Oh okay. Howard became dramatically slower after he lost one leg, but if only he had been luck enough to lose both legs, he'd be right there with Teg in the 5K. That makes sense.
Oh okay. Howard became dramatically slower after he lost one leg, but if only he had been luck enough to lose both legs, he'd be right there with Teg in the 5K. That makes sense.
whoa...... wrote:
I might be wrong on that 44 second comment, but I do know that he WILL RUN FASTER than his current PR if he had real legs.
We'll probably have to see him run to know.
I like that he stated if there really is a proven unfair advantage, then he'd stop competing for sake of fairness. I took him for being sincere. I wish more drug cheats would answer this way. Even if they did take drugs on accident, they should acknowledge an unfair advantage, instead of only, "I didn't mean it, so it's o.k."
The more I read about Pistorius, the more I am pulling for him to run fast.
"Ultimately, both ESPF [energy storing prosthetic foot] and conventional prosthetic feet are passive devices and, as such, will never fully attain the performance of the unamputated limb (an active system with muscular forces and sensory feedback)."
- Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Jan/Feb 2002
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/02/39/1/pdf/hafner.pdf
Scholarly article with citations.
woah, attempting to bring some facts and scholarship into this discussion? shame on you. i'd much rather hear the glib opinions of letsrun posters.
Chuck,
If it helps, over the past 15 seconds, I developed a significant, groundbreaking analysis of what inidividuals can run with prosthetic legs versus normal legs
Michael Johnson with prostheses - 49.82 (43.18 w/legs)
Jeremy Wariner with prostheses - 50.27 (43.62 w/)
Oscar Pistorius with legs - 39.08 (46.56 w/o)
Interestingly enough, Sanya Richards would do exceptionally well w/o legs. By my calculations, 24.92 for 400m.
guy named arnie boldt, check him out: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-41-1363-8445/sports/paralympics/
the thing that no one seems to be realizing is that this guy still has the upper half of his legs. it's not as if he's got sticks attached to his torso. correct me if i'm wrong, but in running, and especially in sprinting, the major forces of locomotion come from the large muscles of the upper leg and hip - the glutes, quads, and hamstrings. the calves are predominantly not fast-twitch muscles, and they act more as stabilizers and to allow the foot to dorsiflex properly so that the leg and foot are in the optimal position to transfer the energy generated by the upper legs and hips into the ground. the prosthetic lower legs allow him to put just as much energy into each stride but with the added benefits of 1) weighing a lot less than a normal leg, 2) not having calves to fatigue through constant flexion and extension of the foot. take a look at any fast-running animal, a horse, or a cheetah. what do their lower legs look like? not much like a human's. they are long and thin, more like carbon fiber blades than human legs, which have added lower leg musculature for support in bipedal locomotion.
If He Had Legs wrote:
"Ultimately, both ESPF [energy storing prosthetic foot] and conventional prosthetic feet are passive devices and, as such, will never fully attain the performance of the unamputated limb (an active system with muscular forces and sensory feedback)."
- Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Jan/Feb 2002
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/02/39/1/pdf/hafner.pdfScholarly article with citations.
The quote you chose was used in the context of comparing a person's prosthesis to their natural limb. Sorry, this study, would help to explain why CJ Howard is not capable of running as fast as he used to be able to run, but does not come anywhere near describing or proving that a pair of prosthetic devices would be less effecient than a pair of natural limb.
If we are talking spring efficiency alone, I will grant you that a prosthetic device is better. But spring efficiency does not provide a complete picture of the energy return when comparing prosthetics/natural limbs. The higher efficiency comes at a cost of increased impact absorption by the musculoskeletal system, resulting in requiring
higher oxygen consumption requirements; this metabolic energy cost increases with the level of amputation.
The issue in this case should not be the efficiency of the prosthetic device, but rather the extra stride length he could achieve. While ridiculous, the man could have two prosthetic legs built that would make the 100m a one-step race.
Minor point, okay, he doesn't get an unfair advantage DURING the race due to the legs as they don't help him run faster.
Most steroids don't help sprinters run faster either. What they do is allow them to train harder.
These legs to an extent do the same as he'll never pick up a lower leg injury (which are pretty common) surely that would enable him to train marginally harder?
That said, don't think it is an unfair advantage and that he should be allowed at least till they've done some more research, or unless it really is a pressing issue. At the moment out of every single amputee single or double, he's running considerably faster than them all, suggesting he just plain is talented.
I don't see what the big deal is?
He's not, I repeat NOT going to be within 1 second of Wariner. Not a huge claim to make. He's far ahead of any other amputeed runner.
So why does it matter so much? It's not as if the IAAF or any organization has made an iron clad rule either way towards allowing him or not allowing him to run.
Right now he's going to bring some publicity to Sheffield and get beat by regular 400 runners. I'm sure Wariner won't mind getting a win in a race with so much interest.
chuck d wrote:
woah, attempting to bring some facts and scholarship into this discussion? shame on you. i'd much rather hear the glib opinions of letsrun posters.
From the "facts":
The purpose of this review is to:
1. Clearly explain the energy concepts and terms relevant
to energy transfer in prosthetics,
2. Review methods for measurement of prosthesis
energy storage and energy return and discuss
which parts of the energy capabilities they measure,
and
3. Propose a technically accurate nomenclature and
method of functional classification for prosthetic
devices that can store and release energy.
Oops... the purpose of the study was not to compare the efficiency of artificial limbs to natural limbs. And it didn't. The poster merely cited a paragraph from the "background". Needless to say, the paragraph did not have a citation nor any other proof to back the statement.
hmmm. read that again. "attempting." i made no assertions about whether it was a success or not. i just know you and most of the people on here are talking out of their ass on this subject. at least that poster attempted to inject something other than "well, they're artificial so they MUST be better than real legs and give him an advantage."
no one has done any testing on the legs this guy uses so arguing one way or the other is pretty silly. he certainly could have legs that give an advantage. or he could have legs that don't give him an advantage. who knows at this point? i'm very much enjoying the back and forth, though, so keep it up!
bryn_r wrote:
These legs to an extent do the same as he'll never pick up a lower leg injury (which are pretty common) surely that would enable him to train marginally harder?
actually it's very common for below-knee amputees to have lower leg problems because the residual limb bears weight in the socket and the prosthesis doesn't absorb shock well. for that reason the amputee is also suceptible to knee, thigh, hip, and back injuries as well. the only type of injury a transtibial amputee can't get is a foot injury. otherwise, the amputee is actually much more suceptible to injuries.
marijuologist wrote:
Howard has been running on the prosthesis for five years and that is more than enough time to become fully proficient with the device.
Aee you an amputee? If not, what makes you qualified to state that 5 years is enough time to become proficient in the use of a prosthesis after 17+ years of being fully able-bodied?
Furthermore, Howard's amputation took place in April 2003, and his treatment concluded in November of 2003, so he has had less than 4 years with his prosthesis.
Who's "owned" now?
You are just willifully ignoring clear real-world evidence that performance is impaired following amputation.
You're still comparing a single amputee to a double amputee, which is not a true comparison. As Robert Gailey, who studies the biomechanics of prosthetics at the University of Miami, puts it, "running on stilts isn’t exactly a plus. The real asymmetry is that Frasure and Shirley each still have one natural leg, and it’s holding them back."**
Also, if you refer back to my earlier citation in the thread, you'd have noted that the Paralympics also have seperate division for single and double amputees. Coincidence?
Furhtermore, Ampie Louw, Pistorius’ running coach since 2003, states that he "thinks that Pistorius may actually be able to use that inward lean (on turns) to push more energy into the Cheetahs. He’d come out of a turn going faster."** (**From Wired Mag article)
As matter of fact, Pistorius has only three years of experience using his running prostheses. Prior to that he had only worn regular walking legs- which are dramatically different from the legs he uses for running. Pistorius therefore has significantly less experience running on prosthetics than Howard.
Again, you are clueless. Pistorius competed in soccer and cricket since 1994, and rugby and water polo since 2001. It's doubtful he used his "regular" walking legs to play those sports, and even if he did, he has ~13 years experience of running with artificial limbs. The three years you quote pertain to only a specific model of prosthesis.
Remember that Pistorius is 20 years old, and had his legs amputated before he ever learned to walk. Artifical limbs are all that he knows; a significant advantage, in terms of usage proficiency, over Howard, who had to learn to adapt after 17+ years of walking and running the way most bipeds do.
And once again you've been thoroughly owned.
What are you, 12? You haven't even approched ownership with your weak arguments.
If it helps putting it into plain English for you, I will: The jury is still out on whether or not Pistorius has an unfair advantage. For you to speak like an authority on the subject, when it's clear that the Olympic committee is still seeking an answer, makes you look kind of foolish.
chuck d wrote:
hmmm. read that again. "attempting." i made no assertions about whether it was a success or not.
That did cross my mind before I posted, but I chose your post to reply to in order to clarify the purpose of the study.
If you go back to the bottom of page one, you'll see I'm in total agreement with you. My assertations have always been "it's possible" that Pistorius is getting an unfair advantage, and I haven't taken an absolute stand. It's been humorous to debate with marijuologist, who has chosen to argue the absolute "no advantage" route.
Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:
Aee you an amputee? If not, what makes you qualified to state that 5 years is enough time to become proficient in the use of a prosthesis after 17+ years of being fully able-bodied?
Five years of focused training is more than long enough to get used to running on a prosthesis because it is obvious to me and I said so. Five years is long enough to get good at just about any phsyical skill, not less a relatively uncomplicated one like slow-speed running. Howard has been running on the prosthesis long enough that, by now, if the prosthetic leg conferred an advantage, he would have shown something other than a huge and definitive performance decline by now.
Furthermore, Howard's amputation took place in April 2003, and his treatment concluded in November of 2003, so he has had less than 4 years with his prosthesis.
oh wow, great point, that makes a huge differnce there. congratulations.
You're still comparing a single amputee to a double amputee, which is not a true comparison. As Robert Gailey, who studies the biomechanics of prosthetics at the University of Miami, puts it, "running on stilts isn’t exactly a plus. The real asymmetry is that Frasure and Shirley each still have one natural leg, and it’s holding them back."**
I'm not saying that assymetry isn't a disadvantage, but the disadvantage is small compared to the overwhelmingly superior performance characteristics of the intact limb. The single-leg amputees still have a net advantage despite the assymetry.
Also, if you refer back to my earlier citation in the thread, you'd have noted that the Paralympics also have seperate division for single and double amputees. Coincidence?
The reasons they have separate divisions are that the single amputess have a huge advantage, and that most single amputees would KILL most double amputees. Oscar is able to overcome the disadvante purely by virtue of his superior talent.
Again, you are clueless. Pistorius competed in soccer and cricket since 1994, and rugby and water polo since 2001. It's doubtful he used his "regular" walking legs to play those sports, and even if he did, he has ~13 years experience of running with artificial limbs. The three years you quote pertain to only a specific model of prosthesis.
In fact he did use his regular walking legs to play soccer and rugby. Running prostheses are only good for running; you can't play other sports in them.
Remember that Pistorius is 20 years old, and had his legs amputated before he ever learned to walk. Artifical limbs are all that he knows; a significant advantage, in terms of usage proficiency, over Howard, who had to learn to adapt after 17+ years of walking and running the way most bipeds do.
The fact that Pisto has been an amputee his whole life is sorely inadequate to explain the performance discrepancy between the two athletes. There is only so much "skill" to gain with respect to basic locomotor abilities like walking and running.
If it helps putting it into plain English for you, I will: The jury is still out on whether or not Pistorius has an unfair advantage. For you to speak like an authority on the subject, when it's clear that the Olympic committee is still seeking an answer, makes you look kind of foolish.
The jury is only out among people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I speak like an authority because I do know what the hell I'm talking about. The fact that the IOC wants to research the issue proves nothing other than that the IOC, like you, doesn't know what the hell it's talking about.
P.S. FYI I am an amputee - lost both legs below the knee in May 2006
marijuologist wrote:
Five years of focused training is more than long enough to get used to running on a prosthesis because it is obvious to me and I said so. Five years is long enough to get good at just about any phsyical skill, not less a relatively uncomplicated one like slow-speed running. Howard has been running on the prosthesis long enough that, by now, if the prosthetic leg conferred an advantage, he would have shown something other than a huge and definitive performance decline by now.
Sorry to hear that you are a double amputee. Since May 2006. Barely even a year, but you already know that 5 years is enough? Any proof, other than your own anecdotal data?
oh wow, great point, that makes a huge differnce there. congratulations.
It actually does make a difference. It shows that you aren't doing your research.
I'm not saying that assymetry isn't a disadvantage, but the disadvantage is small compared to the overwhelmingly superior performance characteristics of the intact limb. The single-leg amputees still have a net advantage despite the assymetry.
Proof?
The reasons they have separate divisions are that the single amputess have a huge advantage, and that most single amputees would KILL most double amputees. Oscar is able to overcome the disadvante purely by virtue of his superior talent.
Proof? (Remember that Pistorius disproves your statement.)
[quote}In fact he did use his regular walking legs to play soccer and rugby. Running prostheses are only good for running; you can't play other sports in them.
The fact that Pisto has been an amputee his whole life is sorely inadequate to explain the performance discrepancy between the two athletes. There is only so much "skill" to gain with respect to basic locomotor abilities like walking and running.
So explain to us how well you've adapted. If it's so easy, please tell us your old vs. new running PRs.
The jury is only out among people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I speak like an authority because I do know what the hell I'm talking about. The fact that the IOC wants to research the issue proves nothing other than that the IOC, like you, doesn't know what the hell it's talking about.
Sorry, pal, being an amputee does not make you an expert. It simply makes you an amputee.
You could provide plenty of "anecdotal" evidence (as opposed to hard evidence) regarding what it's like to go from being a runner to having no legs. You'd be able to cite your specific challenges in making the adaption. However, you are not a 20-year old athlete who has been living and walking their whole life with prosthetic limbs. Nor does it appear that you've even used the Cheetahs. These simple facts means that neither of your two cents brings anything remotely close to being considered evidence to this debate.
It's evididenced by your passion that you feel that Pistorius is not receiving an unfair advantage. However, you have not cited any proof. None. Nada. Zip.