is simply pushing himself so hard he's almost escaping The Matrix.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Definition of "World's Fastest Man"? by catchblue22 · 2013-07-26 07:49 · Score: 1, Informative

I have a problem with the vagueness of the term "world's fastest man". If the criteria is for a person to reach the maximum speed without the aid of external forces like engine forces or gravity, then I think that Sam Whittingham is the world's fastest man. He rode a recumbant bike 133kph (83mph) over level ground without motor pacing. His bicycle was enclosed by an aerodynamic shell designed by a European sculptor (I can't find his name but he is not an engineer). The record has also been contested by more prestigious university engineering teams but Sam's record still stands. His training runs sometimes took place on Vancouver Island freeways, and it was not uncommon for him to pass cars on the freeway.

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
1. Re:Definition of "World's Fastest Man"? by dimeglio · 2013-07-26 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  The way I see it, that would be the fastest man-powered vehicle but I see your point.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
2. Re:Definition of "World's Fastest Man"? by tragedy · 2013-07-27 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  What about people who can beat that speed stark naked with no devices of any kind using only the power of their legs? It can be done with the right technique. Care to guess how?
3. Re:Definition of "World's Fastest Man"? by ZombieThoughts · 2013-07-27 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't sky diving be the winner? (gravity assist for downhill count?) Or an astronaut on a spacewalk orbiting the earth. I think we're being a little pedantic here. Sure, maybe they should have said "world's fastest runner." I believe that most people would understand this if they read the article and not a one sentence title.
4. Re:Definition of "World's Fastest Man"? by tragedy · 2013-07-28 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping someone would guess that you can beat that record by jumping off a very high cliff and assuming a dive position. I wonder if you can count the cliff as equipment in that case?
Misread by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:49 · Score: 0

Did anyone else misread the title as Physics of the World's Fattest Man? Here I was expecting some slow-mo analyses of jiggling and heavy breathing.
I thought the world's quickest man by Muros · 2013-07-26 07:56 · Score: 1

was Uncle Marvo
oh, "fastest" ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:57 · Score: 0

I thought it said "world's fattest man". I wanted to learn about weight, inertia, and structural reinforcement.
Is his wife happy about that ;) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 07:59 · Score: 1

s his wife happy about that ;)
1. Re:Is his wife happy about that ;) by zlives · 2013-07-26 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  hi wife is more worried about thermo dynamics
Honourable? by Moheeheeko · 2013-07-26 08:30 · Score: 1

Thats a stretch, guy's the biggest jackass in the running world.
completely useless by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 08:30 · Score: 0

The whole article doesnât help someone to understand why usain bolt os the fastest.
Big joke....:)-
Big joke by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 08:34 · Score: 0

The writer doesnât say anything to say why bolt is the fastest. Some useless physics data...
Re:Drugs. by umghhh · 2013-07-26 08:48 · Score: 1, Flamebait

why is it modded -1 - I mean that is true is it not? If somebody believes that top athletes of today do not use any drugs to get there s/he is naive. For some time I believed that the like chess and table tennis would be immune but now I do not and you know what - I do not care. It is just entertainment and if they want to take drugs so be it. I am just sorry for those few sportsmen that actually did not know they consume stuff that is no good. Only to tell which ones are those is difficult if at all possible. Still I guess there are some.
So bottom line is: yes it matters how you run - technique and 'talent' (whatever that is in particular case) but without drugs no success.
Anything beyond P:W and Cda? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 09:01 · Score: 0

Is there anything to it beyond Power:Weight and Coefficient of drag? Yeah, steroids; blah, blah. If Bolt has optimal P:W and drag, I would think steroids wouldn't make much of a difference. Just googling around it seems there is a trend towards taller sprinters, and Bolt is 6'5" which is pretty tall. Any taller and perhaps he would have terrible drag. Maybe there's an optimal height that allows you to develop a lot of power without getting too heavy, and push it through the air. Coaches may have been selecting poor candidates for training in the past. Bolt's body type might be the future, and then we'll just see incremental gains...
Re: The true max human 100m time is probably highe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 09:01 · Score: 0

I know a guy who lost his toes in an accided. He walks with a zimmer frame, ergo toes are more important than you think for balance
Re:What about Africa's most intelligent man? by Guy+Harris · 2013-07-26 10:48 · Score: 1

Famous African mathematicians: ? ? ? ?
"Famous", dunno, but I also dunno how many significant mathematicians are famous.
I also don't know whether the guy whose doctoral thesis was "Mod-2 K-Theory of the Second Iterated Loop Space on a Sphere" should have been famous as a mathematician, but then again, I don't know what a "Mod-2 K-Theory of the Second Iterated Loop Space on a Sphere" is. Do you?
Something Fishy by Jaime2 · 2013-07-26 10:51 · Score: 1

The article says that he experiences 1g of drag at 27mph. That means if you threw him out of a plane, he'd fall at less than 30mph and probably live. Sounds like there's an error in their analysis somewhere.
1. Re:Something Fishy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Did they say specifically aerodynamic drag, or that the lateral force he applies to the ground is equivalent to 1G of acceleration for his mass? Just like a car has "rolling friction", a runner has significant drag from his interface with the ground and his own physiology.
2. Re:Something Fishy by Jaime2 · 2013-07-26 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  They said he wasn't accelerating any more because he was providing 1g of force against 1g of drag.
Air Drag? Really??? by thestuckmud · 2013-07-26 11:53 · Score: 1

The paper assumes "that in the 100 m sprint he is able to develop a constant horizontal force F0 during the whole race", fits an air drag formula to laser measurements of an actual race, and concludes that Bolt expends 81.58kJ of mechanical work during a 100m sprint lasting 9.58 seconds. That may sound OK on the face of it, but 81.58kJ/9.58s is about 8500W (11.5HP) - more than four times the 2000W instantaneous maximum power output of elite track sprint cyclists. OK, maybe you believe in the overwhelming superiority of runners over cyclists. In that case, consider the drag of a body traveling at sprinting speeds. According to this bicycle power calculator, a non-aerodynamic rider might use as much as 500W at the maximum speed attained by Bolt. It is simply not possible that a runner's drag would be 17 times greater than an upright cyclist with knobby tires. This seems to prove that the paper's main assumption is wrong.
So what is going on? Well, we can see that there is an incredibly good fit between experimental data and the model. Clearly a combination of linear and quadratic force terms make the equation fit. However, the obvious answer is that these terms must primarily influence the force the sprinter is able to exert as a function of velocity. As I said, I'm not much of a runner, but I distinctly recall running out of leg speed when I used to attempt to sprint. Bolt's advantage seems to have more to do with muscle speed than raw power.
The failure to discuss this glaring discrepancy suggests the paper should not have been accepted for publication in its current form.
Re:Air Drag? Really??? by rHBa · 2013-07-26 13:56 · Score: 1

Surely having longer limbs than your average sprinter gives him higher gearing so 'running out of leg speed' is less of a problem for him than his competitors.
Re:What about Africa's most intelligent man? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-26 15:53 · Score: 0

Perhaps you haven't heard of:
The Zambian Mathematical Society
The Sudanese Mathematical Journal
The Liberian Mathematical Journal
The Kenyan Mathematical Society
http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102#more-102
Re:Drugs. by 1s44c · 2013-07-26 19:56 · Score: 1

You are thinking of the American sprinter Tyson Gay.
Re:Air Drag? Really??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 05:05 · Score: 0

Maybe, but if that was the only factor, we'd have 7 foot tall sprinters cleaning up the podium. In reality, the top sprinters are typically 6 ft or under. I'm not aware of the science behind it, but I've definitely heard running coaches say Bolt's height is usually a disadvantage.
Re: The true max human 100m time is probably highe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 05:26 · Score: 0

Way off. Humans, from outside Slashdot, can outrun any other animal over a full day if needed. Read more about ultra marathons and foot design, you will be surprised at how well adapted our feet are.
This in a country riddled with problems. by mirro_mx · 2013-08-02 06:43 · Score: 1

I know that this being news for nerds the main focus is going to be the tech or the physics related to the issue, but living in Mexico and seeing all the different ways research by such an institution could be better spent on more productive endeavors, the article just kinda irritated me.