Usain Bolt, sprinter from Jamaica, currently holds the world record in the 100 meter sprint with a time of 9.69 seconds. Whenever new records are set, people ask 'what is the limit on human performance?'
So how fast can a human run?
Two econometricians from Tilburg University in the Netherlands, Professor of Statistics John Einmahl and former student Sander Smeets, say have calculated the ultimate records for the 100-meter sprint. The good news; there is still room for improvement in both the men's and women's times in the near future.
They used extreme value theory to calculate by how much the current records for the 100 meter sprint could be improved.
Extreme-value theory is a sub-sector of statistics, which tries to answer questions about extreme events (which by definition are uncommon), using information about less extreme events. The theory is normally applied within the financial and insurance world to estimate the risk of extreme damage resulting from storms, earthquakes or the bursting of a dyke, for example, in order to calculate premiums.
With a little modification, they say it can apply to sports as well.
Einmahl and Smeets analyzed the records of 762 male and 479 female athletes. Each athlete was listed once, and the times were recorded between January 1991 and June 2008. Times run before 1991 were discounted on account of the inadequate doping controls before this date. The men's times varied between 9.72 and 10.30 seconds, and the women's from 10.65 to 11.38.
According to Smeets and Einmahl, the fastest time that the men are capable of sprinting is 9.51 seconds, which knocks 0.18 seconds off Usain Bolt's current world record. For female 100m sprinters, another 0.16 seconds can be knocked off the 10.49 run by Florence Griffith-Joyner, which would mean a time of 10.33. In a more cautious estimate (with a 95% confidence interval), the predicted times are 9.21 for the men and 9.88 for the women.
Sander Smeets studied Finance and Actuarial Sciences at Tilburg University and now works as a junior actuary at AZL, in Heerlen. John Einmahl is Professor of Statistics at Tilburg University.
Paper: 'Ultimate 100m world records through extreme-value theory', CentER Discussion Paper nr. 57
Comments
JAHH (not verified) | 08/06/09 | 11:05 AM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Just timing and culture, would be my guess. No one remembers the name of the other fastest Jamaican guy in the world because Usain Bolt blew him away before he could get famous. If he had been around 15 years ago, though, his times would have lasted until recently.
Plus, success makes others go out for events and the most recent world-famous woman turned out to be a cheat. Probably lots of kids in the US are doing swimming now, like women in eastern Europe are playing tennis.
It may also be that women were conditioning themselves more efficiently earlier than men, who may have been relying on talent.
Plus, success makes others go out for events and the most recent world-famous woman turned out to be a cheat. Probably lots of kids in the US are doing swimming now, like women in eastern Europe are playing tennis.
It may also be that women were conditioning themselves more efficiently earlier than men, who may have been relying on talent.
Hank Campbell | 08/06/09 | 11:48 AM
JAHH (not verified) | 08/06/09 | 17:07 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 05:59 AM
MOfo (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 09:34 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 16:25 PM
That's a good point, though it's how that eugenics mess got started. From a reproduction point of view, men may be less fit despite better training because we keep weaker ones alive now.
Of course, this also explains the French. The bravest and smartest died in WW1 and WW2 so the ones we have today came from what is left. :)
Of course, this also explains the French. The bravest and smartest died in WW1 and WW2 so the ones we have today came from what is left. :)
Hank Campbell | 08/07/09 | 17:08 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/08/09 | 16:10 PM
sean weatherby (not verified) | 08/16/09 | 19:56 PM
JAHH (not verified) | 08/17/09 | 12:42 PM
We need a materials science person to really answer this, probably in consultation with an MD. The real question is, at what acceleration would muscles and tendons start to seperate from the bone. That's the only physical limit I can't see being surpassed.... at what point the human body physically would tear apart.
So if there's a betting pool, put me down for 2100's article of "the 8-second mile; can it be broken?"
Alex
here at The Sky By Day
So if there's a betting pool, put me down for 2100's article of "the 8-second mile; can it be broken?"
Alex
here at The Sky By Day
Alex Antunes | 08/17/09 | 13:22 PM
Wickius (not verified) | 08/18/09 | 13:31 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/18/09 | 14:54 PM
Anonymous | 08/19/09 | 19:29 PM
Someone (not verified) | 08/20/09 | 05:16 AM
With Bolt just tagging in 19.19 for the 200, divide by two and that's 9.595. Yeah, I know they're different runs, but again, call me skeptical with their analysis of 9.51 as a hard limit. If I want to be really jargoning, their purely statistical method ignores the black swan events that typify sports record-setting.
Alex Antunes | 08/22/09 | 10:30 AM
Extreme value theory is still just statistics. With something like baseball we can at least get an idea why pitchers don't throw faster than the 1960s - they optimized a while ago and a pitcher with 80 Newton-meters of rotational force on his ulnar collateral ligament is already doing things that would shred an ordinary arm - but in running there is a lot more leg muscle and less stored energy in tendons that is released as spring-energy from stretched tendons at the worst possible moment, so it's a bigger question - you can't just do a cadavar study to see when leg muscle tears, for example, because it has too many variables, unlike a baseball throw.
Someone estimating 8 seconds would hardly be worth talking about, though, so their method - and willingness to pick a hard number in something as varied as a sport relying on leg muscle - is at least commendable.
Someone estimating 8 seconds would hardly be worth talking about, though, so their method - and willingness to pick a hard number in something as varied as a sport relying on leg muscle - is at least commendable.
Hank Campbell | 08/22/09 | 11:26 AM
Sergei Rostov (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 20:04 PM










