Humans Could Run 40 mph, in Theory

[Analog]

Humans could perhaps run as fast 40 mph, a new study suggests. Such a feat would leave in the dust the world's fastest runner, Usain Bolt, who has clocked nearly 28 mph in the 100-meter sprint.
The new findings come after researchers took a new look at the factors that limit human speed. Their conclusions? The top speed humans could reach may come down to how quickly muscles in the body can move.
Previous studies have suggested the main hindrance to speed is that our limbs can only take a certain amount of force when they strike the ground. This may not be the whole story, however.
"If one considers that elite sprinters can apply peak forces of 800 to 1,000 pounds with a single limb during each sprinting step, it's easy to believe that runners are probably operating at or near the force limits of their muscles and limbs," said Peter Weyand of Southern Methodist University, one of the study's authors.
But Weyand and colleagues found in treadmill tests that our limbs can handle a lot more force than what is applied during top-speed running.
What really holds us back
Their results showed the critical biological limit is imposed by time — specifically, the very brief periods of time available to apply force to the ground while sprinting. In elite sprinters, foot-ground contact times are less than one-tenth of a second, and peak ground forces occur within less than one-twentieth of that second for the first instant of foot-ground contact.
To figure out what limits how fast we can run, the researchers used a high-speed treadmill equipped to precisely measure the forces applied to its surface with each footfall. Study participants then ran on the treadmill using different gaits, including hopping, and running forward and backwards as fast as they possibly could.
The ground forces applied while hopping on one leg at top speed exceeded those applied during top-speed forward running by 30 percent or more. That suggests our limbs can handle greater forces than those found for two-legged running at top speeds.
And although top backward speed was substantially slower than top forward speed, as expected, the minimum periods of foot-ground contact at top backward and forward speeds were essentially identical. The fact that these two drastically different running styles had such similar intervals for foot-ground contact suggest that there is a physical limit to how fast your muscle fibers can work to get your feet off the ground, the researchers say.





http://www.livescience.com/animals/human-speed-limit-running-100122.html

 

[silverpig]

Runners limited by muscles. Who knew.

 

[caspur]

Set Usain Bolt on fire.

He runs 40mph.

Profit?

 

[Locut0s]

If all you are doing is moving the limiting factor from the joins to the muscles then there is no sense that we could run at 40mph in theory any more than we could before this study. All they did was change what the limiting factor was.

 

[destrekor]

Uh... so, we can run 40mph in theory. Because we have biological limits, no single individual has reached 30mph. So, I assume this theory is based on the idea that these biological limits didn't exist, yes?
So... humans cannot run 40mph. A biological limit is a biological limit.

If we want to push past biological limits, we cannot be entirely biological. Thus, we have to not be human. If it's an exoskeleton suit, then it's not a human feat. It's a feat of engineering. If we make part cybernetic, part human abominations, then they aren't human.

What the hell was this article trying to sell, exactly? I guarantee it's incredibly obvious we have biological limits for every competitive feat.

Ridiculous article.

At least, article introduction.

Hmm, if our bones were constructed differently, we could jump off a building and dive through the ground. A new competitive sport could be created: how deep into concrete can you dive?

I don't presume they are actually suggesting we can change the physical limits of our organic tissues...

I mean, it's awesome to know the physical reasoning and the exact science behind the limitations we have... but at least write a less ridiculous article proclaiming that research. Yeesh.

 

[bobsmith1492]

If all you are doing is moving the limiting factor from the joins to the muscles then there is no sense that we could run at 40mph in theory any more than we could before this study. All they did was change what the limiting factor was.

Yes, but the headline:

HUMANS CAN RUN 40MPH

Is so much more impressive than:

Humans can only run as fast as they can but we now think it is because of the maximum rate of muscle contraction instead of the previous theory that the bones cannot take that much stress.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's like saying that in theory, a 40 ton dump truck can go the speed of light, if it were not for the motor's limitation.

 

[Kadarin]

Hmm, if our bones were constructed differently, we could jump off a building and dive through the ground. A new competitive sport could be created: how deep into concrete can you dive?

Ask this guy: http://www.angehr.com/images/TheFirstTalibanMissileHittheU.S..jpg

 

[Kadarin]

If we make part cybernetic, part human abominations, then they aren't human.

I'm curious at your use of the word "abomination" here. Do you believe that it's wrong for people to modify themselves to improve physical performance? If so, why?

 

[Jeff7]

That's like saying that in theory, a 40 ton dump truck can go the speed of light, if it were not for the motor's limitation.

"Humans could move faster if they weren't so damned slow."

 

[destrekor]

I'm curious at your use of the word "abomination" here. Do you believe that it's wrong for people to modify themselves to improve physical performance? If so, why?

Don't take that as meaning people who wish that are terrible terrible human beings.

A mishmash, a concoction, whatever you wish to call it.

This is meant to describe someone who is literally half machine half animal. Not someone who adds a neuron-fired cybernetic limb to replace the missing limb.

If someone chops their arm off on purpose, or leg, or whatever... in order to have a spot to place a more powerful non-biological limb there... then yes, I am against that.

I fully support whatever it takes for someone who suffered quite the tragedy to regain the physical potential they lost.

But there comes a time where you have to draw the line.

Now, I fully support genetically engineering ourselves to be more capable.
Non-permanent machines to add strength for necessary functions at specific times, I support that. Like exoskeletons to help complete heavy duty labor.

But replacing biological body parts (not filling in a gap due to a loss of said biological part) with artificial ones for the purpose of gain, ridiculous. We're animals, let's remain that way. We can change certain aspects, and in some cases artificial parts to replace biological ones are necessary to stay alive, but let's keep to things that we can pass on to future generations. Like genetic engineering.

 

[Jeff7]

...
If we want to push past biological limits, we cannot be entirely biological. Thus, we have to not be human. If it's an exoskeleton suit, then it's not a human feat. It's a feat of engineering. If we make part cybernetic, part human abominations, then they aren't human.
...

"Being human" is overrated anyway. Too many limitations.

Nature took us this far; yeah, it's got some nice things going for it. But it's got some limitations.
And of course, if we go too far into genetic manipulation, we've got some options:
- Cease to be human, and instead be something else
- Continually change the definition of "human" to mean "dominant primate-like species on Earth."

I figure, so what if we'd eventually progress to a purely synthetic lifeform which is superior to this species. Parents always hope that their children will fare better than they did. An artificial life form, created by humanity, would be our legacy to sentience in the Universe, and our legacy to ourselves, when we said, "So long, nature, and thanks for all the fish. "

 

[Rubycon]

My gps occasionally shows me running close to 40 mph when I'm running forward while at sea.

Best was when Lloyd was running while Harry was driving in Dumb & Dumber.

 

[destrekor]

"Being human" is overrated anyway. Too many limitations.

Nature took us this far; yeah, it's got some nice things going for it. But it's got some limitations.
And of course, if we go too far into genetic manipulation, we've got some options:
- Cease to be human, and instead be something else
- Continually change the definition of "human" to mean "dominant primate-like species on Earth."

I figure, so what if we'd eventually progress to a purely synthetic lifeform which is superior to this species. Parents always hope that their children will fare better than they did. An artificial life form, created by humanity, would be our legacy to sentience in the Universe, and our legacy to ourselves, when we said, "So long, nature, and thanks for all the fish. "

But where's the fun in that?

We don't deserve sentience if we can't hang with nature... naturally. Genetic engineering would be sentient-beings controlling evolution, I can accept that.

Human means what we want it to mean. Our species will likely eventually change at some point in the future. If we figure out how to advance a human body into being a different species, we really did something rather extraordinary. Genetic modification would still keep us H. Sapiens, I think... unless we changed the base chromosomal structures.

And if we create non-biological creatures that can breed... fuck I'll be glad I'm dead at that point. They'd kill us. If I were one of them at such a point in time, I'd surely do the same thing. :twisted:

 

[Jeff7]

But where's the fun in that?

Well, I like robots, and the idea of pushing us beyond what nature can cobble together is intersting as well.

We don't deserve sentience if we can't hang with nature... naturally. Genetic engineering would be sentient-beings controlling evolution, I can accept that.

Point of view, I suppose.
This particular combination of stuff we're made of just happens to be the best nature came up with on this particular planet. It worked out well enough to allow various kinds of life to continue to exist, even if the only way they can survive the harsh environment is by creating replicas of themselves before they succumb to the elements.
Go the genetic manipulation route, and you're already screwing with what nature already came up with; you're just using the chemical components that nature provided. It's not too terribly much of a step away from that to say, "Hey, these DNA Legos you've got are fine and all, but you know what, I'm going to start playing with the Lego Atomic Edition starter set."
You're still playing with stuff nature came up with, such as various other interesting elements, but merely leaving DNA behind.

Human means what we want it to mean. Our species will likely eventually change at some point in the future. If we figure out how to advance a human body into being a different species, we really did something rather extraordinary. Genetic modification would still keep us H. Sapiens, I think... unless we changed the base chromosomal structures.

And if we create non-biological creatures that can breed... fuck I'll be glad I'm dead at that point. They'd kill us. If I were one of them at such a point in time, I'd surely do the same thing. :twisted:

Ultimatley, I would consider it to be an utter failure of life on this planet if we never advance beyond homo sapien. That'd be like evolution proceeding merrily along all these eons, and then SPLAT! Brick wall! Homo sapien plants a flag, and starts singing "We are the champions." Then before you know it, BAM! amoebas evolve the ability to burrow into our skulls and eat our brains (well ok, some microbes already do that), and acquire our knowledge, including the secret recipe for Coca Cola.

 

[Freshgeardude]

theoretically, anything is possible.

there is a probability that I can reach into my monitor and grab a person half-way around the world.

 

[JMapleton]

I don't like articles like that, which put modern man down and brag up ancient peoples or cultures making them look superior when they were not.

Humans have only gotten better over time. Mentally and physically. Could a cave man shoot a basketball well? I doubt it.

 

[Locut0s]

Don't take that as meaning people who wish that are terrible terrible human beings.

A mishmash, a concoction, whatever you wish to call it.

This is meant to describe someone who is literally half machine half animal. Not someone who adds a neuron-fired cybernetic limb to replace the missing limb.

If someone chops their arm off on purpose, or leg, or whatever... in order to have a spot to place a more powerful non-biological limb there... then yes, I am against that.

I fully support whatever it takes for someone who suffered quite the tragedy to regain the physical potential they lost.

But there comes a time where you have to draw the line.

Now, I fully support genetically engineering ourselves to be more capable.
Non-permanent machines to add strength for necessary functions at specific times, I support that. Like exoskeletons to help complete heavy duty labor.

But replacing biological body parts (not filling in a gap due to a loss of said biological part) with artificial ones for the purpose of gain, ridiculous. We're animals, let's remain that way. We can change certain aspects, and in some cases artificial parts to replace biological ones are necessary to stay alive, but let's keep to things that we can pass on to future generations. Like genetic engineering.

I agree that it may be a slippery slope but, I don't know I'd find a bionic eyes mighty tempting. Eyes that allowed one to see a much larger range of the E spectrum. Eyes that allowed one to broadcast video directly to your "retina" wirelessly.

 

[Kadarin]

Don't take that as meaning people who wish that are terrible terrible human beings.

A mishmash, a concoction, whatever you wish to call it.

This is meant to describe someone who is literally half machine half animal. Not someone who adds a neuron-fired cybernetic limb to replace the missing limb.

If someone chops their arm off on purpose, or leg, or whatever... in order to have a spot to place a more powerful non-biological limb there... then yes, I am against that.

I fully support whatever it takes for someone who suffered quite the tragedy to regain the physical potential they lost.

But there comes a time where you have to draw the line.

Now, I fully support genetically engineering ourselves to be more capable.
Non-permanent machines to add strength for necessary functions at specific times, I support that. Like exoskeletons to help complete heavy duty labor.

But replacing biological body parts (not filling in a gap due to a loss of said biological part) with artificial ones for the purpose of gain, ridiculous. We're animals, let's remain that way. We can change certain aspects, and in some cases artificial parts to replace biological ones are necessary to stay alive, but let's keep to things that we can pass on to future generations. Like genetic engineering.

Interesting. Unlike you, I do not believe that it's morally wrong to modify the human body either mechanically or genetically to improve functionality. I would not support laws that would seek to prevent people from doing so.

However, I do respect your right to feel the way you do, so long as you don't seek to prevent others from doing so if they so wish.

 

[DrPizza]

I have some questions for the researchers, like how the hell they measured the force exerted by the runner? As they compared it to hopping up and down & found hopping up and down to exert a greater force, it seems fairly obvious that they measured only the vertical component of force and completely ignored that the force vector through the leg is not perpendicular to the treadmill.

 

[destrekor]

Interesting. Unlike you, I do not believe that it's morally wrong to modify the human body either mechanically or genetically to improve functionality. I would not support laws that would seek to prevent people from doing so.

However, I do respect your right to feel the way you do, so long as you don't seek to prevent others from doing so if they so wish.

Oh, don't think any of this is morality based. Morals for modification = morally wrong to do any modification.

I'm fine with modification, but I also look at it from an animal perspective.
I think first we need to prove we are a worthy creature to even think about making our own successor.
Something that we create, and deem to be similar and possibly better than us, deserves that chance at life? I wouldn't even argue WE deserve that opportunity. We cannot even come to grip with accepting that we're a damn natural animal to begin with.

Because before we can get to that point, we need to question morality as well: do the weak deserve the same chance at life, procreating and whatnot?

That's an entirely different debate and I don't really care to get into that, but just seeding that little idea...

Perfecting species is one thing, but directly playing into the establishment of new species is something else entirely. I'm a firm believe in nature - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We're broke as fuck, but before we can go engineering our perfection, we have a serious road block to consider: what the hell do we do with our population as it is? If we attempt to perfect the body, an early exit is going to be less and less common.

And next up in that line of thought: we're still killing each other.

Hmm.. Maybe we should create a new species, make it more intelligent than us, likely an easy task. We can manage a lot of information, but we're hardly intelligent in terms of handling life.
And why should we do this? In the hope that this more advanced, smarter species would decide we're not even fit to co-exist with them and attempt to destroy our species. Warring with other species is what life is all about. The constant battle to one-up another species, in nature at least, is how creatures just keep drawing lines in the family tree.

Of course, this new species might instead look at themselves, and say "We're the product of these misfits? Fuck this game, I'm out." Then we're back at square one.

 

[Locut0s]

Oh, don't think any of this is morality based. Morals for modification = morally wrong to do any modification.

I'm fine with modification, but I also look at it from an animal perspective.
I think first we need to prove we are a worthy creature to even think about making our own successor.
Something that we create, and deem to be similar and possibly better than us, deserves that chance at life? I wouldn't even argue WE deserve that opportunity. We cannot even come to grip with accepting that we're a damn natural animal to begin with.

Because before we can get to that point, we need to question morality as well: do the weak deserve the same chance at life, procreating and whatnot?

That's an entirely different debate and I don't really care to get into that, but just seeding that little idea...

Perfecting species is one thing, but directly playing into the establishment of new species is something else entirely. I'm a firm believe in nature - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We're broke as fuck, but before we can go engineering our perfection, we have a serious road block to consider: what the hell do we do with our population as it is? If we attempt to perfect the body, an early exit is going to be less and less common.

And next up in that line of thought: we're still killing each other.

Hmm.. Maybe we should create a new species, make it more intelligent than us, likely an easy task. We can manage a lot of information, but we're hardly intelligent in terms of handling life.
And why should we do this? In the hope that this more advanced, smarter species would decide we're not even fit to co-exist with them and attempt to destroy our species. Warring with other species is what life is all about. The constant battle to one-up another species, in nature at least, is how creatures just keep drawing lines in the family tree.

Of course, this new species might instead look at themselves, and say "We're the product of these misfits? Fuck this game, I'm out." Then we're back at square one.

Artificial life is probably not all that far off. And I don't mean AI I mean real life created by humans via DNA sequencing. They have already created viruses and simple bacteria by assembling their genomes from individual base pairs. We are making good progress at understanding protein folding and protein pathways. I'm not saying we will ever create anything as complex as even say a mouse any time soon but human made bacteria with novel traits may not be far off. These would be entirely new species that we custom build.

I agree though that we haven't proven very well that we deserve to live.

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe humans are the endurance kings. We can outlast anything else in a chase, iirc. Nothing else can maintain it's speed as long as a human can, iirc.

On land, of course.

 

[Jeff7]

I believe humans are the endurance kings. We can outlast anything else in a chase, iirc. Nothing else can maintain it's speed as long as a human can, iirc.

On land, of course.

Possibly, but that doesn't matter if whatever's after you can sprint a hell of a lot faster than a human. It doesn't need to keep running for 20 minutes if it can catch up to you in 20 seconds. Then it can spend the remaining time enjoying a light lunch.

 

[Fox5]

Possibly, but that doesn't matter if whatever's after you can sprint a hell of a lot faster than a human. It doesn't need to keep running for 20 minutes if it can catch up to you in 20 seconds. Then it can spend the remaining time enjoying a light lunch.

Yeah, but if a pack of humans are chasing something, and it gets tired in 20 seconds, they'll overrun it.