"Pistorius has a best 400m time of 46.34sec and stands fifth on this year's South African rankings with a season's best of 46.56sec. His case has been supported by research conducted by Robert Gaily, a professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami, showing that the human body returns 240 percent of energy at every stride compared to only 80 percent by a prosthetic."
the exit bag wrote:
"Pistorius has a best 400m time of 46.34sec and stands fifth on this year's South African rankings with a season's best of 46.56sec. His case has been supported by research conducted by Robert Gaily, a professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami, showing that the human body returns 240 percent of energy at every stride compared to only 80 percent by a prosthetic."
"Supported by", not proven. Next?
I have previously stated that it is possible that Pistorius receives no unfair advantage. However, it is possible that the prosthesis he uses do provide an unfair advantage.
So I ask... why is it so wrong to request proof?
I suppose it's not wrong to request proof, but, in this case, the answer can be easily inferred from existing knowledge of human biomechanics and prosthetics technology and empirical evidence
PALN,
i think you're being a bit hard here (pun certainly intended); rarely is anything "proved" in science. dismissing out of hand evidence supporting one conclusion or another simply because you don't deem it as "proving" something is silly. he just provided you some "proof." is it enough? no. but it's a start. i'd like to see this guy's research. i'd like to see other research. i'd very much like to see what the iaaf/ioc come up with because they're doing research on exactly this point. but others on this thread - on both sides of the issue - have made salient points. simply because no one has solved the issue doesn't mean what they say is wrong, futile, or should be dismissed.
True, I am being a hard ass, but here is the "proof" so far:
1. Pistorius is so much faster than everyone other amputee using the same equipment, there must not be an advantage;
2. Single amputees are not as fast as they were prior to the amputation, so the limbs must not be an advantage;
3. U of FL Professor indicates that more energy is returned from real legs vs. the artificial limbs, without addressing the specific model of limb tested, nor addressing the specific issue of whether two artifical limbs provide an unfair advantage;
4. Pistorious's coach doesn't think the limbs are an advantage;
5. The citation of a study whose sole purpose is to derive the correct standards of measurement and to clarify the correct terminology;
6. and finally, zero anecdotal evidence from marijuologist, who himself claims to be an amputee.
Unfortunately, and I suppsoe it's why I haven't let it go, I haven't seen any proof, for or against, which addresses the question that the IOC is ultimately trying to determine, which is whether or not Pistorius, with his use of artifical limbs, has an unfair advantage.
Let's remember that initially the IAAF was against it, but without any studies whatsover, they reversed their decision. I think it is important that the IOC consider the fairness of letting Pistorius compete against the other athletes.
I love how you are "supposedly" unbiased, in that there is no proof on either side. If that's the case, why don't you slam the posters who are saying that the prostheses are helping him. You could say what is their proof? From the points presented so far, the 6 points you listed, as crappy as you make them look, or better than any points for the other side.
sorry i'd use google if i knew what the hell to search for
i'd like to shake your hand sir. very nice words. anybody that thinks those blades are an advantage needs their head checked.
As stated earlier he may only get 80% efficiency but he gets this energy at zero metabolic cost.
He has much less weight to carry. As I saw him run i also realised that there is a far smaller moment of inertia in his lower "leg" as a result of this reduced weight which also leads to energy conservation.
His quads and hamstrings also have much less work to do as a result as they are not required to flex or extend the lower limb.
His heart and lungs do not have to provide oxygen to lower limbs at all and less (relative to a non-amputee) to the vastus medialis for example. Therefore more can be devoted to others areas meaning they dont fatigue as quicikly
As stated before although the human leg has eveolved over millions of years it has not evolved purely to run as fast as possible.
i'm not really an amputee
i am actually gay
you put 100% energy in and 240% energy comes out? doesn't that violate same basic laws of physics??? i don't buy that for a second.
mg wrote:
you put 100% energy in and 240% energy comes out? doesn't that violate same basic laws of physics??? i don't buy that for a second.
what it means is that your natural leg 'returns' close to 100% of the energy put into it and then 'adds' another 140% by the contraction of its muscles. is this that difficult
yes. contraction of muscles isn't a free 140% of energy. 100% in and 240% out is out-and-out idiotic and reason alone to ignore whatever the joker from miami is arguing.
All I can say after reading the back and forth between marijuana guy and nipple man is that nipple man is definitely "owning". there is clearly no proof that double amputees don't have a competitive advantage over bipedal athletes. That, or somehow in all my years I never learned what proof is.
Proof means that you can guarantee in all instances that a statement is true.
"double amputees don't have a competitive advantage over bipedal athletes."
Rather hard to do that with this statement, or ANY statement. Logical proofs do not occur in science - there is no guarantee that the next time that a double amputee runs, he won't have an advantage. Same thing with fire being hot. All you can guarantee is your past experiences.
That said, I'm glad that Wariner has no problem competing against Pistorius. It seems to make sense that the carbon fiber legs put Pistorious at a disadvantage - the lack of oxygen and blood he has to supply to them, the less weight he has: it might seem positive but I sincerely doubt legs offer a 1:1 power-to-weight tradeoff. It's probably FAR superior to that.
mg wrote:
yes. contraction of muscles isn't a free 140% of energy. 100% in and 240% out is out-and-out idiotic and reason alone to ignore whatever the joker from miami is arguing.
you are stupid
mg wrote:
yes. contraction of muscles isn't a free 140% of energy. 100% in and 240% out is out-and-out idiotic and reason alone to ignore whatever the joker from miami is arguing.
this is so fabulously goddamned stupid that I'm not even going to bother correcting it. I just wanted to congratulate you on being retarded
[quote]This is Wrong wrote:
Why stop here? Let the wheel chair racers in the marathon into the olympics. They will beat the able bodied runners by 1/2 hour.
-----------------------------------
About two years ago there was a marathon in Canada that awarded first place in the race to a wheelchair racer, who as I recall did win by about a half an hour.
He also set the course record.
There was a thread about this.
the wheelie champ marathon link:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=437187&thread=436094
Marijuologist clearly won the argument here.
Smarter, more articulate, more thorough...ultimately more convincing.
Yes, Pamela, you were owned. Please move on, pal.
Time for a run!
Best of luck to Pistorius. He is clearly a very talented athlete.