Can Women Sprint or Run Faster than Men? Yes!

>> January 23, 2016

In early 1990's, scientists (Whip & Ward) said women will perform better than men in all running events by 2050.

Another scientist claimed that in 150 years (around 2150), a woman will run just slower than 8 seconds at 100m and it would be quick enough to beat the winning time of men's 100m at the Olympics.

So these are the two examples of extreme conclusion derived from the results of the model that they used, linear regression. By using the same model, you can predict that humans will eventually run the 200m in 2 seconds. Historical trends are important but they are not guaranteed to continue into the future.

World record holders at 100m, Usain Bolt and Florence Griffith-Joyner

One possible reason to see such data that women will do better than men could be because of the "performance revolution" or higher rate of improvement seen in women's sports performances in 1980's and 1990's after women's sports have grown in popularity and participation in 1960's and 1970's. They did not get the same opportunity as men in the past. In other words, women "started late."

But current opinion suggests that the world records have reached 99% of the human performance limits that can be reached within one generation.

It has also been reported that gender gap in the Olympic sports performance has been stable or unchanged since early 1980's.

Sprinting velocity is a product stride "length" and "frequency". But in maximal velocity sprint, the "frequency" (foots contact per second) is more relevant than the "length". Ben Johnson would produce similar steps (46.5) (stride length) to run 10.44 (1983) and 9.79 (1988) at 100m. The "frequency" can be influenced by the ground contact time that is determined by the speed of contraction (of muscle fibres contractile properties).

To run 8 seconds in 100m would require a huge (double?) change of muscle fibres (the contractile properties) that will influence the force generating capacity, which will then determine the production of the required (huge) amount of power. This increment (double!) is only possible with a significant increase of muscle mass. If Usain Bolt weighs 94kg, this 8-second sprinter (a woman) would sprint with a body mass of 115kg. The average body mass of the women's 100m Olympic finalists is 56kg.

In elite level, even with the most systematic training provided to athletes, the muscle fibres are nearly unaltered or altered very very little.

Men are apparently more powerful than women because of muscle mass (greater). This is because men have ~10 times higher testosterone concentration than women.

Because we are probably near to "upper end" of human performance limits, for sprint and running (to limit the scope of this discussion), women can surely run faster than men athletes, but the fastest men athletes will always superior than the fastest women athletes. Women performance at high level will not match those of men.

Read more...

Dietmar Schmidtbleicher on Interference Effects of Concurrent Training

>> January 11, 2016

Strength and power specialist, Prof Dr.Dr. Dietmar Schmidtbleicher was invited in a 2-hour discussion about conditioning-related topics with a small group of conditioning coaches in January 2016. For a record, this German scientist has published ~500 scientific journals and articles since he started his sports-related research in 1970's. One of the topics we discussed was interference effects of concurrent training.

Concurrent training is a structure of training combining endurance (aerobic) and strength training during a single training session. The structure is usually applied by coaches for reducing the number of training sessions the athletes have to do in a week, and also to attain certain mileage goal of running endurance for a particular week. So they have athletes to perform aerobic endurance first and then followed by strength session with the conditioning coach. Despite these reasons, the structure may not be the best training arrangement according to Schmidtbleicher.

One example of arrangement that has been used by coaches is to have his athletes to perform endurance training such as long slow distance for 10km, and followed by weight training (e.g. 3 sets x 10 reps bench press) after some period (~20 mins) of recovery.

The first point that highlighted by Schmidtbleicher sounds like this, “neuromuscular condition is good if you’re not fatigue”. The neuromuscular system will certainly at best for performing many athletic movements when the condition is "fresh". In contrary, it can be a problem for athletes to execute a sound technique of strength exercises when they are in a state of fatigue. Thus, Schmidtbeicher suggests the athletes to perform running endurance and strength training not at the same session.

by Hawley (2009), A Physiol Nutr Metab

One reason for "splitting" the two types of training can be justified when we look at the “interference theory” which explains the “competing effects” occur at cellular level associated with performance of aerobic endurance and strength training simultaneously at the same session. The activation of enzymes (i.e. AMPK) important for the process of energy production (i.e. mitochondrial production) in aerobic endurance are not compatible, and in fact can possibly impedes the enzymes (mTORC1) that should be activated during strength training for controlling the protein synthesis (for cell growth). The “blocking” of signalling pathways can minimize the adaptation of training. Hence, the athletes may not getting an optimal specific training benefit in concurrent training. Moreover a long-term performance of high volume or intensity of concurrent training may promotes overreaching (while getting minimal training gain), then a possible occurrence of overtraining .

Nevertheless, it is still important to scrutinize or make an in-depth inspection on this topic. We may want to look further at the dose-response relationship, specific objective (body composition et.?), type of endurance training (running, walking, cycling, swimming?), type of strength training (hypertrophy, strength, power), training structure for optimal training adaptation (lesser interference effect) while maintaining sports-specific requirement (for endurance-strength sports), and current research looking at these variables on the magnitude of interference effects from concurrent training. This allows one to ascertain if the aerobic endurance and strength training can be performed together at some degrees.

Jad Adrian Washif

Read more...

Whole Body Vibration for Sports Performance - Does it Works?

>> January 02, 2016

Russian scientists have examined the application of "vibration" for performances, such as strength and power quality. It dates back to 1970's and more research on vibration were published subsequently in 1980's and 1990's such as those of Nazarov and Spivak (1987), Issurin (1994, 1997 etc.), Bosco (1998 etc). Issurin's 1994 work was the first study of vibration in athletic performance (strength, power, and flexibility) that was published in English. Unlike the current practice, he actually used vibration to specific parts of the body.

Most of the studies that were published after 2000 reported positive benefits following vibration exposure (e.g. using the Whole Body Vibration, WBV). However, WBV is not invariably favorable and appears to depend on fitness level and the WBV variables (will be discussed).

Recreational / untrained subjects
There appear to be some benefits of WBV to this group. Most probably they are more responsive to the intensity of WBV, which resulted in an increased muscle activation. In the last 10 years, enhancement of jump performance, sprint ability, change of direction, flexibility, and balance have been reported following exposure of WBV.

Elite athletes
The effect of WBV on elite athletes is not conclusive. The most frequently cited reasons for the insignificant results following exposure of WBV is "insufficient stimulus" and "dampening effect." The stimulus of WBV comes from one or more of the WBV variables such as intensity, duration etc. (will be discussed). Dampening effect is associated with internal and external factors. The internal factor related to athlete's fitness level, basically, the fitter you're the more stimulus is needed. The external factor may be related to an accessory that can possibly weaken the vibration signals such as your shoes.

Application of Whole Body Vibration.
There are a few variables to consider, primarily the amplitude, frequency, volume, and recovery.

  • Amplitude - as determined by displacement (peak to peak distance, in mm) of the wave-like shape (sinusoidal) that is produced by vibration device. The amplitude can determine the "up and down" of movement.
  • Frequency - number or rate of the wave produced in a minute. In layman's, given 50 Hz vs 40 Hz of frequency, 50 Hz vibration can "shake you" a bit more than the 40 Hz. 
  • Volume - this is the duration of exercise. In literature, 30s of WBV with an appropriate set of amplitude and frequency can elevate performance (e.g. jumps). Most of the studies used 30s to 2 minutes of total duration for warm up application, and this can be longer when WBV applied as training mean.
  • Recovery - rest between WBV exposure (e.g. set 1, set 2 and so on) and also recovery between last WBV to the performance. Rest between exposure is around 1:1 work to rest ration and the recovery before performance is at least 1 minute.
The physiology of vibration
Vibration can produce wave and energy. During the WBV exposure, the body is "accelerated" or "shaken" because of the amplitude and frequency of vibration. This will give a stimulus primarily from the activation of receptors, the muscle spindles. Activation of muscle spindles enabled reflex potentiation or a better recruitment of motor units. This effect can also be seen in other athletic activities such as plyometrics, dynamic warm up, and so on. The enhancement of neuromuscular recruitment results in improvement of neuromuscular excitability that is crucial for athletic performance.

Read more...

ASIAN LEADERS (Men)

100m 9.91 Su Bingtian CHN, Madrid
200m 20.16 Xie Zhenye CHN, Osaka
400m 44.07 Abdalelah Haroun QAT, London
800m 1:45.65 Jinson Johnson IND, Guwahati
1500m 3:34.55 Sadik Mikhou BRN, Paris
5000m 13:01.09 Birhanu Yemataw BRN, Lausanne
10000m 27:38.16 Hassan Chani BRN, Maia
Mar 2:06.11 Yuta Shitara JPN, Tokyo
3000 Sc 8:22.00 Kosei Yamaguchi JPN, Abashiri
110mh 13.36 Ahmad Al-Mouaed KSA, Praha
400mh 46.98 Abderrahman Samba QAT, Paris
HJ 2.40 Mutaz Barshim QAT, Doha
PV 5.71 Xue Changrui CHN, Shanghai
LJ 8.47A Wang Jianan CHN, Guiyang
TJ 17.22 Dong Bin CHN, Eugene OR
SP 20.24 Tejinder Singh IND, Patiala
DT 68.85 Ehsan Hadidi IRI, Chula Vista CA
HT 78.18 Dilshod Nazarov TJK, Chorzow
JT 87.43 Neeraj Chopra IND, Doha
Dec 7948 Keisuke Ushiro JPN, Gotzis
20kmW 1:17:26 Eiki Takahashi JPN, Kobe
50kmW 3:44:25 Hiroki Arai JPN, Taichang
4x100m 37.85 Japan Team JPN, Osaka
4x400m 3:04.05 India Team IND, Gold Coast
RED = World Leader

STATISTICS

STATISTICS

ASIAN LEADERS (Women)

100m 10.99 Wei Yongli CHN, Resisprint
200m 22.73 Viktoriya Zyabkina KAZ, Almaty
400m 49.08 Salwa Eid Naser BRN, Monaco
800m 2:02.23 Manal Bahraoui BRN, Duffel
1500m 4:11.55 P.U Chitra IND, Guwahati
5000m 15:10.91 Rina Nabeshima JPN, Eugene OR
10000m 31:52.42 Mizuki Matsuda JPN, Yamaguchi
Mar 2:22.44 Mizuki Matsuda JPN, Osaka
3000 Sc 9:10.74 Winfred Yavi BRN, Monaco
100mh 13.08 Wu Shuijiao CHN, Shanghai
400mh 55.54 Aminat Odeyemi BRN, Goleniow
HJ 1.91 Nadzehda Dusanova UZB, Tashkent
PV 4.60 Li Ling CHN, London
LJ 6.64A Xu Xiaoling CHN, Guiyang
TJ 14.25 Olga Rypakova KAZ, Paris
SP 20.38A Gong Lijiao CHN, Guiyang
DT 67.03 Chen Yang CHN, Osterode
HT 75.02 Luo Na CHN, Halle
JT 67.69 Lu Huihui CHN, Halle
Hep 5898 Purnima Hembram IND, Guwahati
20kmW 1:26:28 Qieyang Shenjie CHN, La Coruna

Statistics


ARCHIVES

Copyright © 2009-2018, AdrianSprints.com . All Rights Reserved . Policy . Term of Use
Sports Top Blogs Sports blogs & blog posts Free Web Stats

Back to TOP