Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
« Back 1 2 [3]

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Amputee Gets a Shot at the Olympics

Continued from page 2

By Brittany Sauser

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Now, what our research is saying is not that [the IAAF study's] data are flawed, but that it is the interpretation of the data we found questionable. The burden of proof is with the IAAF. If they want to ban Oscar and perhaps all amputees that use Cheetah prostheses, they need to show scientifically that it does show an overall advantage in the 400 meter race. Our point is that this is an important matter, and one needs to be very careful with the science. Therefore, there needs to be a high level of certainty of what biomechanically and energetically is going on in terms of the prosthetic effect. Brüggemann did a select set of experiments, and with that data, he did make certain scientific claims that we don't agree with. We don't agree with this interpretation of the data, but then beyond that, the IAAF made a much broader statement. They said that Pistorius has an overall advantage in the 400 meter race.

TR: Did your research team conduct any further studies to show either that the IAAF's scientific evaluation was flawed or that Pistorius does not have an advantage?

HH: We did one measure that was not directly related to the claims made by the IAAF. If you take a sprint athlete, and at a particular running speed you measure the time duration they can maintain that speed, and then you change the speed and measure the new time duration and so on, you get a speed-duration curve. At really, really fast speeds, the person can take, like, 10 steps and maintain that speed for a short duration. As you lower the speed, the duration gets longer and longer. Sprint athletes with intact limbs all fall on a very standard line. We thought if Oscar is artificially augmented, he would not fall on that speed-duration curve. We did the test, and he falls right on the curve, which is an indication that he fatigues in the same manner as able-bodied sprinters.

TR: What are the broader implications of the CAS ruling?

HH: Oscar will be given the opportunity to qualify for IAAF-sanctioned events. But broadly, it will be progress in the overall initiative to fully integrate people with disabilities in society. Some people in the world witness an extraordinary athlete that has artificial legs or arms . . . and they immediately think that cannot be so--disabled people cannot be this good at something. It never occurs to some people that Oscar may be a remarkable athlete. They think he has to be cheating.

There is so much to learn about how the human body works and, in addition, how the body is affected by a wearable device, like a shoe or prosthesis. The day that there is a prosthesis that outperforms an intact limb using any single metric--whether it is to jump high or to manipulate something--will indeed be a very exciting day.

« Back 1 2 [3]

Comments

  • able-bodied
    dvschack on 05/21/2008 at 10:10 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    Since the argument is made that there is no advantage to using the Cheetah, I was wondering if able-bodied runners are allowed to use the same/similar devices in the Olympics as well.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Handicapped and Negligent Scientists!?
    Artansoul on 05/21/2008 at 11:06 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Reading the article, I can't believe the negligent omissions in understanding what limits the speed of an athlete! Quite unimaginable ignorance. There are three things stopping an athlete travelling at unbelievable speeds, that would outpace ostriches, cheetahs and even fast cars! The weight of the athlete, working against gravity, the acceleration and deceleration of that weight and the wind resistance created when travelling forward, suggesting that the ratios of strength to weight, strength to mass of limb extremity and strength to frontal area of the limb is of paramount importance when considering this argument. I see no evidence that this has been looked at, yet this is the critical argument that need be considered.

    A runner who sprints at 27 mph must accelerate his lower legs to well over 54 mph with every stride, to compensate for the foot being stationary on the ground for a period of time with each stride. The work of acceleration and deceleration of the lower limb is resisted by the relative weight at the extremity, across the given speed range, effectively being far greater at higher speeds, 54+ mph and by the wind resistance, with energy requirements being squared as the speed doubles, as it does in this case.

    In cycling, reducing frontal area by having the cyclist reclining has seen speeds circa 70 mph, compared to the 40 mph conventionally seated. This is also the reason why the 'superman' position on the track was made illegal.

    I would like to point out also, that as a spring stores anergy for later release, the muscles around the ankle are doing actual work to absorb the shock of impact adding burden to the limitations of the cardiovascular system. This limiting factor for the speed of the runner with prosthetic limbs is removed, however, so is the burden of propulsion attributable from the lower limb. An advantage or disadvantage? Most drive comes from the muscles controlling hip and knee, but in what proportions to the lower limb it's difficult to say, but hardly what matters here to make a fair race.

    It's patently unfair to reduce your work load, by sizeable margins, by removing parts of your body, especially the fast moving, accelerating and decelerating, bits that have poor aerodynamics and yet keep the major propulsion engine relatively intact. The reduced resistance on the extremity of the limb also means that a longer prosthetic can be employed to increase leverage for the the drive coming from the upper legs, increasing stride length and reducing acceleration and deceleration cycles.

    If you want to asses athleticism, the loads on the cardiovascular system are going to be different for an amputee. Even taking the competition off the track and into the lab isn't going to create a fair and level playing field.

    Perhaps we can now get a biomechatronics specialist to argue that trucks and Formula 1 cars should compete together as there's no fundamental difference in there power output.

    Philip Grant


    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology