|
|
Change in female sprinters physique over the years
44 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Change in female sprinters physique over the years
With all the training improvements, uses of allowed performance enhancing methods like creatine, better physiological profiling etc, the female sprinters nowadays (jamaicans, gevaert , ohurougu...) appear musclier than Marita Koch and Marlies Goht ever were ( been watching you tube a lot), yet the times are nowhere near - and i am not implying doping use in either group - more like a question - can the bulk actually slow you down? Anyone know of any studies?
The muscles on someone so tall as Bolt are not as readily apparent. Also, it is my impression that the muscles grow with age and Bolt is still on the young side.
The issue is the inabilty to manage bulk that is unatural to the individual. Athletes genetically inclined to have naturally bulky frame will be better able to manage themselves. Eg VCB: if I hadn't known her and saw her walk I wolud say she couldn't do 14 over 100 given the camber she carries (knocked knees) its really funny how she gets that drive with those legs (mind you, knocked knees are a matter of bone structure ,but it helps to porve my point). Stewart is a naturally thick girl she has been dealing with this gift from 10yrs old.
Oh yeah that's another thing it also has to do with age at which the athlete comes to the sport serious and start understanding the development of her body. On the spin side athletes like Karrie Russel: the 2007 youth 100m champion has naturally bulked up over 1yr she can bearly run 12 these days. I beg for one female high scholl coach to come in at this point. It would be easy for Jamaican coaches to deal with these dynamics since JA girls compete seriously by age 10.
Also remeber that sprinting has evloved to Power sprinting. There is now major emphasis on the drive phase which requires MUSCLE AND POWER. Look at the archives and note the difference in the starts in the 1980s compared to 2002 onwards.
Aside from her final year, when she miraculously seemed to be able to increase muscle mass in an incredible manner, Flo Jo was not that muscular compared with others around her. Perhaps that is why her ability to increase the muscle/ power mass led to her improving by 0.40 in 1988?
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and sprinters come in
various shapes. Compare e.g. Carl Lewis and Mo Green (or Ben Johnson on drugs)---they had very different builds, yet both had a share in the top-speed-in-a-race record until quite recently. There are advantages to more muscle mass; however, it is not the main determinant. Further, as Paul Henry remarks, the optimal muscle mass may vary from person to person and distance to distance. A simple consideration of extremes proves that there is a point where more muscles lead to a decrease in speed. (Whether that limit is routinely reached among todays athletes is a very different question.) Looking specifically at the East Germans, one possible explanation to their success, is simply that their attempts to identify extremely strong talents early on worked well. Göhr and Koch may have been extreme outliers in other regards than muscle mass (and may or may not have benefited from non-muscle building PEDs). As an aside: Koch's times seem to be out of reach; however, Göhrs are not (10.81? PB, admittedly on slower tracks). Ashford is possibly a better example of a ``thin'' super-sprinter.
thats not true, muscle mass is muscle mass anyway you look at it. And the human body is never more anabolic than between the ages of 16-28. Bolt neds to hit the weight room.
You both seem to have made the same point...why is one disagreeing?
i'm disagreeing with his point of muscle mass being less apparent on a tall guy like bolt. its either their or it isnt, regardless of height. Look at amateur body builder sean allen (whom i believe is 6'5) and his height makes no difference.
Mark Lewis Francis, a cautionary tale?. Aged 17 he ran 10.10, age 18 he ran 9.97 (world junior record denied cause of a faulty wind gauge) and this was all apparently when he was training 2 times a week with no weights. After upping his training and hitting the weights room he has got much bigger and the times have got much slower.
I think we need a bio-mechanical specialist here becuase I tend to see a lot of sense in what both you are saying. 
I was also thinking what would be the comparison of Bolt and Greene interms of absolute total Muscule mass. and how that relates with the Absolute taotal mass of thier bones and in essence their respective srinting potential.
Aslo, Usain has gained a tonne of muscule since 2002 (as was expected).
Forget that 10.49, which is wildly acknowledged to be wind-aided (and strongly, at that). That still leaves a 10.6x that is over a quarter-second improvement.
I disagree, although I am not highly informed on this point. My understanding is that the key factor is the cross-section of the muscle. Bolt's cross-section is pretty big, but because it has a long taper to the joints it does not look as bulky.
The cross-section is indeed the determining factor in muscle strength;
however, you must also consider the weight to be moved by the muscles. Comparing Bolt with someone a foot shorter and with the same cross-section, the former would indeed look slimmer---but he would also be heavier. To move that extra weight, he would need a larger cross-section, and his slimness would be gone. (And to keep the same muscle mass in kgs/lbs, he would actually need an absolutely smaller cross-section.)
With MLF, some would question the fat to muscle ratio in his gains
I have also read MLF and his less than ideal diet, I even think it was Daley Thompson who called him fat as he anchored that 4x100m in Athens. He looked lean through to 2002 when injuries started catching up with him. He was an early developer too, much like Harry A-A who looks HUGE for someone just out of junior ranks.
I know this one is a little left field... however I also think what athletes compete in these days further enhance muscle definition with sheer, shiny and tight fitting uniforms. There might also be something around how male and females athletes might use similar training methods now?
I kind of agree with this, however if you look at someone like Krabbe she had a great drive phase, yet her upper body wasnt particular big. The GDR women all had massive legs, just not so huge upper bodies. I think this is to do with their early philosophy of shorter, faster strides, low arm action, emphasis on the leg speed and top speed. Krabbe and Drechsler were not in this mould though. I do think power sprinting is definately the style now though.
Could there be a connection between ``power sprinting'' and the
greater progress in 100m than the 200m and 400m (respectively lesser regress for the women)? There does seem to be a tendency towards both power sprinting and more emphasis on the 100m. Because the drive phase is more important in the 100m (and more muscle mass may affect speed endurance negatively), a viscious circle could be present: Athletes build muscle to be more competitive in the 100m, see that they are less succesful on longer distances (relative slimmer specialist and historical athletes), and increase their focus on the 100m; and so on. Carl Lewis is a good example of someone who prioritized top speed and ``end of race'' speed over the drive phase---and whose 200m times would be more competitive today than his 100m times. In fact, in a flat-out 200m race on modern surfaces and in best eighties shape, CL would certainly have beaten every time run sofar, other than 19.32. Drive phase runners Ben Johnson and Mo Greene, OTOH, were relatively unremarkable in the 200m. (Krabbe and Drechsler have a similar result profile to CL; however, I do not recall how they prioritized their race phases.)
And has the same ``better at longer distances'' profile. She is
arguably even better in the 400m than the 100m. (In fact, her build reminds me a little of Jepkosgei---she is so tiny.)
Krabbe and Drechsler seemed similar because theyy were tall, blonde and German, however I think they had different patterns. Krabbe was a great starter, esp for her height, and had a brilliant drive phase (see Tokyo) and maintenance phase. However, her end of race I do not think was actually that strong, visible in Tokyo where Torrance & Ottey gained ground both in the 100 & 200 in the last metres, and in Split where Drechsler & Malchugina marginally gained. Drechsler on the other hand had a weak start (particularly in 86 & 87) probably due to not being a specialist sprinter, yet a very high maximum speed (probably due to her LJ training) and good finish
It is true that very tall guys often look less muscular than they really are (except for the bodybuilder types who look very muscular at any height).
Take basketball players, for example. On TV or watching them from a distance while seated in the crowd they look slim with some muscular definition, but not really big (except the real huge guys like Shaq and Karl Malone, of course). But when you stand next to them in real life, you see how huge their arms and shoulders really are.
Well, Merlene is around 1.74m, while Krabbe is a whoping 1.82m
From 10.96 (0.0) in '87, to 10.68 in '88. Adjusted World Records (09 Sep 2007) Asafa Powell 9.79 s (9.78 s; +0.0 m/s; 400 m) Florence Griffith-Joyner 10.68 s (10.62 s; +1.0 m/s; 85 m) http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/index.html
Don't forget Jarmila: Second link is really worth watching, superb relay leg - http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletic ... eroID=5577 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bnZjD7P ... re=related
i don't know after all these years i didn't know that !? anyhows, we can get some good idea of a taller sprinter's potential on basis of increase in height leading to cubic mass increase, but power output only increased by squared by some jiggery-pokery ( not sure how i got there !  )
new time = old time / ( ratio increase in height)^1/3 if your average elite guy is 10.00/20.00 & 5"10, then say, increasing him after a generation or 2 to 6"0, you'll get then you get 10.00 0r 20.00 * ( 72/70 )^1/3 = 9.91 or 19.82 suppose working backwards, if bolt instead of being 6"5 & 9.72/19.67 was 5"10, then your looking at ~ 10.04 & 20.31 just shows mismatch between 9.72 & 19.67 ( ole rule of thumb - 200 time is double 100m time or ~ 19.44 )
Could you give a rough outline? In particular, did you factor in leg length or similar? As is, assuming only power and body-weight as factors, the results are a little counter-intuitive. (I would expect a worsening of times in that idealization.)
Sorry, but try looking at FloJo from 1987 WC...she was as muscular, but carrying slightly more fat. She also ran 21.9 in that race to get 2nd. I also got further news for you, I stood next to the woman after her 100m OT win in Indy. Believe me, nothing about her was not feminine nor overly muscular. The women that compete in the fitness competitions are more defined and muscular than FloJo was. Trust me, I was there.
you don't need to worry about leg length, etc - just assume a 5"10 homunculous scaled up proportionately to whatever height - increase leg length/stride/etc will be factored in - power 1/3 term derived from increased linear dimensions & incorporates increased ( but lesser increase ) of power there's nothing counter-intuitive about it - 5"10 guy if he was 5"11 woud expect to be faster - ~ 9.96 in this case, 6"0 guy about 9.91 & if you use 6"3 -> ~ 9.78 6"5 -> ~ 9.69
Anybody who ran in the early 80's will tell you that when Flo Jo ran the 200 and 400 for UCLA, she carried a completely different physique/tone than she did when setting records later. She was thick and strong but not "cut". And the 100 meters was simply not her race. In many ways she was like Natash Hastings.
So if Hastings shows up extremely "cut" in a few years and smashes the 100 and 200 records to smitherines, you will get the Flo Jo effect that we got in the 80's. How likely is that?
I would disagree with the Hastings analogy. Hastings' caboose is FAR bigger than FloJo's ever was, and FloJo in college was a superior athlete.
In reality, I _would_ expect the larger sprinter to have the better time (other factors roughly equal, possibly with an upper limit in size). In a primitive idealization using just power and weight, I see it differently. (And would, thus, be reluctant to use such a model.) Your results confuse me, and I would like a little more details to enlighten me---I like to learn and widen my horizons. For e.g. a car with varying weight and power, but identical dimensions, I might start with a first extremely approximate reasoning of 1. Time is inversely proportional to top speed (simplified assumption) t = a/v. 2. Top speed is in a relation of E = 1/2 mv^2 to maximum energy. 3. Maximum energy is proportional to power (simplified assumption) E = bp. 4. With m = cx^3 and p = dx^2 this gives a time of t = a/v = a/sqrt(2bp/m) = a/sqrt(2bdx^2/(cx^3)) = a/sqrt(2bd/(xc)) = = sqrt(x) a/(sqrt(2bd/c)), which is proportional to the square root of x. In this model, x would correspond to the height, and a taller runner would be slower. Obviously, your calculations were different. Possibly, I have overlooked something within this simplified model; possibly, as I originally assumed, you have varied factors not present in the model, e.g. leg length or length of stride.
No way. I ran with her. If anything she was thicker than Hastings. Anybody will tell you that. I'm talking as far back as '81. She was built like Hastings though. Thick. No lines. Not "cut". Also They were about the same in the 400 until Hasting's senior year (she was better than Flo Jo). Flo Jo was better in the 200 until Hastings senior year when they were about the same. They were prob the same in the 100.
But Flo Jo was not superior to Hastings while at UCLA. Remember, there were not nearly as many women competing at that time. I don't think there was even a women's NCAA Champs yet. Flo Jo's boyfriend was Greg Foster and she may have gone out with David Mack before that (I'm not sure)
I agree and have noticed this as well. Usain Bolt has a great deal of muscle...just loads of it....and what's scary to me is that it seems his frame might be able to handle even a moderate amount more without ruining any of his sprinting technique or how his body operates within itself. The next 4-8 years watching him evolve and develope is going to be very interesting. Once he lays waste to the 100 & 200 I would love to see him catch the 400 "bug". I bet that spark will come with age.
olt should be very careful about building too much muscle---otherwise he
will not be able to do the 800m later on... Jokes aside, there are two issues here: 1. At a common cross-section, the taller of two athletes will obviously look slimmer in the distance or when no reference is available, because he has slimmer proportions. However, equally obviously, when a frame of reference is present, the _absolute_ size of the cross-section will be more apparent. In fact, this is so obvious that I do not see why it has been brought up repeatedly. 2. At a common cross-section, the taller of two athletes will be weaker than the shorter in relation to their respective body-weight. Bolt may, for instance, be able to bench-press a similar weight as a shorter sprinter with the same cross-section; however, he would be at a disadvantage when it comes to push-ups. Similarly, it is not the absolute amount of muscle mass that is important when sprinting, but the relative---probably, more accurately, the ratio (body weight)/(muscle mass)^(2/3). The fact that Bolt looks slim at a certain muscle mass is simply not relevant to his sprinting ability. (I suspect that even in the bench-press he would have a minor disadvantage, due to weight of arms and distance to move weight.)
your example appears to work very well...for a car it has little to do with a human, as there is no cross-over relevance to increase in car length with increase in height of human most simply for a human with initial ht, h1 & new ht, h2, if only increase in ht ( & therefore proportional increase in stride & assuming same frequency ( = power ) ) then new time = old time / (1 *( h2/h1 )) the "1" is because there is no "dampening factor" accounting for power/mass variation with increase in ht if it was this simple then their time just improves with that basic ratio so that 5"11 -> 10.00 / ( 1*(71/70) = 9.86 6"0 -> 10.00 / ( 1*(72/70) = 9.73 6"3 -> 10.00 / ( 1*(75/70) = 9.34 6"5 -> 10.00 / ( 1*(77/70) = 9.10 obviously unrealistic, because of no dampening factor dampening factor is effectively power being squared limited by mass being cubic, which in effect means you replace the "1" above with 1 / (h2/h1)^2/3 ( you have to get that "1" to <1 using info we have ) which means the denominator therefore becomes 1 / (h2/h1)/(h2/h3)^2/3 = 1/(h2/h1)^1/3 therefore formula becomes new time = old time / ( h2/h1 )^1/3) Last edited by eldrick on Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
44 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: The Captain and 7 guests |
|
