Quantcast
BROWSE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
General | Posted by Cameron at Aug. 28, 2008 - 2:00 am


Statisticians have used a lower limit for 100-meter times of about 9.45 seconds, according to Tabata and other researchers. The exponential curve seen above -- which is drawn from an equation calculated to fit the world record data -- had been quite successful at predicting the steady progress of faster and faster 100-meter times. But Bolt's recent string of world records was clearly not an expected event: The model didn't predict a 9.69 until almost 2030.

Mathematicians like Noubary don't use the body's physiology to assess human physical limits. They were merely working with data that suggested that human speed increases were decelerating and would eventually stop completely. Indeed, in some events, like the long jump, the pace of record-setting has slowed nearly to a stop. That record has only been broken twice since 1968.

But it could just be that mathematicians have been modeling the pace of progress wrong all along.


I started running about two months ago, trying to work off all those cheeseburger and pizza L.B.'s that I had collected over the years. It was hard at first, but I naturally improved. I can run farther and faster now. But I'd still need bionic legs to keep up with these freaks of nature.

I was in disbelief after watching a few of Bolt's sprints. The man is gigantic, yet he runs extremely fast. I watched the Michael Johnson record right afterwards, and saw a much shorter guy run almost as fast. But it wasn't as cool as seeing a dude half a foot taller than the rest of the runners zoom ahead to the finish. And give up 20 yards short. And still win.

I still bet I can type faster than him.

[Read Full Story at Wired Blog]
0 User Comments
Add Comment

To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields.

Username: *


Password: (optional)
(Remember my login information: )

Comment: *


What is 1+2?: *


Related News
Nov. 22, 2008 - 8:00 pm
Techdirt Nov. 19, 2008 - 3:38 pm
Ars Technica Nov. 19, 2008 - 3:05 pm