On gravity and human endurance

[Broomstick]

It's not just that - he was talking about using artificial insemination and abortions - that is, treating women like we do cattle, without any mention of what restrictions, if any, men are under.

Well firstly, the abortions part was used in countries in our world (I think, but am probably wrong with at least 99% probability of being wrong) in case of birth control laws and we know it is used in our world in case of ultrasound detected heavy birth defects (abit with a choice for the parents).

Abortion debate is not something I want to get into in this thread.

And artificial insemination means that when a couple wants a baby and the male is "incompatible" they go to a clinic rather than doing it them self.

Actually, AI is used in other circumstances, such as enabling men with low sperm counts to conceive more easily. In some circumstances, men have preserved sperm samples to use later when they have reason to believe they will be exposed to conditions adverse to produce healthy sperm. Cancer treatment, for instance, can really fuck up sperm and some men will preserve their sperm prior to undergoing chemo or radiation therapy. That possibility has also been discussed for men engaged in work involving radiation - something that might be more common in the future.

I was not actually advocating peening women up and force-sexing them you know...
You make me sound like some tyrant from a bad manga plot.

You sounded like one. Learn to express yourself better. That is, more precisely and without being sloppy.

A typical male blind spot, to be eager to restructure and control female reproduction without imposing limits on their own..

You clearly underestimate the effect upon a male when he knows that he can not have children. Sure there are more things to life than having kids but the emotional stress is still there.

What? Are you maintaining that women aren't affected by not having children? There isn't really a way to quantify what effect being childless has on a person. Some people don't have a problem with it. Some do. Some adamantly don't want children at all. That applies to both genders.

And just how do you say that being forbiden to have kids is "without imposing limits on male sequality".

Sex does not equal reproduction, and these days, reproduction does not always involve sex. Unless you're going to maintain the only purpose of sex is procreation your issue as expressed in that statement doesn't make much sense.

Provide free but mandatory contraception and have babies only be born from selected preferred gene stock and than adopted by the families.

Mandatory vasectomies are cheap and very reliable contraception. Tubal litigations for women are more costly and technically demanding, but also extremely reliable. Reversible contraception is a bit more costly.

In the end, every family could get a child, just not every child would really be yours.

Are you now implying that adopted children someone aren't "real" children?

Actually, it might be better for such a society for people to never raise children genetically theirs, that way everyone is adopted. It eliminates potential tension between biological and adopted offspring.

[Simon_Jester]

In fact, if the colonist bring lots of frozen sperm they'll have less trouble maintaining genetic diversity.

That is, of course, assuming conditions are such that such strict control is required.

Isn't there an issue with the long-term viability of the samples? I don't know whether frozen sperm samples can be preserved for decades or not.

I was not actually advocating peening women up and force-sexing them you know...
You make me sound like some tyrant from a bad manga plot.

Purple, if you aren't one, no one here knows you well enough to assume you aren't one. So when you use words like "artificial insemination" around a woman on this forum, she may well assume you're proposing something worse than what you really are. Especially since things like coercive selective breeding in humans have a really horrible history, one that few if any decent people would want to repeat.

A typical male blind spot, to be eager to restructure and control female reproduction without imposing limits on their own..

You clearly underestimate the effect upon a male when he knows that he can not have children. Sure there are more things to life than having kids but the emotional stress is still there.

Why is the corresponding effect on women not relevant?

[Broomstick]

It's also a particularly egregious accusation in that I have, in fact, lived with a man who cannot have children for over 20 years now. I do have a pretty good idea of the effect. Yeah, it's bothersome, but it's not the end of the world. At least not for a well adjusted adult.

[Broomstick]

In fact, if the colonist bring lots of frozen sperm they'll have less trouble maintaining genetic diversity.

That is, of course, assuming conditions are such that such strict control is required.

Isn't there an issue with the long-term viability of the samples? I don't know whether frozen sperm samples can be preserved for decades or not.

Yes, it can. A quick search on line revealed instances of normal pregnancies from sperm frozen 20 years. The key, of course, is proper preparation of the sperm, then keeping the power on for the freezer.

I'm sure eventually the viability diminishes, but apparently not within a human lifetime.

[Purple]

Actually, AI is used in other circumstances... snip

By "incompatible" I meant "incompatible" as in the male is not compatible with the requirements of the breeding program not as in the male is infertile or what ever. Hence the quotation marks.

You sounded like one. Learn to express yourself better. That is, more precisely and without being sloppy.

Leave it to the imagination of humans with their dirty minds to make a mountain out of a molehill and than proceed to turn that mountain into Caligula's sex slavery and Nazi land...

What? Are you maintaining that women aren't affected by not having children? There isn't really a way to quantify what effect being childless has on a person. Some people don't have a problem with it. Some do. Some adamantly don't want children at all. That applies to both genders.

No, I am only maintain that it effects both genders. I countered you when you stated that it somehow does not effect men as in that men are somehow not sad when they can't have children and that claim was silly at best. As you said, some are sad and some aren't but these things apply to both genders.

Sex does not equal reproduction, and these days, reproduction does not always involve sex. Unless you're going to maintain the only purpose of sex is procreation your issue as expressed in that statement doesn't make much sense.

It makes sense if you Analise as part of the same paragraph as explained above.

Reversible contraception is a bit more costly.

Because by the time we can build a spaceship and fly to other planets we won't be able to manufacture pills that you can add into everyones food or some other method of imposing contraception without requiring surgery. And besides, in a society built around thins as an ideal you think that price would not be an issue.

Are you now implying that adopted children someone aren't "real" children?

:| WTF? Where did you get that from? All I said was: "just not every child would really be yours." as in, just that the child you have might have to adopt a child that is only 50% yours since one of the parents might be excluded from the whole breeding thing.

Some times I question the common sense of people reading my posts...

Actually, it might be better for such a society for people to never raise children genetically theirs, that way everyone is adopted. It eliminates potential tension between biological and adopted offspring.

Extremely good point.

[Broomstick]

Actually, AI is used in other circumstances... snip

By "incompatible" I meant "incompatible" as in the male is not compatible with the requirements of the breeding program not as in the male is infertile or what ever. Hence the quotation marks.

Hey, is there something wrong with discussing the current uses of AI? There are some men who carry genetic diseases who elect to avoid passing on their defective genes and acquire children through other means. I used to work for a man suffered from a genetic problem and, though fertile, he and his wife decided to adopt rather than have biological children. Some couples decide to use AI as a means to avoid passing on problems - which is awful close to what you're proposing.

That's one way in which humans are very different from animals - we can make a conscious choice to resist the urge to reproduce ourselves in order to better the species. We're also anomalous in that we do knowingly adopt unrelated offspring of others and lavish resources on those adoptees as if they were biological children. I have to wonder if part of the reason is because even the most distantly related humans actually are pretty closely related compared to individuals of other species. As an example, two randomly selected chimpanzees will have more genetic differences than two randomly selected humans. It's that ancient bottleneck our species went through a few tens of thousands of years ago.

What? Are you maintaining that women aren't affected by not having children? There isn't really a way to quantify what effect being childless has on a person. Some people don't have a problem with it. Some do. Some adamantly don't want children at all. That applies to both genders.

No, I am only maintain that it effects both genders. I countered you when you stated that it somehow does not effect men as in that men are somehow not sad when they can't have children and that claim was silly at best. As you said, some are sad and some aren't but these things apply to both genders.

Please point to where, exactly, I said men were unaffected by the inability to have children. I never made such a ludicrous statement.

Reversible contraception is a bit more costly.

Because by the time we can build a spaceship and fly to other planets we won't be able to manufacture pills that you can add into everyones food or some other method of imposing contraception without requiring surgery. And besides, in a society built around thins as an ideal you think that price would not be an issue.

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once? And if you do put contraceptives in the food and water then you'll need an entirely separate food or water supply for the pregnant women, and worry about cross contamination wiping out your planned pregnancies. It's unnecessarily complicated.

Vasectomies for all the men, after preserving adequate sperm samples. Much simpler solution. Vasectomies are laughably simple, really, and recovery only a matter of days, if that much.

Are you now implying that adopted children someone aren't "real" children?

WTF? Where did you get that from? All I said was: "just not every child would really be yours." as in, just that the child you have might have to adopt a child that is only 50% yours since one of the parents might be excluded from the whole breeding thing.

Why do you assume that the bonds between adopted children and their adoptive parents are somehow inherently weaker than those between biological children and their biological parents? Actual reality shows that biological children can be entirely estranged from biological parents and vice-versa, while adoptive bonds can be very strong. There are exceptions all over the place, of course, because humans are not controlled entirely by their biology, there's a lot of culture and free will involved as well.

Oh, and get used to the rather confrontational and aggressive style of discussion on this board. You'll find it everywhere.

[Purple]

Hey, is there something wrong with discussing the current uses of AI?

Its just that the current uses of AI are hardly the topic of this thread.
We could also start discussing the possible society that would have the resources to colonize another planet or the possible conditions of said planet or a myriad of other things but all of these would only use up time without contributing to the topic at hand.

In the case of that quote I was merely clarifying what I said and not attempting to start any conversation about it farther than that since it would be unproductive.
If you want to start another thread where we will discus all the general factors of a possible future colonization I will gladly join you there.

Please point to where, exactly, I said men were unaffected by the inability to have children. I never made such a ludicrous statement.

Right here:

A typical male blind spot, to be eager to restructure and control female reproduction without imposing limits on their own..

The way that your posts generally sound is like no one, especially young males care about things other than sex honestly. I for one do not believe that sex (reproductive or not) is so important that it needs special mechanisms of being sustained within society.

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once? And if you do put contraceptives in the food and water then you'll need an entirely separate food or water supply for the pregnant women, and worry about cross contamination wiping out your planned pregnancies. It's unnecessarily complicated.

I was referring to the fact that there certainly will be some method that is simpler and less invasive than surgery and that is not permanent. I was not trying to speculate on what exactly said method would be farther than saying that it's some sort of chemical temporary method. It could be a pill you only have to take once in every 10 years or who knows what.
I am honestly not educated enough in chemistry and medicine to say.

Why do you assume that the bonds between adopted children and their adoptive parents are somehow inherently weaker than those between biological children and their biological parents?

Where do you get these things? Are you making them up or something becouse I sure newer said any of it.
You really should tune down your imagination a little.

Oh, and get used to the rather confrontational and aggressive style of discussion on this board. You'll find it everywhere.

I noticed...

[Broomstick]

Please point to where, exactly, I said men were unaffected by the inability to have children. I never made such a ludicrous statement.

Right here:

A typical male blind spot, to be eager to restructure and control female reproduction without imposing limits on their own..

The way that your posts generally sound is like no one, especially young males care about things other than sex honestly.

Are you stupid, or really that ignorant of human history? Throughout recorded history men have treated women as possessions, confined them, and restricted them in order to control female reproduction while remaining free, themselves, to fuck anything with two legs (and sometimes four). It was to ensure paternity of offspring. In other words, it was a limit solely on the female half of the species, for the benefit of the male half. Women were restricted to sex with just one male, often under penalty of death for breaking that rule (even today there are cultures where a raped woman can be put to death for having sex outside her marriage, even against her will) but men could have multiple wives and concubines without penalty.

How you went from a simple statement of historical fact to my somehow not thinking men were affected by childlessness is just... baffling.

And here you're ready to do it all again, inseminating and aborting and control female reproduction without expressing any limits on the men. It's all about controlling women all over again

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once? And if you do put contraceptives in the food and water then you'll need an entirely separate food or water supply for the pregnant women, and worry about cross contamination wiping out your planned pregnancies. It's unnecessarily complicated.

I was referring to the fact that there certainly will be some method that is simpler and less invasive than surgery

A vasectomy is about as invasive as getting your nose pierced. It is NOT major surgery, save for the possible psychological effect on some men who foolishly equate it with castration, which it most assuredly is not. It's also pretty damn simple. It's a fuck of a lot simpler than synthesizing chemicals or attempting to monitor who is and isn't taking a pill, or levels of contraception in the food supply, or any of the other fucked-up schemes you mentioned.

So wince and cross your legs all you want - I'm sorry you're so damn hung up about your balls you're willing to suggest much more complicated, expensive, and risky schemes to keep people from having unauthorized babies.

I was not trying to speculate on what exactly said method would be farther than saying that it's some sort of chemical temporary method. It could be a pill you only have to take once in every 10 years or who knows what.
I am honestly not educated enough in chemistry and medicine to say.

Then shut the fuck up until you ARE educated. Do you not know how to use a search engine? Hell, fucking Wikipedia would do for the basics in these areas.

You proposed putting contraceptives in the food or water, without regard to side effects on people like children or pregnant women. Nevermind that EVERY chemical means of contraception has side effects, many of them cardiovascular which won't be very good for a population already at risk of heart problems, would it? Not to mention that chemical contraception is hormonal - you're proposing exposing EVERYONE in the colony to doses of female hormones. You'll induce precocious puberty in the children, and the men will have a disturbing (to me, at least - maybe they'll come to like it) tendency to grow tits. Way to go, dumbshit. I guess in your world controlling reproduction is so important that the general health of the population takes a back seat.

You are buttfucking ignorant on the subject of contraception. I sincerely hope you're virgin at this point, because I'd hate to think you're out there risking accidental reproduction with such a disgusting lack of basic knowledge.

You really should tune down your imagination a little.

This from the jackass who leapt from "men have historically controlled women's reproduction for their own purposes" to "Broomstick doesn't think men care about infertility". Perhaps your imagination should interact more often with reality.

[Purple]

snip

Than you should have said so. I can not be expected to read between the lines and discern correct assumptions of what you meant to say from 1 line of text any more than you can be.
So how about we just drop this as a failure to communicate?

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once?

Because chemical castration that is viable today as an injection already exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

Or because having an injection would be more acceptable to public morale and less time consuming than say having to vasectomise every male.

And the bonus is that you can stop giving injections at some point when you want to reactivate him without having to save loads of sperm samples in hopes that the person makes it.

Then shut the fuck up until you ARE educated. Do you not know how to use a search engine? Hell, fucking Wikipedia would do for the basics in these areas.

and snip of half the text down bellow

Did your mother teach you to talk like that?

You really should tune down your imagination a little.

This from the jackass who leapt from "men have historically controlled women's reproduction for their own purposes" to "Broomstick doesn't think men care about infertility". Perhaps your imagination should interact more often with reality.[/quote]
I at least did not envisioned compulsory breeding camps or what ever you had in mind...
But again, failure to communicate.

[Broomstick]

So how about we just drop this as a failure to communicate?

I agree that you failed to communicate your thoughts adequately.

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once?

Because chemical castration that is viable today as an injection already exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

Did you even read about the side effects? Seriously? "Chemical castration" is the injection of female hormones into a man. Aside from increasing the risk of cardiovascular problems - already heightened in a high-g environment - it always decreases bone density over time. Way to go, genius - stick people in a high-g environment then subject them to something that weakens their bones. It also reduces muscle mass, is that something you want to do under high-g?

Now, granted, neither of those effects is likely to be fatal, but they also run counter to the adaptions needed by people in a high g environment.

Another side effect is gynecomastia, which I guess sounds less scary to some people than "men who grow boobies". Men in prison who are chemically castrated often develop enough in the way of tits and hip/ass fat that they become targets of rape from other men.

The feminization of a man resulting from chemical castration has been know to be psychologically traumatizing enough to lead to suicide. Not all men react that way, but it certainly has been known to happen.

Bottom line, you clearly have not looked into this thoroughly. Unless you can tell me with a straight face you wouldn't mind growing some B-cup titties and getting a curvaceous ass you have no right to suggest imposing this on other men.

Or because having an injection would be more acceptable to public morale and less time consuming than say having to vasectomise every male.

You do realize that for 51% of the human population (assuming natural sex ratios) vasectomizing men is likely to have no significant impact on morale? Perhaps a net positive, as the women would no longer have to worry about accidental pregnancy.

And just how long do you think it takes to perform a vasectomy? About 10 minutes, genius. Probably faster if someone has a lot of practice. 10 minutes and it's done, no more worries about birth control. How is that "time consuming"?

And the bonus is that you can stop giving injections at some point when you want to reactivate him without having to save loads of sperm samples in hopes that the person makes it.

I don't see what's so difficult about preserving sperm samples. Probably a good idea to have multiple caches.

I mean, hell, a certain number of men suffer testicle injury over a lifetime and currently such men have no means of biological reproduction. If sperm samples were routinely saved it wouldn't save them the pain of damaged nuts but they would be able to father children biologically theirs.

Then shut the fuck up until you ARE educated. Do you not know how to use a search engine? Hell, fucking Wikipedia would do for the basics in these areas.

and snip of half the text down bellow

Did your mother teach you to talk like that?

Protesting strong language will get you nowhere here, little boy. Swearing is allowed, even encouraged on this forum. Retreating into complaints of four letter words will only earn you mockery.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, it can. A quick search on line revealed instances of normal pregnancies from sperm frozen 20 years. The key, of course, is proper preparation of the sperm, then keeping the power on for the freezer.

I'm sure eventually the viability diminishes, but apparently not within a human lifetime.

Fair enough.

I think you have the right of it when it comes to the least-bad proposal for doing a selective-breeding program in humans. I still don't like the entire concept of doing one at all, and I imagine you don't either, but your plan is probably the best of a bad lot.

The feminization of a man resulting from chemical castration has been know to be psychologically traumatizing enough to lead to suicide. Not all men react that way, but it certainly has been known to happen.

Bottom line, you clearly have not looked into this thoroughly. Unless you can tell me with a straight face you wouldn't mind growing some B-cup titties and getting a curvaceous ass you have no right to suggest imposing this on other men.

Seconded.

[Purple]

I agree that you failed to communicate your thoughts adequately.

You did as well.

So, what ever.

Did you even read about the side effects? Seriously? "Chemical castration" snip.

Wow... that I did not know. The wikipeida article said nothing about that.
Hence, you are right in that point.

Bottom line, you clearly have not looked into this thoroughly. Unless you can tell me with a straight face you wouldn't mind growing some B-cup titties and getting a curvaceous ass you have no right to suggest imposing this on other men.

... now you got that image into my mind! I can't get it out!
It burns!

[Simon_Jester]

Ah, well, sic semper tyrannis...

But anyway, Broomstick's pretty much nailed this one. If you're going to do involuntary selective breeding in human, vasectomies are the way to go because they're the least invasive surgical method possible. Pills and shots require a large-scale system to make everyone take their meds, and there is no known chemical means of inducing infertility in males without side effects in any case.

And, again, I find the entire concept loathesome anyway; it's just that this is the least bad of a long list of truly bad options.

[Junghalli]

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once?

Politics? Personally I'd be much less angry about being fed a contraceptive without my consent than about being surgically sterilized without my consent; surgery seems much more psychologically violating to me than drugs, so drugs may be more acceptable. I think I'd react pretty poorly to somebody wanting to forcibly surgically sterilize me, whereas a (reasonably safe and side-effect free) enforced drug regimen would get pretty much a "meh" reaction from me aside from the issue that I might like to have children someday. Stuff like that could make the difference between a solution being feasible or not feasible if the people implementing it have less than absolute control over the community. Then again, that could be just me. I have a distaste for the idea of having my body modified; I didn't get my wisdom teeth pulled because I disliked the idea of somebody taking pieces of me out without a pressing reason.

[Purple]

snip

That is exactly 100% what I was trying to say.
You put it better than I ever could.

If a chemical method could be made that is reasonably side effect free than it would be far preferable than a surgical one. And having to report once a year for a shot is definitively not too much of a better.

The doability of such a solution is another story altogether but if at all doable it should be done regardless of cost efficiency.

[Simon_Jester]

There's a catch, though. This isn't just a mass sterilization program, it's a negative eugenics program- you're trying to make sure "unfit" people do not have children, but you want to make sure "fit" people do. So putting contraceptives in everyone's water is a bad idea- you'd need to make sure the people you want having kids don't eat and drink from the same supplies.

[Purple]

In my last post there is a typo.
Last sentense, instead of "done" it should say "preferred".

[Junghalli]

There's a catch, though. This isn't just a mass sterilization program, it's a negative eugenics program- you're trying to make sure "unfit" people do not have children, but you want to make sure "fit" people do. So putting contraceptives in everyone's water is a bad idea- you'd need to make sure the people you want having kids don't eat and drink from the same supplies.

That strikes me as easily doable: spike only some of the food (modern birth control pills are one pill a day IIRC), have the people you actually want to reproduce sit at a special table in the cafeteria/mess/whatever, and tell the cooks not to give the people there food from the boxes with the red X on them.

It may get more complicated if you want the process to be more anonymous or if cheating with the help of food preparers becomes a serious problem, but it doesn't strike me as a very difficult problem.

[Simon_Jester]

You can do it, but logistics mixups could cause major problems with the implementation. If the guys eating the doped food decide they want undoped food... you have a problem. Likewise if doped and undoped groups start meeting and eating together, or drinking water from each other's homes.

You'd need a very high level of overall regimentation and social control to stop people from eating and drinking the wrong food and water.

[Junghalli]

Yes, but I'd say any kind of enforced eugenics program implies a pretty high degree of social control.

Another way to do it would be to use something like contraceptive injections or Norplant, which are effective for between weeks to years, depending on method used.

[Simon_Jester]

This is a good choice if you want something reversible (say, a more heavily enforced version of China's one child policy, where anyone may have children, but there are limits on how many and you probably want to avoid unplanned pregnancies).

For the kind of (again, foul) policy that would be required for a selective breeding, permanent sterilization has the huge practical advantage of not requiring long term upkeep. You don't have to keep injecting people or checking to make sure they're taking their pills, or that their implants are working and current.

[Junghalli]

I think that was one his original ideas: every couple would be allowed one child to preserve genetic diversity, while those with the most desirable genes would be encouraged to produce more.

I'd say the optimal strategy would depend on the social context.

Realistically I'd expect the most likely thing to be either nature left to take its course or actual genetic engineering. Then again, realistically I wouldn't be at all surprised at the first expedition to another star system to consisting of transhuman uploads.

[avianmosquito]

I think the legs can take a load of about 2.5 times their owner's weight, so 2.5 should be the absolute upper limit, as any higher and they won't be able to walk. Even then, standing might be hard, and you wouldn't be able to walk very long or run at all. (Not that most people can anyway nowadays.)

[Broomstick]

WHY go to the trouble of continually synthesizing a chemical of that nature to add to the food and water when there is a simpler solution that only needs to be applied once?

Politics? Personally I'd be much less angry about being fed a contraceptive without my consent than about being surgically sterilized without my consent; surgery seems much more psychologically violating to me than drugs, so drugs may be more acceptable.

I would expect there to be a split between people preferring one of those alternatives over the other - but really, very few would be happy with either.

I think I'd react pretty poorly to somebody wanting to forcibly surgically sterilize me, whereas a (reasonably safe and side-effect free) enforced drug regimen would get pretty much a "meh" reaction from me aside from the issue that I might like to have children someday.

Problem is, we have NO safe and side-effect free chemical contraceptive for either gender. Even the current female chemical contraceptives increase the risk of cardiovascular problems, and some formulations can increase the risk of cancer, in addition to a variety of other potential side effects. They are absolutely contraindicated for some women.

Over the long haul, surgical sterilization carries the least risk. Clearly, though many people choose of their own free will to run a higher risk in order to avoid it. Given how strongly controlled such a hypothetical society would need to be, perhaps compulsory chemical contraceptive until the individual finishes reproducing, followed by surgical sterilization.

Then again, that could be just me. I have a distaste for the idea of having my body modified; I didn't get my wisdom teeth pulled because I disliked the idea of somebody taking pieces of me out without a pressing reason.

No, not just you - I myself feel much the same (and didn't have my wisdom teeth extracted, either, for similar reasons). I have a visceral negative reaction to the idea as well, but this is all hypothetical, an intellectual exercise.

[Broomstick]

I think the legs can take a load of about 2.5 times their owner's weight, so 2.5 should be the absolute upper limit, as any higher and they won't be able to walk. Even then, standing might be hard, and you wouldn't be able to walk very long or run at all. (Not that most people can anyway nowadays.)

I'm curious where you got that number - I seem to recall hearing that the g-force on a runner's legs is higher than that. I may be misremembering, of course, just would like to know how solid that number is.