The fastest top speed ever achieved by a human was Bolt’s 12.42 meters/second (27.8 mph).
However, anatomical studies suggest peak speeds up to 15.6-17.9 m/s (35-40 mph) are achievable.
science btw
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
40 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13204 readers
13 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's insanely fast. 30mph on a bike (flat, no wind) is real work. And that's with proper gearing and, you know...wheels.
You'll probably still miss your bus though.
Stephen King already debunked this line of thinking though
Oh, a robot reading a book. Thanks, I guess.
Hm, that's unpleasant. 😕 I'm unable to listen right now and I didn't want to link to somewhere that had a plot synopsis or other spoiler equivalent, so I thought an audio of the actual story would be fine. I fixed it just now to link to something more cryptic but probably also less off putting.
You know, I'll actually read this. I've been looking for my next book to read and I thought I had read all of Stephen King's early stuff. Thanks!
It’s so good
For my money Stephen King’s old short fiction - Skeleton Crew, Night Shift, Different Seasons, stuff like that - is some of the best stuff he has done. And “Mrs. Todd’s Shortcut” is one of the best of that good lot to me.
I may have read it but don't remember. My favourite of his short stories is "The Long Walk" as Richard Bachman.
The claim that humanity with all the money, medicine, science, and effort placed into recruiting and training world class sprinters has only managed to achieve less than 70% of the potential top speed for a human and that someone could pop up in the next couple decades that could drop the world record by more than it has moved in the last century in one fell swoop is not plausible. Sprinting is too close to raw power output for this kind record movement and if your analysis says that it is then you need to go back to the drawing board.
That's actually what is happening here. Rather than a 'gut feeling' about human performance, someone/several people decided to try to model it with the best available information. If it's wrong, the next step is to prove why it's wrong and get a new 'best approximation'.
The next step is not to throw it all out because it doesn't sound plausible.
What's happening here is single sentence from the conclusion of paper with the explanation and caveats removed is being cherry picked by another author who then uses it to pretend it means what he thinks it means and make spurious arguments. Pointing at the paper and exclaiming "Science!" isn't a defense. The paper posits human anatomy and physiology that does not exist to reach their speed. It's scarcely different than referencing a paper pointing out humans would swim faster if only they had flippers.