Dataset Information

How Fast Can a Human Run? - Bipedal vs. Quadrupedal Running.

ABSTRACT: Usain Bolt holds the current world record in the 100-m run, with a running time of 9.58?s, and has been described as the best human sprinter in history. However, this raises questions concerning the maximum human running speed, such as "Can the world's fastest men become faster still?" The correct answer is likely "Yes." We plotted the historical world records for bipedal and quadrupedal 100-m sprint times according to competition year. These historical records were plotted using several curve-fitting procedures. We found that the projected speeds intersected in 2048, when for the first time, the winning quadrupedal 100-m sprint time could be lower, at 9.276?s, than the winning bipedal time of 9.383?s. Video analysis revealed that in quadrupedal running, humans employed a transverse gallop with a small angular excursion. These results suggest that in the future, the fastest human on the planet might be a quadrupedal runner at the 2048 Olympics. This may be achieved by shifting up to the rotary gallop and taking longer strides with wide sagittal trunk motion.

SUBMITTER: Kinugasa R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4928019 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Fast Can a Human Run? - Bipedal vs. Quadrupedal Running.

Kinugasa Ryuta R Usami Yoshiyuki Y

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology 20160630

Usain Bolt holds the current world record in the 100-m run, with a running time of 9.58 s, and has been described as the best human sprinter in history. However, this raises questions concerning the maximum human running speed, such as "Can the world's fastest men become faster still?" The correct answer is likely "Yes." We plotted the historical world records for bipedal and quadrupedal 100-m sprint times according to competition year. These historical records were plotted using several curve-f ...[more]

PMID: 27446911

Similar Datasets

Project description:Birds are a diverse and agile lineage of vertebrates that all use bipedal locomotion for at least part of their life. Thus birds provide a valuable opportunity to investigate how biomechanics and sensorimotor control are integrated for agile bipedal locomotion. This review summarizes recent work using terrain perturbations to reveal neuromechanical control strategies used by ground birds to achieve robust, stable, and agile running. Early experiments in running guinea fowl aimed to reveal the immediate intrinsic mechanical response to an unexpected drop ("pothole") in terrain. When navigating the pothole, guinea fowl experience large changes in leg posture in the perturbed step, which correlates strongly with leg loading and perturbation recovery. Analysis of simple theoretical models of running has further confirmed the crucial role of swing-leg trajectory control for regulating foot contact timing and leg loading in uneven terrain. Coupling between body and leg dynamics results in an inherent trade-off in swing leg retraction rate for fall avoidance versus injury avoidance. Fast leg retraction minimizes injury risk, but slow leg retraction minimizes fall risk. Subsequent experiments have investigated how birds optimize their control strategies depending on the type of perturbation (pothole, step, obstacle), visibility of terrain, and with ample practice negotiating terrain features. Birds use several control strategies consistently across terrain contexts: (1) independent control of leg angular cycling and leg length actuation, which facilitates dynamic stability through simple control mechanisms, (2) feedforward regulation of leg cycling rate, which tunes foot-contact timing to maintain consistent leg loading in uneven terrain (minimizing fall and injury risks), (3) load-dependent muscle actuation, which rapidly adjusts stance push-off and stabilizes body mechanical energy, and (4) multi-step recovery strategies that allow body dynamics to transiently vary while tightly regulating leg loading to minimize risks of fall and injury. In future work, it will be interesting to investigate the learning and adaptation processes that allow animals to adjust neuromechanical control mechanisms over short and long timescales.

Project description:Injury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently.The Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1-3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069).The Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed.Clinical Trials NCT02349373 - January 23, 2015.

Dataset Information

How Fast Can a Human Run? - Bipedal vs. Quadrupedal Running.

Publications

How Fast Can a Human Run? - Bipedal vs. Quadrupedal Running.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets