The W
Views: 99868396
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.10.07 2252
The 7 - Sports that aren't Baseball, Football, Basketball, or Hockey - Random Scientific Hypothesis about Sprinting....
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (6 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4006/4700
EXP: 21577846
For next: 258816

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1267 days
Last activity: 1064 days
#1 Posted on 1.10.04 1359.05
Reposted on: 1.10.11 1400.57
...that makes little practical senseor means very much.

    Originally posted by Reuters
    Women could be faster 100-meter sprinters than men by the 2156 Olympics, according to a study on Wednesday.

    By the middle of the next century women may be leaving men in the dust and could, for the first time, beat them in the 100 meters.

    If projections by scientists at Oxford University in England are correct, women will close the gender gap by clocking 8.079 seconds in the 100 meters, ahead of the best male time of 8.098 seconds. The current world record stands at 9.78 seconds.

    "If current trends continue, the women will run faster than the men at the 2156 Olympics," said Andrew Tatem, an epidemiologist at the university.

    "There is a strong trend at the moment of both men and women improving their 100-meter times at the Olympics but women are increasing at a faster rate ..," he told Reuters.

    American sprinter Justin Gatlin won the men's 100 meters in Athens this year with a time of 9.85 and Yuliya Nesterenko of Belarus took the women's gold in 10.93.

    Winning times in the sprint for both sexes have increased since the 1900 Olympics, due to improved ability and better diet, fitness and coaching.

    Tatem and his colleagues plotted the winning times of the men's and women's Olympic finals for the sprint over the past 100 years. Their research showed no sign that either male or female athletes have reached a plateau.

    By extending current trends to the 2008 Olympics, they estimate women could win the 100 meters in 10.57 and the men in 9.73. Their calculations, which are published in the science journal Nature, show clear linear trends up to 2252.

    "The lines (representing the best male and female times) cross just before the 2156 Olympics," Tatem said.

    But he added that the analysis did not include confounding influences such as timing accuracy, environmental variations, national boycotts or the use of legal or banned stimulants.

    How much illegal substances have influenced men's or women's timing is unknown. According to some commentators, drug use can explain why women's times were improving faster than men's, particularly since they slowed after the introduction of drug testing, according to Tatem and his colleagues.

    But they found no evidence to support that.

    One explanation for the closing speed gap is that women have not been competing in the 100 meters as long as men and until now only a minority of the female population has been given an opportunity to compete.

    "Sports, biological and medical sciences should enable athletes to continue to improve on Olympic and world records, by fair means or foul," Tatum said in the Nature report.
Just think what these scientists could do if they did something practical...
Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2493/3273
EXP: 12773122
For next: 318231

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 196 days
Last activity: 196 days
#2 Posted on 1.10.04 1556.52
Reposted on: 1.10.11 1556.59
Post on internet message boards?

-Jag
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1723/2105
EXP: 6599955
For next: 50735

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 12 sec.
#3 Posted on 1.10.04 1728.34
Reposted on: 1.10.11 1729.03
That's also assuming that they don't reach the human threshold limit before then.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 2769/6012
EXP: 31951770
For next: 515757

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 1.10.04 1751.59
Reposted on: 1.10.11 1752.36
Jeeze, women are improving faster now because they were much slower more recently than the men were.

This is like that crap psuedo-science that shows us evolving away from having pinkies and/or being lizard people.

Unless running very fast becomes a selective criteria in evolution in humans over the next 150 years (which seems highly unlikely, considering the amount of obese people who can't break 9 minutes, let alone 9 seconds) you won't see this.

Considering that this is supposed to happen in less than 200 years (10 generations or so?) and that our friction reducing tech. is already pretty good, I'm going to have to call a massive Bullshit on this one.
Freeway
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 2321/3504
EXP: 14178978
For next: 229954

Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 302 days
Last activity: 23 days
#5 Posted on 1.10.04 1818.39
Reposted on: 1.10.11 1818.56
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Jeeze, women are improving faster now because they were much slower more recently than the men were.

    This is like that crap psuedo-science that shows us evolving away from having pinkies and/or being lizard people.

    Unless running very fast becomes a selective criteria in evolution in humans over the next 150 years (which seems highly unlikely, considering the amount of obese people who can't break 9 minutes, let alone 9 seconds) you won't see this.

    Considering that this is supposed to happen in less than 200 years (10 generations or so?) and that our friction reducing tech. is already pretty good, I'm going to have to call a massive Bullshit on this one.


Here here. Sprinting is very much NOT an exact science. It's running. It's not that difficult if you're (1) in great condition, (2) have good technique and (3) not an idiot.

Damn poindexters whining about stuff. Maybe they should us this wacky graphing technology to improve our lives, eh?
Tretas
Weisswurst
Level: 10

Posts: 1/17
EXP: 4244
For next: 170

Since: 6.10.04
From: Madeira

Since last post: 2668 days
Last activity: 1255 days
#6 Posted on 6.10.04 1739.57
Reposted on: 6.10.11 1741.07
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Unless running very fast becomes a selective criteria in evolution in humans over the next 150 years (which seems highly unlikely, considering the amount of obese people who can't break 9 minutes, let alone 9 seconds) you won't see these



Well, a very important force in human evolution,is fertility.

If you have kids and they survive long enough to have kids of their own, in a evolutionary point of view you're a success, since you have done what you're putt here for.
To have or make a lot of kids sharing your genetic heritage.

Money is also a very important thing in human evolution.
Running might have been, but now, its not.


A few individuals don't represent the human species.
The only thing that this "turbo freaks" will represent is that advance of the roids at that time.

Kinda like now i guess.



p.s: great site and and interesting post by grimis.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Nice job, NASCAR! (NOT.)
Next thread: Trinidad vs. Mayorga
Previous thread: Freddy Adu= Party animal
(215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Sports that aren't Baseball, Football, Basketball, or Hockey - Random Scientific Hypothesis about Sprinting....Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.179 seconds.