America's Cup yacht racing: Race analysis and physical characteristics of the athletes

Abstract

The America's Cup is the oldest competing trophy in sport, yet little is known of the nature and intensity of racing or the physical characteristics of the athletes. In this study, aspects of the physical demands of America's Cup yacht racing were analysed, including the intensity of exercise and activity pattern of “grinding”. Anthropometric data were collected from 92 professional male America's Cup sailors, and fitness data from a top-4 and a lower-7 ranking team during the 32nd America's Cup. Over the 135 races, mean race duration was 82 min (s = 9), with 20 tacks (s = 10) and 8 gybes (s = 3) per race. Grinding bouts were 5.5 s (s = 5.4; range: 2.2–66.3) long, with 143 exercise bouts per race and an exercise-to-rest ratio of 1:6. Mean and peak heart rate was 64% and 92% of maximum for all positions, with bowmen highest (71% and 96%). Grinders were taller, heavier, and stronger than all other positions. Body fat was similar between positions (13%, s = 4). The higher-standard team was stronger and had greater strength endurance, which probably contributed to their quicker manoeuvres. Intensity of exercise was dependent on the similarity of competing boats and the role of the athlete. The short duration and intermittent nature of grinding is indicative of predominantly anaerobic energy provision.     

Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy

'Brainjacking’ refers to the exercise of unauthorized control of another’s electronic brain implant. Whilst the possibility of hacking a Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) has already been proven in both experimental and real-life settings, there is reason to believe that it will soon be possible to interfere with the software settings of the Implanted Pulse Generators (IPGs) that play a central role in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) systems. Whilst brainjacking raises ethical concerns pertaining to privacy and physical or psychological harm, we claim that the possibility of brainjacking DBS raises particularly profound concerns about individual autonomy, since the possibility of hacking such devices raises the prospect of third parties exerting influence over the neural circuits underpinning the subject’s cognitive, emotional and motivational states. However, although it seems natural to assume that brainjacking represents a profound threat to individual autonomy, we suggest that the implications of brainjacking for individual autonomy are complicated by the fact that technologies targeted by brainjacking often serve to enhance certain aspects of the user’s autonomy. The difficulty of ascertaining the implications of brainjacking DBS for individual autonomy is exacerbated by the varied understandings of autonomy in the neuroethical and philosophical literature. In this paper, we seek to bring some conceptual clarity to this area by mapping out some of the prominent views concerning the different dimension of autonomous agency, and the implications of brainjacking DBS for each dimension. Drawing on three hypothetical case studies, we show that there could plausibly be some circumstances in which brainjacking could potentially be carried out in ways that could serve to enhance certain dimensions of the target’s autonomy. Our analysis raises further questions about the power, scope, and necessity of obtaining prior consent in seeking to protect patient autonomy when directly interfering with their neural states, in particular in the context of self-regulating closed-loop stimulation devices.     

Researching ‘learning lives’ – a new agenda for learning,media and technology

In this article, we revisit the history of our interest in the term, ‘learning lives’ in order to explicate the meaning(s) of the phrase and to set up a series of challenges for research into young people’s learning. We suggest that a learning lives perspective depends on three areas for investigation. First of all is the challenge of how to capture, theorise and describe the travel and trajectories if researchers are truly to ‘follow’ learners through, around and in their learning across everyday life. Secondly, it means refusing what seems to be the most apparent levers of change, namely media and technology. And thirdly, learning lives approaches need to address the pedagogicization of everyday life and the schooled society. Learning lives approaches help us see the changing place of the meaning of education and institutional pedagogies across all the nooks and crannies of everyday life.