Peter Weyand
Professor & Chair of Kinesiology; Director of the Locomotor Performance Lab | Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, TX, UNITED STATES
Peter Weyand is an internationally renowned biomechanist and physiologist.
Media
Publications:
Documents:
Videos:
Audio/Podcasts:
Biography
Dr. Peter Weyand is a professor and chair of TCU’s Department of Kinesiology and the director of TCU’s Locomotor Performance Laboratory. Weyand received his formative training in the comparative physiology and biomechanics of locomotion at Harvard University’s Concord Field Station. His subsequent work has focused heavily on the scientific basis of high-intensity exercise performance in humans, particularly on sprint running performance. The international scientific community has recognized Weyand’s work in this area. It has been featured in media outlets ranging from Scientific American, PBS and The New York Times to ESPN and Sports Illustrated. He has often served as an expert in Olympic and World Athletics eligibility cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. His research subjects through the years have included antelope, emus, rodents and professional athletes with and without limb amputations.
Areas of Expertise (6)
Human Speed
Human Performance
Physical Performance
Biomechanics
Locomotion
Paralympians
Accomplishments (7)
Recipient, Jim Hay Memorial Award of the American Society of Biomechanics (professional)
2021
Glenn Simmons Endowed Professorship of Applied Physiology & Biomechanics (professional)
2016
United Methodist Scholar/Teacher of the Year Award (professional)
2014
Faculty Research Award, Simmons School of Education (professional)
2013
Emerging Leader at SMU (professional)
2013
Joseph E. Levenson Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching, Harvard University’s College of Arts and Sciences (professional)
Recipient
Harvard College Award for Teaching Excellence (professional)
Six-time recipient
Education (3)
University of Georgia: Ph.D.
Bridgewater State University: M.S.
Bates College: B.A.
Affiliations (3)
- American Society of Biomechanics
- American Physiological Society
- American College of Sports Medicine
Links (2)
Languages (1)
- English
Media Appearances (12)
How much does arm swing affect running speed?
Canadian Running Magazine online
2023-07-12
The study, published in the journal Gait and Posture, found that when athletes sprinted for 30 metres with their arms crossed over their chests, they were nearly as fast as when they were sprinting with their normal arm swing. On average, participants’ sprint time only slowed down by 0.08 seconds. “Our findings suggest the classic view that arm swing directly drives leg motion to affect performance is not well-supported,” said Peter Weyand, one of the researchers who published the findings.
When Science Collides: The Blake Leeper Controversy Unpacked
The Real Science of Sport Podcast online
2022-10-19
The question as to whether disabled athletes with prosthetic limbs can compete in able-bodied events has been steeped in controversy since the days of Oscar Pistorius in 2009. But since American Blake Leeper hit the headlines in 2019 the debate has been re-ignited with two groups of scientists on opposing sides. We speak to one of the world's foremost biomechanical experts - Dr Peter Weyand, Professor of applied physiology and biomechanics at Southern Methodist University in Dallas - to break down his side of an intriguing 15-year-old saga.
How Fast Can Humans Go?
Discover Magazine online
2018-07-02
Fast Factors: Sprinting Everyone takes the same amount of time between steps and the same amount of time to pick up their leg and put it back down again, but faster sprinters propel themselves farther in that time. “The difference in speed really comes down to what happens on the ground,” says Peter Weyand, a physiologist and biomechanist at Southern Methodist University in Texas.
Cheating in Sports -- Where Do We Go From Here? | Op-ed
HuffPost online
2015-09-14
The growing enhancement challenges beg a disheartening question: has fairness become impossible in modern sport?
How have players become so big and so fast? Blame a former pole-vaulter
ESPN
2015-07-01
"If you're looking for the most impactful change, in terms of progression, Nebraska's coaches coming onto the scene like that -- that was probably the single most important event," said Dr. Peter Weyand, an SMU professor of applied physiology and biomechanics, and one of the nation's foremost experts on human performance.
March’s True Madness: Flopping
The Wall Street Journal online
2015-03-17
“How much force does it really take in a typical basketball encounter to knock someone off balance?” said Peter Weyand, a physiologist and biomechanist at Southern Methodist University. “That information is not out there.”
FYI: What Is The Limit To How Fast A Human Can Run?
Popular Science
2014-05-28
Statistical models do not explain the mechanics behind running. So Peter Weyand, a biomechanics professor at Southern Methodist University, has taken a different approach to the question.
A Faster Human: Are We Unique In Our Ability To Get Better?
NPR online
2014-05-06
Have animals, for example, gotten faster? "The best data-based, short answer to your question is no," says Peter Weyand, a Southern Methodist University professor of applied physiology and biomechanics who specializes in the limits of human performance.
FYI: What Is The Limit To How Fast A Human Can Run?
Popular Science online
2013-05-28
Statistical models do not explain the mechanics behind running. So Peter Weyand, a biomechanics professor at Southern Methodist University, has taken a different approach to the question.
Fair or foul? Experts split over whether Pistorius has advantage
Sports Illustrated online
2012-08-03
Pistorius appealed the ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He went for more testing, this time in a lab at Rice University run by physiologist Peter Weyand. The data from that testing found that Pistorius fatigued at a normal rate.
The Fastest Sprinter Could Run Faster
NBC News online
2012-04-10
As for actual running technique, studies have shown that the most important factor driving sprinting performance is how hard runners can hit the ground in relation to their body weight, said Peter Weyand, a physiologist and biomechanist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
The Fast Life of Oscar Pistorius
The New York Times online
2012-01-18
Oscar Pistorius, a bilateral amputee, is hoping to become the first disabled athlete to compete in the Olympics. Track and field’s governing body fears his prosthetic limbs may give him an unfair advantage
Event Appearances (8)
Semi-annual meeting, keynote address
International Society of Biomechanics | August 2023 Fukuoka, Japan
Annual meeting, keynote address
British Association of Sport & Exercise Medicine| 2022 Brighton, United Kingdom
Hay Award Symposium, invited symposium lecture
American Society of Biomechanics | 2021 Atlanta, GA (virtual)
Keynote lecture, invited
Sport Surgery Clinic Running Injuries and Performance Conference | 2019 Dublin, Ireland
Invited lecture
Sport Ireland Institute | 2018 Dublin, Ireland
Annual Meeting, invited lecture
European College of Sport Sciences | 2018 Dublin, Ireland
Keynote lecture
Prosthetics International | 2018 Tokyo, Japan
Invited lecture
Trout Gallery, Dickinson College | 2017 Carlisle, PA
Articles (5)
Sex differences in human running performance: smaller gaps at shorter distances?
Journal of Applied Physiology2022 Human, but not canine or equine running performance, is significantly stratified by sex. The degree of stratification has obvious implications for classification and regulation in athletics. However, whether the widely cited sex difference of 10%-12% applies equally to sprint and endurance running events is unknown. Here, different determining factors for sprint (ground force/body mass) versus endurance performance (energy supply and demand) and existing trends, led us to hypothesize that sex performance differences for sprint running would increase with distance and be relatively small. We quantified sex performance differences using: 1) the race times of the world's fastest males and females (n = 40 each) over a 15-year period (2003-2018) at nine standard racing distances (60-10,000 m), and 2) the 10-m segment times of male (n = 14) and female (n = 12) athletes in World Championship 100-m finals. Between-sex performance time differences increased with sprint event distance (60 m-8.6%, 100 m-9.6%, 200 m-11.0%, 400 m-11.7%) and were smaller than the relatively constant mean (12.4 ± 0.3%) observed across the five longer events from 800 to 10,000 m. Between-sex time differences for the 10-m segments within the 100-m dash event increased throughout spanning 5.6%-14.2% from the first to last segment.
Artificially long legs directly enhance long sprint running performance
Royal Society Open Science2022 This comment addresses the incomplete presentation and incorrect conclusion offered in the recent manuscript of Beck et al. (R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 211799 (doi:10.1098/rsos.211799)). The manuscript introduces biomechanical and performance data on the fastest-ever, bilateral amputee 400 m runner. Using an advantage standard of not faster than the fastest non-amputee runner ever (i.e. performance superior to that of the intact-limb world record-holder), the Beck et al. manuscript concludes that sprint running performance on bilateral, lower-limb prostheses is not unequivocally advantageous compared to the biological limb condition. The manuscript acknowledges the long-standing support of the authors for the numerous eligibility applications of the bilateral-amputee athlete. However, it does not acknowledge that the athlete's anatomically disproportionate prosthetic limb lengths (+15 cm versus the World Para Athletics maximum) are ineligible in both Olympic and Paralympic track competition due to their performance-enhancing properties. Also not acknowledged are the slower sprint performances of the bilateral-amputee athlete on limbs of shorter length that directly refute their manuscript's primary conclusion. Our contribution here provides essential background information and data not included in the Beck et al. manuscript that make the correct empirical conclusion clear: artificially long legs artificially enhance long sprint running performance.
Does restricting arm motion compromise short sprint running performance?
Gait & Posture2022 Background: Synchronized arm and leg motion are characteristic of human running. Leg motion is an obvious gait requirement, but arm motion is not, and its functional contribution to running performance is not known. Because arm-leg coupling serves to reduce rotation about the body's vertical axis, arm motion may be necessary to achieve the body positions that optimize ground force application and performance. Research question: Does restricting arm motion compromise performance in short sprints? Methods: Sprint performance was measured in 17 athletes during normal and restricted arm motion conditions. Restriction was self-imposed via arm folding across the chest with each hand on the opposite shoulder. Track and field (TF, n = 7) and team sport (TS, n = 10) athletes completed habituation and performance test sessions that included six counterbalanced 30 m sprints: three each in normal and restricted arm conditions. TS participants performed standing starts in both conditions. TF participants performed block starts with extended arms for the normal condition and elevated platform support of the elbows for the crossed-arm, restricted condition. Instantaneous velocity was measured throughout each trial using a radar device. Average sprint performance times were compared using a Repeated Measures ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc tests for the entire group and for the TF and TS subgroups.
Real-world walking economy: can laboratory equations predict field energy expenditure?
Journal of Applied Physiology2021 We addressed a practical question that remains largely unanswered after more than a century of active investigation: can equations developed in the laboratory accurately predict the energy expended under free-walking conditions in the field? Seven subjects walked a field course of 6,415 m that varied in gradient (−3.0 to +5.0%) and terrain (asphalt, grass) under unloaded (body weight only, Wb) and balanced, torso-loaded (1.30 × Wb) conditions at self-selected speeds while wearing portable calorimeter and GPS units. Portable calorimeter measures were corrected for a consistent measurement-range offset (+13.8 ± 1.8%, means ± SD) versus a well-validated laboratory system (Parvomedics TrueOne). Predicted energy expenditure totals (mL O2/kg) from four literature equations: ACSM, Looney, Minimum Mechanics, and Pandolf, were generated using the speeds and gradients measured throughout each trial in conjunction with empirically determined terrain/treadmill factors (asphalt = 1.0, grass = 1.08). The mean energy expenditure total measured for the unloaded field trials (981 ± 91 mL O2/kg) was overpredicted by +4%, +13%, +17%, and +20% by the Minimum Mechanics, ACSM, Pandolf, and Looney equations, respectively (corresponding predicted totals: 1,018 ± 19, 1,108 ± 26, 1,145 ± 37, and 1,176 ± 24 mL O2/kg).
A general relationship links gait mechanics and running ground reaction forces
ournal of Experimental Biology2017 The relationship between gait mechanics and running ground reaction forces is widely regarded as complex. This viewpoint has evolved primarily via efforts to explain the rising edge of vertical force-time waveforms observed during slow human running. Existing theoretical models do provide good rising-edge fits, but require more than a dozen input variables to sum the force contributions of four or more vague components of the body's total mass (mb). Here, we hypothesized that the force contributions of two discrete body mass components are sufficient to account for vertical ground reaction force-time waveform patterns in full (stance foot and shank, m1=0.08mb; remaining mass, m2=0.92mb). We tested this hypothesis directly by acquiring simultaneous limb motion and ground reaction force data across a broad range of running speeds (3.0-11.1 m s-1) from 42 subjects who differed in body mass (range: 43-105 kg) and foot-strike mechanics.
Social