Fastest scientist and fastest engineer?

SciencishInquisition wrote:

How about Erica Larson for the ladies?

(OT qualifier, but the multiple Pikes Peak marathon/ascent wins seem more impressive to me)

Julia Bleasdale is another Cambridge engineer who will be up there somewhere on the ladies' side:

3k: 8:46

5k: 15:02

10k: 30:55

Pete Fitzinger is an exercise science dude and ran 2:13 a couple times

Gwyn Coogan is a math Ph.D and ran 32:xx and 2:32

Touring is considered by many, including me, the most important person of the past century

As a CS student and a runner, Im a huge fan of him, but this thread is all about finding the fastest times

Having said that, maybe later I could do a list of formal scientists (math and cs), including natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and many more) is probably going a little bit too far

Still waiting for more enginners to beat (or come close, why not) to these times:

800 1:46 Baddeley

1500 3:34 Baddeley

5000 13:19 Meucci

10000 27:32 Meucci

Marathon 2:13:49 Meucci

And of course a women/engineer/elite runner to make the women list

I have a hard time not regarding mathematicians as scientists. That the field of mathematics doesn't lend itself so easily to "hands-on" experiments of the sort seen in the physical and biological sciences doesn't negate the distinctly scientific manner in which mathematicians pursue their work.

MDs don't qualify as scientists as a rule, but there are those who do choose to go into research rather than clinical medicine. Nowadays, most of these folks also get PhDs in a biological science, either because they knew what their choice would be in advance and entered a combined MD/PhD program after getting a bachelor's degree or even a master's, while some of them get their degrees in series rather than in parallel.

The letters after his name aside, Bannister unquestionably qualifies as a medical scientist. From his biography on the Academy of Achievement Web site:

"He completed his medical studies and for the next two decades combined a career in research with clinical practice as a neurologist. After recovering from a serious car accident he withdrew from private practice to devote himself to research."

We are scientists wrote:

We could do a women list also if someone has info

Tatyana Kazankina jumps to mind. (Someone mentioned Snell. Kazankina, Snell and Paula Radcliffe share the same birthday. I know this because I was born on that day as well.) She has three Olympic golds and was the first woman under four minutes for the 1500m. She was also suspended for a year and a half for refusing to take a doping control tests and never ran competitively again. She has published a lot of scientific papers, but I'm hazy on the details and not motivated to try to lift the fog. As an aside, this interview, conducted in Russian, is funny as hell when you use Google to translate it into English:

"I'm terribly grateful to my coach Nikolai Zhukovsky Malyshev, who, unfortunately, no longer exists."

"I do not run, but the pulse still quickens."

"Masterkova it is a wonderful runner, but the time comes, and it will also have to get off the track."

I realize that this thread is supposed to be limited to world-class athletes, but it's hard to ignore people like Jaymee Marty, who at 43 was one of the oldest women ever to become a first-time U.S. Olympic Trials qualifier when she ran 2:45 in 2010 in a warm Chicago race. Jaymee has actively worked as an environmental scientists for years; she is a major in the Army Reserves, is a talented musician and even drives long distances to rescue puppies.

Also, when the woman below was a Dartmouth biology major named Kristin Cobb she was pretty fast, maybe low 16's on the track. She may have been valedictorian of her class. She qualified for the 2000 Trials. I guess she's more of an educator than a scientist these days, but she's done some very important and in-depth research of the "female athlete triad."

Kristin Sainani is a clinical assistant professor at Stanford University and also a health and science writer. After receiving an MS in statistics and PhD in epidemiology from Stanford University, she studied science writing at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She has taught statistics and writing at Stanford for a decade and has received several Excellence in Teaching Awards from the graduate program in epidemiology.

More here --

Maybe I will do later a list of formal scientists, but probably not in this thread

Some real fast engineers so far... Searching and waiting for more info, thanks!

As of now

ENGINEERING MEN

800 1:46.32 Andrew Baddeley (University of Cambridge - Aerospace Eng.)

1500 3:34.36 Andrew Baddeley (University of Cambridge - Aerospace Eng.)

Steeple -

5000 13:19.00 Daniele Meucci (University of Pisa - Automation Eng.)

10000 27:32.86 Daniele Meucci (University of Pisa - Automation Eng.)

Marathon 2:13:49 Daniele Meucci (University of Pisa - Automation Eng.)

ENGINEERING WOMEN

800 ?

1500 ?

Steeple ?

5000 15:02.00 Julia Bleasdale (University of Cambridge - ? )

10000 30:55.63 Julia Bleasdale (University of Cambridge - ?)

Marathon ?

Whatever scientist went to the moon or on the space shuttle...

Sara Bei has a Stanford Human Biology degree

I am the fastest REAL scientist.

I suspect that none of the people mentioned above (I mean, the men) would have much of a chance in a 400 against:

Sanya Richards-Ross 48.70

(1) National Merit Scholar in high school

(2) Attended the University of Texas as an ENGINEERING major

(3) Has a degree in Management Information Systems from UT

doesn't Wesley Korir (defending Boston Champion) have a biology degree?

I believe Kevin Sullivan was a civil Engineering major? (3:31.76)

Edwin Moses has a BS in Physics

Good thread contributions.

Personally, I'm more/most interested in those that worked in the field: the longer, the better, and the more impressive the scientific contribution AND race results, the better -- but how to weight the tradeoff?

I guess I'm interested in the overlap of the most sciencish runner and the fastest scientist. A 20-minute 5k from Einstein (I made that up) wouldn't cut it; likewise, neither does "majoring in-" (or a high school merit award!) from athletes -- I think we need some reasonably significant time actually contributing in science/engineering. Then again, the question is about fastest, so you can ignore this if you want.

Anyway, it seems like Bannister is a tough one to beat on both fronts.

Good Job wrote:

Edwin Moses has a BS in Physics

That would make him (one of) the fastest (and winningest) undergraduate physics majors, then.

I believe this post is about athletes who are good both in distance running and intellectual ares, more precisely scientific areas. And if you don't consider mathematicians scientists, well, I must inform you that the language of science is mathematics and a physicist an engineer are both mathematicians as well, specified mathematicians if you wish.

I'm a scientist (chemistry) and a runner. I'm not every good at either. I consider myself to be the most mediocre runner and scientist. Anyone want to challenge me for the title?

chewbacca wrote:

Pete Fitzinger is an exercise science dude and ran 2:13 a couple times

Pete Pfitzinger's PR is 2:11:43.

SciencishInquisition wrote:

Good thread contributions.

Personally, I'm more/most interested in those that worked in the field: the longer, the better, and the more impressive the scientific contribution AND race results, the better -- but how to weight the tradeoff?

I agree. Having an undergrad degree in a science doesn't cut it -- I have one and I'm about as much of a scientist as Dr. Bunson Honeydew.

Years ago, when Bill James first getting started with his baseball sabermetrics, he came up with a way to weight the overall "diversity" of players who were both power-hitters and base-stealers. I think his formula was

HR*SB/(HR + SB)

So a 40/40 guy would have a power-speed number of 20, someone who swiped 30 bases but hit 40 dingers would rate a 19.1, a 20/60 guy would score a 15, etc. Balance is the key.

The problem is, there's no way to really assign numbers to the areas of interest here. So I just completely wasted another post.