In my younger days almost 3 in a row but I am questioning the credit he takes for thinking he is a coach. You are no reality checker. You are probably the OP. Speak up
Good morning fellow runners. Honest physiology question here.
Lighter means faster. That is not debatable. Siffan hassan weighs 98 pounds, and that is a huge reason why she is the best in the world. They don't make a Lamborghini a featherweight vehicle for no scientific reason. Lighter means faster. Shoes included.
Physiologically, our arms weigh between 50 and 75 pounds combined (rough estimate). So my question is how much faster all of us would be without arms. How much faster would the wr mile be if el guerrouj was armless? What about kipchoge and his marathon record?
Look, I know for sprinters arms can generate a slight "pull" that acts as a crank to sort or crank things up. But overall it's still just excess weight, plus arms are unaerodynamic. I am proposing that the wr for the mile would be 9 seconds faster with no arms, and the marathon would be 11 minutes faster with no arms. Come on now, we are talking about el g and kipchoge weighing 50 pounds less.
None of you can sit here and provide a counterargument that arms are somehow more physiologically faster than running with no arms. I will read your rebuttal and I'm ready to debate it, but no such proven rebuttal exists. At the end of the day, arms are just added excess weight and all they do is slow us down. The only benefit they serve is having a hand, that might benefit lonely single males.
-the430miler Owner, teXXXas tanning salons LLC
Coach and adjunct professor
A university in san antonio
Based on data, total arm is 5.7%, so 11.4% combined. That means around 15lbs for a 130lb person. Source: Plagenhoef et al., 1983. I can't even begin to imagine how you came up with the 50-75lbs...
Interesting thought, especially since the fastest bipedal runners, ostriches, basically have "T-Rex arms." Thought experiment - how much better or worse would a broad jump be with / without arms given the weight difference? How would that apply to running with the micro momentum generated by arm swings? Guessing armless would be more efficient, regardless. I say this as someone who's tried many times to run without swinging my arms as an experiment (with or without dumbbells).
Good morning fellow runners. Honest physiology question here.
Lighter means faster. That is not debatable. Siffan hassan weighs 98 pounds, and that is a huge reason why she is the best in the world. They don't make a Lamborghini a featherweight vehicle for no scientific reason. Lighter means faster. Shoes included.
Physiologically, our arms weigh between 50 and 75 pounds combined (rough estimate). So my question is how much faster all of us would be without arms. How much faster would the wr mile be if el guerrouj was armless? What about kipchoge and his marathon record?
Look, I know for sprinters arms can generate a slight "pull" that acts as a crank to sort or crank things up. But overall it's still just excess weight, plus arms are unaerodynamic. I am proposing that the wr for the mile would be 9 seconds faster with no arms, and the marathon would be 11 minutes faster with no arms. Come on now, we are talking about el g and kipchoge weighing 50 pounds less.
None of you can sit here and provide a counterargument that arms are somehow more physiologically faster than running with no arms. I will read your rebuttal and I'm ready to debate it, but no such proven rebuttal exists. At the end of the day, arms are just added excess weight and all they do is slow us down. The only benefit they serve is having a hand, that might benefit lonely single males.
-the430miler Owner, teXXXas tanning salons LLC
Coach and adjunct professor
A university in san antonio
Based on data, total arm is 5.7%, so 11.4% combined. That means around 15lbs for a 130lb person. Source: Plagenhoef et al., 1983. I can't even begin to imagine how you came up with the 50-75lbs...
Interesting thought, especially since the fastest bipedal runners, ostriches, basically have "T-Rex arms." Thought experiment - how much better or worse would a broad jump be with / without arms given the weight difference? How would that apply to running with the micro momentum generated by arm swings? Guessing armless would be more efficient, regardless. I say this as someone who's tried many times to run without swinging my arms as an experiment (with or without dumbbells).
Because the OP doesn't ever know what they are talking about.
I have thought about this question myself, after watching the relevant category at the paralympics, and notice a lot of the runners didn't look that well trained but ran a pretty good 800. If there were as much depth as the able 800 has, they might be faster overall.
And naturally this raises the question of whether deliberate amputation is cheating. Many elites will take known cancer-causing PED's, so I wouldn't rule out one sacrificing their arms to become champion, which is debilitating but not fatal.
You can try it: grab your elbows behind the trunk. It leads to awkward shoulder movement.
Or you can do it Greek distance runner style: bend the elbows up as much as you can. It feels like you have no forearms. Actually that is pretty popular in races I've seen on TV.
You can try it: grab your elbows behind the trunk. It leads to awkward shoulder movement.
Or you can do it Greek distance runner style: bend the elbows up as much as you can. It feels like you have no forearms. Actually that is pretty popular in races I've seen on TV.
No doubt. Tough to simulate being 15lbs lighter, though.
Look, I know for sprinters arms can generate a slight "pull" that acts as a crank to sort or crank things up. But overall it's still just excess weight, plus arms are unaerodynamic. I am proposing that the wr for the mile would be 9 seconds faster with no arms, and the marathon would be 11 minutes faster with no arms. Come on now, we are talking about el g and kipchoge weighing 50 pounds less.
-the430miler Owner, teXXXas tanning salons LLC
Coach and adjunct professor
A university in san antonio
Are you really an adjunct prof? really?
50 lbs arms, that makes the legs at least , what, 80 lbs, head 20 lbs...what sort of runner is this? Do you know how Google works? Arms are on average 8lbs, legs 26 lbs, head 11 lbs.
Physically your arms counteract the angular motion produced by legs, and aids both speed and efficiency. It is apparently possible that maintaing swinging arms whilst in a sling (supported weight) saves even more energy
Well we could find a way to cut out your brain but surely it is virtually weightless. The average is about 3 lbs but I sense yours is as light as a feather.
Better chance of a tropical storm and an earthquake hitting the Los Angeles area at the same time than 430 being either a college coach or being in Budapest.
As an expert on the birds of Texas, what is your take on the old Big Bird cryptozoon? Is there really a giant bird walking/flying around?
I actually had one of my students recently asked me if that was a pseudospecies like the yeti or saskwatch. Here is my stance on it.
When i was getting my MS in ornithology, I was also working towards my PhD. My PhD was never approved by the committee as they said a couple of my references were out of chicago-style citing format. So at this point I'm still a master on the subject.
During my thesis research, zoologists from around the world actually altered the modern day concensus about the status of large birds. They now say that all birds are reptiles. That's what all the new textbooks are saying. They were previously in a separate family known as Aves. (Aviary). Now, what we do know is that the evolutionary adaptations of birds have made them the ONLY living dinosaurs on planet earth. Comparisons of their ability to walk on hind legs like the pterodactyl have helped us define them as such.
The species you are referring to, from my research, is a non linear ancestor or the modern day ostrich. In other words, its a synapsomorphy. When it comes to taxonomy and cladistics, everything is either a synapsomorphy or a simplesiamorphy. This is the rule for proper binomial nomenclature.
My professional assessment with the cryptozoon as a sub species is largely based upon the fossil record. With the fossil record, we make comparative vertabrate analogies between species to help identify genetic similarities, sort of like a paleontologist does. The problem is that the fossil record CAN have holes in it. These holes are called punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is where evolution starts and then stops again for no apparent reason, all while still achieving descent with modification. The nail in the coffin for any type of species identification or evolutionary confirmation really is DNA. since we do not have the DNA of a cryptozoon, all we can do is fill in the pieces of the fossil record. From a precise cladistics standpoint, the cryptozoon pheonotypically (visually) mostly resembles the Teratornis. However, once dissected and its orthopedic analysis is performed, it still leans towards being a descendant of the modern day ostrich. Just look at how chimps and gorillas are both knuckle walkers. This is a similar example of a synapsomorphic genre of evolution, at least by darwinian principals.
To our knowledge, the highest density of bird species that have yet to be identified still exist in the amazon rain forest, even despite deforestation. I had to become completely fluent in latin in order to get my MS in ornithology. You see, my professor refused to speak any English to us. Binomial nomenclature is all latin, and obviously latin is the root of all language and the oldest along with Hebrew.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.