|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 ||
I'll respond to your response - I hope it will cover other responses, too.
"Regardless, I would think it would be straightforward to measure. "
You can measure it, but you can't distinguish the VOLUNTARY push-off component from recoil component.
"We've previously seen links to force plate charts from which it is easy to see there are two peaks. The first peak is the maximum force exerted on landing (which is then partially or wholly stored up in the muscles, etc).
The second peak is the maximum force exerted on 'push-off'. If this second peak is less than the first, then it is difficult to say whether it is comprised solely of muscle recoil or includes some conscious effort."
This depends upon who is running in the experiment. It may be a conventional runner, or a runner "instructed to run Pose" - which in fact also means a conventional runner. To get a reliable data you would have to test the same runner pre-Pose, and then test him after he mastered Pose - and he would have to have the same Pose mileage under his belt as he had pre-Pose. Other than that the results will be skewed.
"The energy absorbed upon landing is used:
1. To regain the lost height.
2. Adds to propelling the body forward, the prime mover being gravity. That is - it aids to transform the downward action of gravity to horizontal."
"Here, stated in very clear terms that no one can dispute, you are saying that not only is the body a lossless system (such that everything absorbed from landing due to gravity gets transferred 100% back on recoil), but that the human body is a free energy producer."
I wrote: the energy is USED. Do you have a proof that it is NOT USED?.I wrote: it ADDS to propelling forward. Do you have data that it DOESN'T ADD? The operative words are "used" and "adds". Where do you see about lossless system? Or do you think that muscle recoil can be reduced to recoil of a metal spring? Believe me, in years of surgeon practice I've seen some dead people, and I can assure you - muscle recoil in a corpse is different than that in a live person.
"Yes, this energy is used to regain height and to propel forward. And in my understanding it propels you forward in the following manner: it counters the downward pulling of gravity and enables to transform downward direction of gravity to forward movement."
Read once more: "it transforms downward pulling of gravity to forward movement". Translating for you from English into English: it means gravity is doing the work, and stored energy aids to transform its direction from downward to horizontal. Where do you see me saying that there is is some more enegry left, when you claim that I say that recoil not only gives 100% return to regain the lost height, but produces more energy to propel forward?
"You say: "Whatever it adds on one stride is taken away later". I say: but you have made the stride " for free", that is, you have moved one stride forward ".
The English to English version: the recoil energy brings us to the running pose for the next falling, and on the next falling you again have a portion of "free" energy from gravitational pull. I see it like this: recoil produces energy, when you are in running pose you have lost it, but with the next fall ( which is free) you gain it again, to be used again to get into running pose. And I don't care about vectors and such - all I care is that I don't have to fight against the ground to move forward. English to English: I don't have the feeling of fighting against the ground. Because (let it ingrain into your head), Pose is about perception.
"One thing: Pose doesn't claim that "gravity is enough to continualy drive the system". Pose says that gravity is the prime mover in running."
English to English: without using muscle energy you wouldn't be able to get back into running pose, so you wouldn't be able to use the free gravitational energy for your next stride. Everything uses energy: hamstring pull, core positioning, arms movement.
"If gravity is NOT enough to continually drive the system, then you are saying there is additionaly energy added."
Yes, you must add - and recoil does it by bringing you into previous height. The question what you imagine to be recoil. The difference between the recoil of a bouncing ball and a human leg is that metabolic process takes place in muscles (as you've already understood, contrary to the ball or a metal spring). In a live organism the release of stored energy can't be separated from reflective contraction of miofibrilles. Means, upon foot landing proprioreceptors get impulses from nerves and involuntary contraction of certain groups of miofibrilles takes place. Recoil is divided into recoil of bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles, the more elastic a tissue is - the more force it can generate by recoil. To measure "real recoil" (or recoil like you understand it - in pure physical sense) you would have to measure it in a corpse - but again, nervous impulses travel in tissues for some time after death, and later on the corpse starts to stiffen, thus the recoil of muscular tissue changes due to biochemical changes in miofibriles. In a live organism it's impossible to separate "pure physical recoil" from reflective conraction of muscles reacting to landing impact. So both of these are called "recoil". And contraction is a contraction. So I see no problem about where the energy comes from. You can't influence neither "physical recoil", nor reflective mucular contraction, and you can't separately measure them, so for practical purposes it is called " muscle recoil". Pose is teaching a running technique, and teaching means learning to influence what can be influenced. That's why I don't lose any of my sleep because all of this physics.
"You can't say one thing (no pushing) and then turn around and say you need to add more energy to the system to keep it going"
I can say it, because "no pushing" means NOT PERFORMING PUSHIMG ACTION. (Read my above post about push-off approaching near-zero level). Means "trying to push-off less, striving to achieving no push-off at all". THIS IS ALL ABOUT PERCEPTION.
"So do we need to consciously push-off since gravity is NOT enough to drive the system? Or do we need to just let the muscles recoil after being loaded up by gravity and not do any further pushing?"
No, we needn't to push-off. Let's agree upon terms: when I say "no push-off", I mean "not performing a conscious pushing-off action", it means "trying to reprogram the brain not to send the impulse to the muscles to push-off". And I don't care if there is something that you could call a physical push-off. All I wanna do is try to achieve my push-off to "approach near-zero level". It's a way to teach running technique, and not a work if theoretical physics. And - yes, we need to let the muscles recoil to the highest degree possible, because recoil is energetically more efficient than voluntary muscle contraction.
"You have very clearly stated your belief that POSE professes the human body to be a lossless system and capable of generating free energy."
Please, quote me saying it.
"So, since it is now established explicitly that POSE believes in a lossless human body capable of generating free energy"
Where have you found it written about generating free energy? Pose says that is teaches to harness free energy.
"As far as I know, no one has sprinted sub 10 (or even 11?) using pose method. But clean athletes have sprinted sub 10 and sub 20 using some of the methods prescribed by the best biomechanical coaches in the world."
You need to make up your mind as to what points you are professing. This post alone contains several changes back and forth in position.
Yes you can. It was explained very clearly. Read JY's post from 12:52pm Aug 24. Recoil component CAN NOT exceed the amount absorbed on landing. Anything above that value (and as JY explained, the existence of a second peak regardless of magnitude) can ONLY mean there is voluntary application of force. You simply CAN NOT output more force than was absorbed through RECOIL alone.
Whether the subject is running 'normal', POSE or just 'instructed to run POSE' is irrelevant to the validity. No one has produced ANY data that shows running POSE or 'instructed to run POSE' produces less force on 'push-off' than they absorbed on landing. Therefore there MUST be the addition of more force than simple recoil.
No matter how many times you repeat it, you simply can not absorb amount X and output amount X + Y WITHOUT voluntarily pushing.
I never said it wasn't USED. In fact, I agree that it is USED.
I never said it doesn't ADD. In fact, I agree that it does ADD.
"The energy absorbed upon landing is used:
1. To regain the lost height.
2. Adds to propelling the body forward, the prime mover being gravity"
Since you are adament about not voluntarily pushing off or adding ANY further force to the system beyond that absorbed by landing and output in muscle recoil, you are left with a single energy input to your system: gravity.
You said in your two numbered points that this single input is used to regain the lost height (therefore meaning a lossless or perpetual motion system).
You then said we have enough energy left over after this to propel the body forward (therefore meaning a free energy system).
Both are physically impossible. You have been very clear that it is not about 'perception' but reality and the reality is that you should NOT push-off voluntarily. This means, and can only mean gravity is the only input to your system.
You're a surgeon now? I suppose then that you can provide referencerable data that concretely shows that a live human muscle can create free energy by outputing more force than was stored up in it WITHOUT conscious addition of further energy?
This is very crucial to your argument. If you can not provide this proof or evidence, you have no factual basis on which to further your claims about POSE.
See above. Once more: you said there is no voluntary push-off. Therefore the ONLY input to our system is gravity which gets converted to kinetic energy, then to elastic potential energy (the only source of muscle recoil) then back to kinetic energy, then back to gravitational potential energy plus additional kinetic energy for forward motion.
You said the result of this input is:
1. Return of the system to the original height (therefore it is lossless).
2. System propelled to forward motion (therefore it provides free energy).
You were very clear about this.
In pseudo mathematical terms:
Input: Gravitational Potential Energy = G
State at end of one cycle: G + FKE (Forward Kinetic Energy).
You now have something from nothing. As Homer Simpson said "In this house we obey the laws of Thermodynamics."
Care as little as you want about vectors, but you simply can not deny they exist or that they describe your motions.
Here again you repeat the same mantra as before: input is gravity, output is gravity plus forward motion, therefore free energy (not need for quotes because it really is FREE).
Then, however, you do a U turn in the last sentence and bring "perception" into it. You were very clear in the rest of your post and in the several previous posts that there was no mention of perception, that reality was: input of gravity only; output of gravity plus forward motion.
Either you have been consistently wrong about what POSE explains through your failure to mention 'perception' in those previous explanations, whereby all this talk about gravity doing the work and not pushing off was simply metaphorical, or you are now trying to bring 'perception' into the game to distance yourself from your very clear statements before about the human body being a lossless system and generator of free energy.
Which is it?
Yes, agreed, everything uses energy. You, however, were very clear about things. You do NOT push or add further energy to the system. The ONLY input you take (and you were very insistent about it) is gravity, which goes in the form of gravitational potential energy.
You were very clear that this energy is the ONLY input to muscle recoil and that no further addition of energy is required through conscious pushing in order for this recoil to bring us back to our starting position (and then give us a forward boost).
This is plainly contradictory. Recoil is NOT the addition of further energy. You have been very clear that you do NOT add any more energy to the system in POSE than that absorbed on landing.
I strongly suspect the question is what YOU imagine to be recoil.
Apparently not, since you have clearly demonstrated you don't understand the physics you are trying to talk about.
Please, can you provide me with a cite that shows how a muscle can be loaded with amount of energy X and then be able to output (recoil) amount of energy X + Y?
If you were to punch Mike Tyson with energy X, he is going to experience some muscle recoil and then punch you back with energy X + Y (Y >> X). I can guarantee you that he is consciously adding further energy to that system beyond just muscle recoil from your impact.
Now we're back to 'perception'? So were you incorrect in those previous posts when you clearly stated there was NO conscious push-off and that everything was driven by muscle recoil alone?
Oh, so it's now back to not pushing off as opposed to not perceiving to push off? See what I mean about the back and forth statements?
Now you're getting ambiguous again. Is our only source of muscle output due to muscle recoil or do we need to add further conscious pushing to keep the system moving?
For that matter, what justification do you have for trying to define 'muscle recoil' as being physically able to output more energy than was loaded up on it WITHOUT conscious effort?
Do you still not see why your explanation of POSE describes not only a lossless system but one that is able to provide free energy?
I did that. You didn't use the words "lossless" or "generating free energy" (although you came particularly close to that last phrase at some points), but what you described, numerous times (and referenced above and in the previous post) are exactly that.
There is no other way that your statements can be interpreted, hence why we went through the labourious process of trying to get simple answers to questions.
Well, I guess I should take back what I said above about you never saying anything explicit about "free energy", since you come right out and say it here.
Where does this "free energy" come from?
We've got a black box human system. Going into it is gravitational potential energy.
Coming out is enough energy to restore our previous gravitational potential energy and some kinetic energy in the forward direction. X goes in. X + Y comes out. Since you said there is no conscious pushing or addition of energy that way, we've now got free energy coming out of our system.
You explained it many times. But no matter how many times you continue to say it, it still is in violation of the laws of Thermodynamics.
We're left with two possible conclusions:
1. You have accurately described POSE, in which case their whole explanation (beyond commonly accepted forefoot landing under CM, quick strides) is completely and utterly bogus and not even worthy of a Tom Cruise science fiction movie.
2. You have a deep misunderstanding of what POSE is and have done a huge disservice by continuing to espouse your flawed interpretation. (The rest of the POSE community who've participated in this thread and are still reading have similarly done a disservice by not correcting you way back when you first stated spouting your very mistaken beliefs.)
Which one is it?
Michael Johnson does not run POSE. He runs with my FAST system (see:
""We feel that strength is synonymous with speed-if youre strong, then you can run FAST.""
"Michael Johnson has to run FAST to win.")
Oh, for god's sake, i thought everyone was clear that we were discussing what physically happens?? - then we come back to this "[oh, i was talking about perceptions]" thing when you find your self in a tight spot.
How clear does it need to be - here is a post from a few pages ago.
And regarding force plate data. I explained earlier that a simple elastic loading / unloading mechanism would yield a single peak, and that the occuurrence of any 'second peak' is evidence of any additional push.
Are you now giving some whacky definition of recoil to make the arguments fit? Surely it is reasonable to understand that everyone else will interpret recoil to be return of elatically stored energy? But in one of your recent posts you indicate that to you, 'recoil' means the return of elastically stored energy PLUS some additional muscle contraction (i.e. cross-bridge cycling), whether that be reflexive / involuntary or whatever.
Over the last 4+ pages, how did you not understand what everyone else was talking about? Whether it was necessary to add energy (through muscle contraction) over and above that returned from 'elastic storage.' Did you really not get that?
All I can say is: you guys have incredible patience and endurance to be debating with these POSE fanatics. They simply won't accept, no matter how many facts you throw at them, that the explanations given by Dr Poseur concerning his POSE system of running simply are not physically possible.
Don't these clowns realize that when a muscular contraction occurs very rapidly and is repeated 1000's of times during one's lifetime (creating very efficient neuromuscular adapations) that the contraction FEELS/IS PERCEIVED AS "involuntary," but is, of course, actually voluntary???
When one is hitting a heavy bag, and snapping off punches very quickly, does one think consciously, each and every time, after hitting the bag, that they need to "now pull my arm back to my chest" ?? NO, of course not. At that speed, and that repetition, one pulls their arm back almost unconsciously......BUT IT IS SITLL A VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT! IT STILL REQUIRES ENERGY!
Let me ask these POSERS a question here: if elastic recoil can provide the necessary energy to push one upwards and forwards upon landing on the ground, try this experiment. Stand on a ledge, and jump off landing on two feet (with your feet right under your center of mass) without TRYING to bound back up or forward, just concentrate on "nailing the landing" like a gymnast. With such a great eccentric force created (because you started off so high above ground) on your leg muscles, accoding to you guys, a large amount of recoil would automatically occur unconsciously and involuntarily and you should only have to lean slightly forward upon ground contact and you will automatically bound upward and forward with great power. But is that what actually happens?? No. It takes great energy and power to absorb that eccentric contraction and then more energy to power one immediately upwards and forwards. If you just land, and make no attempt to bounce upwards and forwards, you will simply land and NOT bouce upwards and forward. IT TAKES ENERGY AND VOLUNTARY (though it feel somewhat unconscious because it happens so fast) EFFORT TO REBOUND FORWARD AND UPWARDS. This happens with every stride. And in fact, it takes voluntary (though again, it may feel somewhat unconscious) effort and energy to simply absorb the impact upon landing with eccentric muscle contractions. If you were totally unconscious and involuntary when landing on the ground, your knees would collapse and you would eat ground.
This whole pose concept of ONLY using one's hamstrings to pull one forward and letting gravity do the rest of the work is just plain insanity. One could argue (though I might disagree with that too) that one should FOCUS most of their attention on their hamstring contractions, and to try to get a FEELING of falling forward, but that would be different than what Dr Poseur has said about his POSE running style and how it "works."
When I try to imagine you reading my posts, I get a picture like this: you read THROUGH the post quickly, your eyes are looking for something to get a hold on to be able to counter - and you skip the rest. Now, a dozen pages later you find out that I'm a surgeon. Now, a dozen pages later you find out that "it's all about perception" - regardless of my quoting Dr R. at the beginning of the discussion that Pose is about what is being done, and not about what happens. I have clearly showed you that Pose doesn't claim this or that, but you have the gift of what I can call " selective reading". So to sum it up:
1.Gravity pulls you forward when you get unbalanced on the balls of your feet.
2. Recoil brings you back. Recoil consists of passive elasticity of tissues and reflective contraction of muscles that are triggered by landing impact. Since you can't influence this reflective contraction, it's considered a component of recoil. Voluntary contraction is the contraction you give command to execute - and in Pose you shouldn't give command to push off.
3. It's not a lossless system, since muscles involved in recoil produce energy.
4. It's all about perception.
5. I can't influence your ability to read my posts.
"Over the last 4+ pages, how did you not understand what everyone else was talking about? Whether it was necessary to add energy (through muscle contraction) over and above that returned from 'elastic storage.'"
I understand what everyone was talking about (asking questions like in a criminal movie: the prosecutor asks the suspect three innocent questions, and answering them the suspect sets the trap for himself, then the fourth question comes, and he has no way out, LOL). And foreseeing this in these 4+ pages I was trying to send you the message: vectors don't matter, because if the topic discusses Pose ( whether it's crazy or not), it should address what Pose is all about - and not what you IMAGINE Pose is. Pose is more about psychology of movement than about biomechanics.
It's not necessary to ADD energy, because the energy produced by passive tissue elasticity and reflective muscle contraction ( both of these make up the "recoil") "adds" by itself. Reflective muscle contraction gives the missing energy that Asterix is so obsessed looking for - but for me it's part of recoil, since we can't influence it or separately measure it. "To add" in my understanding means "to undertake certain actions to add more energy", and these actions are: 1. To send command to push off. 2. To push off. Both of these action make one: voluntary push-off. There is no need to do it. This does not contradict anything that I have said. It's all about perception, LOL.
To translate into the language more understandable for you: you can call it "involuntary push-off" ( as a proof that a push-off exists), and I have no problem with this terminology. For you a push-off is what HAPPENS PHYSICALLY, for me a "push-off" is pushing-off ( it's what you EXECUTE). Your "involuntary push-off" is my "component of recoil", or simply put, recoil ( in fact it's the same reflective muscle contraction that I chose not to speak about: since it HAPPENS, and is not EXECUTED, it's of little interest). And I think I have a good reason to cling to my terminology, because teaching running technique one should focus on what a runner SHOULD DO, that is - what actions he should perform. And in my belief voluntary push-off is unnecessary.
If we are going to go on with this thread, let's agree about terms:
1. "Push-off" - let it mean what happens.
2. "Pushing off" - let it mean what is being executed.
"If we are going to go on with this thread, let's agree about terms:
1. "Push-off" - let it mean what happens (the sum of passive tissue elasticity and involuntary muscle contraction).
2. "Pushing off" - let it mean what is being executed (voluntary pushing off).
Still, instead of "push-off" I'd rather use "recoil", because using "push-off" would lead those irritated by Pose to start spreading the word about how they smashed posers, "making them admit that a runner is driven by pushing off", blah blah.
"Don't these clowns realize that when a muscular contraction occurs very rapidly and is repeated 1000's of times during one's lifetime (creating very efficient neuromuscular adapations) that the contraction FEELS/IS PERCEIVED AS "involuntary," but is, of course, actually voluntary???"
That's because "these clowns" seem to see the difference between automatic movement ( due to development of effective nuromuscular pathways) and reflective muscle contraction ( like patellar reflex - have you trained a lot to be able to execute it?).
If you want to talk about reading comprehension, I'd suggest you review what YOU wrote over the past several pages in response to very clear and simple questions.
You had plenty of opportunity to clarify that you were only speaking metaphorically and that not pushing (or consciously adding energy to the system) was only 'perception' and not reality. Yet you (and JHuffman) consistently failed to do so.
You even went so far as to explicitly number two points which were the result of your ground recoil after very explicitly answering that there was no further energy applied to the system. I can't change what you wrote, it's there in black and white (or at least black on yellow).
That makes absolutely no sense in terms of your POSE explanation. If the muscles involved in recoil produce energy, then where does this energy come from if it isn't from energy absorbed on landing?
The answer: from the muscles pushing off, adding energy to the system. Have a re-read of Sir Lance-alot's post regarding repetitive voluntary motions.
Now where, in your clear and direct answers to questions over the previous several pages as we worked towards an accurate definition of POSE did you bother to mention 'perception'?
Where on the POSE site explaining what is happening when running, do they say "it's all about perception"? (This is another chance for JHuffman to jump in and provide one of his links to the POSE site.)
Nor does it appear that I can influence your ability to understand fundamental laws of physics.
Why do you think we went through page after page of asking yes/no questions if we weren't trying to address what POSE is all about instead of what we imagined it to be? We went through that process, you and JHuffman provided clear answers to straightforward questions and we reached a conclusion as to what POSE says. Now you are backtracking and creating new definitions when it has been shown YOUR definition of POSE does not fit reality.
Again, where on the POSE site do they clarify they are talking about psychology and not WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS?
More of the made-up definitions. Do you not see how this sentence is saying two different things? It says you don't add energy because you add energy. Please show me any cite that shows that reflective muscle contraction can by itself "add" any more energy than was loaded up on it.
You can't because this added energy was a result of your brain sending a message to your muscles to 'push'. Please re-read Sir Lance-alot's post about repetive conscious motion.
Did you not read his post? Repetive voluntary movement is not "automatic movement".
Patellar reflex takes kinetic energy from the hammer, delivered to the tendon on impact, and stores it up as elastic potential energy. It then releases this energy back to the kinetic energy of the lower leg snapping up. This is the definition of muscular recoil. No more energy is added to the system than that from the hammer and the kinetic energy of the snapping leg is less than delivered from the hammer (since the body is not a lossless system).
Your new definition of recoil would say that the hammer delivers amount of energy X, which gets stored in the tendon and then released back in the form of leg snapping with energy X and you instinctively punching out the doctor with energy Y for hitting you too hard. You may not have thought much about your action, but you certainly consciously added energy to your system.
We're still left with only two possible conclusions from your repetitive posts:
1. You do not understand POSE and are consistently misrepresenting its definition and explanations by describing a free energy system.
2. You are accurately describing POSE, in which case POSE has no grounding in reality and should be avoided at all costs.
Which is it?
If 1, then why haven't JHuffman and Co. pointed out to you where you make your fundamental mistakes about POSE?
That leaves us with 2 and the answer to the original question is still: yes, POSE is crazy.
All I can say upon reading this latest page is that Mr. Gatorade is backpedaling worse than a politician caught with the bribe money still sticking out from his pocket, the end result being all loss of credibility on this topic.
Consider: It doesn't matter if the muscle actions are voluntary, involuntary, or caused by pixie dust, and it doesn't matter if someone preceives an action as voluntary or reflexive. Once you've stated that the stored energy of landing can be used to completely power the recoil to the prior height (AND add forward motion as well), you've stated an impossibility. No amount of weasel-wording is going to get you out of that. This idea of "involuntary muscle contraction" is a red herring when it comes to energy expenditure. My heart beats involuntarily but that doesn't mean that it doesn't use energy.
Here's a simple logical inconsistancy that no one has brought up yet: If one can completely regain the former height from the energy stored on the prior landing, then there's NO NEED to limit vertical displacement. Why would pose care? It simply wouldn't matter if the center of mass moved 2 cm or 10 cm, because according to this conjecture, you're going to get it all back anyway. In fact, as this conjecture also poses (no pun intended) the idea that you actually get MORE out, then one could assume that a greater vertical displacement would allow a greater horizontal "freebie", assuming the percentages stayed constant. It just doesn't work. In spite of this, I do not (nor did I ever) expect hard-core pose supporters to change their views. I have only carried on as a service to the uninformed and the newbies.
More than anything else, perhaps this thread points up the power of group-identity coupled with mystical explanations of the way the world works, and the failure of many people to make math and science their friends, rather than something to be feared. If I had no ethical considerations, perhaps I'd combine running with astrology or crystal power or some-such crazy thing, and make a fortune.
MJ and Beamon???? uh huh.
alright let me rephrase this. How many athletes have sprinted FAST while being actively conscious that they are doing all those pose things. In other words who has run fast while being coached by Pose.
The proof is in the pudding as they say. Go look up some of the best sprint coaches who have produced the best and most clean athletes. They got to be doing something right? But of course if Carl Lewis or Bullett Bob Hayes or whoever used Pose they would have run 9.6 right?
Just to clarify what might be some confusion on reflex contraction:
There is no problem with the energy coming out of elastic recoil AND reflexive muscle contraction being greater than the energy going into the elastic storage.
Reflexive muscle contraction adds energy like any other muscle contraction - the only difference is where the activation 'command' originates.
In the knee tap, the quad muscles are rapidly (though small length change) stretched, which stimulates the muscle spindles (receptors in muscle belly sensitive to length change). The signals from the spindles stimulate the motor neurons in the spinal chord and an a signal does back to the muscle causing a contraction.
This short-loop stretch reflex is what the doctor is testing for when he performs the knee tap. (There is also evidence for a longer loop stretch reflex that goes higher up the spinal chord - possibly to brain stem - but not to the areas of the brain associated with 'conscious' motor commands.
Anyway, all the doesn't change the fact that it is not free energy, it is the body adding energy into the running cycle.
So if for a moment, we were to accept Gatorade's recent redefinition of the term 'recoil' (elastic energy return AND some additional muscle contraction), then we would all be in broad agreement.
However, it is a decidedly dodgy definition, that disagrees with both the dictionary and what the vast majority of people would intuitively understand it to mean. Also, since the word recoil was not used in a very unambiguous exchange earlier, it does appear that you have changed the substance of what you are saying.
In response to the following exchange
”Just to be clear, are you saying that all of the vertical displacement comes from the energy stored in the muscles/tendons from the prior landing?”
”Yes, it is also a part of the horizontal movement."
No mention of the word recoil – CLEARLY asking whether the energy stored from landing alone is sufficient to gain lost height.
You signalled your agreement – You wrote:
”If, by "vertical displacement" you mean regaining the lost height, my answer is - ideally, yes.”
I would also take issue with your assertion that you cannot influence the reflexive contraction. Descending inputs can greatly modulate reflexes (i.e. either inhibit or potentiate them), and so reflexes are, to some degree, under the control of higher brain centres.
I would also take issue with the assertion that the extra push over and above exclusive elastic recoil is solely reflexive contraction anyway. I’ve written several posts regarding accompanying ‘unconscious” aspects of voluntary movements – but I’ll do one more in the hope that it might do some good. I think reflexes would be too slow for optimal extension activity in the support leg.
When you hold a weight on the palm of your hand (elbow at 90degrees), if somebody else removes the weight, you get an upward perturbation of the hand, followed a rapid firing of the triceps (stretch reflex) to stabilise / control the hand position. The point here is that a perturbation occurs, you fail to maintain hand position. However, if you remove the weight yourself using your opposite hand, you can do so without that perturbation – the modulation of activation of the supporting hand is a part of the voluntary “lift the weight the other hand” action. Even if you are not conscious of it, it is part of the VOLUNTARY action. Similarly the activation of the ‘pushing’ muscles in your support leg will be an aspect of the VOLUNTARY action you are performing when you are thinking about pulling.
Regarding MJ and Bob Beamon:
I'm sure if we analyse in depth, we'll come to the same conclusion as we did for Geb - they share some movement traits with POSE, but those would be things that are hardly new. When we come to things like a full leg extension - you will think this is a flaw - we will think this is an essential part of their fast running.
Unless you give us someone who runs with minimal deviations from POSE who is also fast, i don't think named examples help your case. When substantial deviations are present, it could easily be those deviations rather than the POSE-like traits that make them fast - especially when all these fast runners seem to share the same 'flaws' such as full leg extension.
Hope i didn't miss anything
Thanks to Jim, Alex, and Asterix for informative posts. I do enjoy some fo this thread......maybe it is worth it after all.
Question for Gatorade and other POSERS: if elastic recoil alone provides enough energy to return the body to the height it dropped down from, then couldn't one bounce up and down forever (until tendons and muscle fibers wore from wear and tear. But energy would not be a limiting factor)? If you just jumped once, you would automatically, and unconsciously, rebound back up over, and over and over again, correct? Isn't that what you are saying? No conscious effort, and no energy expended???
It doesn't work that way.
Hi folks, I got an evening off. I am happy to be overloaded with this project but, I wish it would have happened a week later so I could have continued to participate in this discussion. It will continue for the next 8 months. I don't know how often I will be back here.
Asterix: A week ago you were being very exacting & polite, and we were progressing well. But, you have reverted to using incorrect inferences, misquotes and misinterpretations again. I wish you and others didn't do this and that everything had remained about what was written by Romanov on the site instead of anyones misquotes, etc. We were doing a good job of filtering thru to the truth.
Jim: You should be embarrased for taking advantage of these folks. You know how to do a critical reading and disection of the logic. Are you laughing your ass off because you know that everyone is arguing about the wrong things.
You know Romanov has not said there is any part or structure of the body that comprises a lossless system. You know that Romanov has said there is push-off. You know that this semantical argument about the definition of recoil is a waste of time and does not change the fact that Romanov said muscular energy must be put back into the system. We get tired when we run because we burn energy.
So some readers on both sides have misquoted, misinterpreted and made incorrect inferences about what is written on the site. A wrong interpretation of a statement does not make the speaker in the first person incorrect. It makes the interpreter incorrect.
I thought we had agreed that the descriptions about the use of gravity could be better stated. Romanov's point is about how to be most efficient in your running interaction with gravity.
Maligning Gatorade, Jeremy, etal does not change fact. And, if you read the pose site thouroughly, understand statements in the context they are made, separate hearsay from what was said, and stop drawing inferences that are not being made then you can see that what I have said above is true.
If I seem harsh then forgive me. I am frustrated by the flagellation that is going on. I think the method we began with degraded into a useless "he said, she said, no I didn't" battle. And you didn't do anything about it. I have read your posts on other threads, you gain my respect. I was hoping you would continue to help bring some jurisprudence type of structure to this thread for those who don't quite understand the need for moderators.
To all: I experimented with pose and my original non-pose style these past three weeks. I understand now that there is a way for ME to run that makes better use of the elastic properties of my tendon/muscle structure. I also understand that my coach from decades ago was trying to tell me that. I alternated style from day to day, I ran faster and longer with seemingly the same effort when I tried to do pose (not perfectly). I am not saying this was proper scientific methodology but, it worked for me.
The downside is that my 50 year old tendons and muscles got very sore. Jim, you know how long it takes to recover from hard efforts, soreness and strains after 40. It would probably take me a year to make the change but, I would probably suffer muscle and tendon strains in the process. Folks, for me a bruised achilles tendon takes 3 months to heal, a hamstring injury can last longer then 6 months. I can't afford that. I will make changes but over a long period of time.
If I had it to do over I would adopt a style that has many of the features of pose. Maybe not identical to it but, there is a lot to be gained by learning how to absorb the impact energy and return some of it during the push-off. I think this is the essence of what Romanov is trying to explain. By discarding his theories because you got hung up over gravity you lost the opportunity to understand the good things that he has said.
Maybe this is my own particular bent when it comes to learning. But, I have found that when I look for it there is something to be learned from everyone. In my opinion you make many logical errors but, I have learned even from you, Asterix!
Thanks for listening to me Gentlemen and Ladies if any of you were patient with our male ego garbage.
That was a long post.
Please explain to me or anyone else how the below sentence taken directly from Romanov's site is
a) a "misquote," or "misintrepration".
And if you can't do that, then ....
b) explain how it is scientifically possible/true
"The Pose Method is a system for teaching of human movement........in running, this is achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy. "
If it's not a misquote (which it isn't), and if it is not physically possible to use "gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy ....in running" (which it isn't), then isn't all the bashing of Dr Romanov's scientific explanations of POSE justified, and aren't all the defenses of these explanations b.s. ??
This is what you should answer: "Yes, you are right. His explanations are nonsense." And then let it go, let it go....