| 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 | |
| Gatorade |
| ||
|
"No one on either side has said Pose is "the only correct way to run". That is ludicrous. Where did you get that?" ----------------------------------------------------------- You opened a can of worms with this. Now they will jump on like a pack of hungry hienas. I wrote: " There is only one correct way to run. And Pose is a method to teach it." It is different from: "Pose is the only correct way to run." If someone is unable to see the difference, I can't help him. |
| Gatorade |
| ||
|
"I do not care who wins the argument." ---------------------------------------------------------- At the begining of the discussion I wrote that a topic can be approached with a hat of a detective or a robe of a judge. But these folks are here for the win, thinking that the one who wins is the one who laughs last, LOL? All I can say is: when deaf people are arguing, the one who laughs last is the one who hears worst. |
| Asterix |
| ||
That's a nice idyllic idea if one is discussing something subjective like what the best race in North America to run in is. But when you are talking about objective scientific facts, like which direction can gravity do any work, it's a different matter. From the very beginning I've stuck with the point of demonstrating misleading, contradictory and outright incorrect statements and explanations about POSE. I've cited quotes from POSERs, from the POSE site and pointed to the fundamental scientific laws that govern the world we live in. I haven't made up new definitions, claimed to interpret gravity differently or stated that what I wrote wasn't really what I meant. I can't speak for JimFiore, Alex S, Sir Lance-alot and the rest, but I'd guess they're coming from the same angle. If you and others want to continue to buy into the 'new paradigm' of POSE, that apparently says nothing new or different about efficient running and yet has convinced many it is some kind of panacea, then that's your freedom. Just don't expect others to let misinformation and factually incorrect explanations about redefining running get a free pass, at least on this board. |
| terryh |
| ||
|
“I wrote: " There is only one correct way to run. And Pose is a method to teach it." It is different from: "Pose is the only correct way to run." If someone is unable to see the difference, I can't help him.” This is actually a nonsensical statement - particularly as you went to such lengths to get your opponents to identify what they believed was perfect form. In order for there to be a method of teaching there has to be form that you are teaching – and that is pose. You have written pages about the flaws in various elite runners techniques where they have deviated from what you believe to be perfect form i.e. pose. If I had the time, no doubt I could find other quotes of yours but here’s one for starters: “This proves that there is ONLY ONE GOOD WAY TO RUN. The better is the form of a runner - the more it ressembles Pose running. These elites are products of natural selection, the ones who, together with superb physical qualities, have the ability to INTUITIVELY grasp the essence of good running form. On the contrary, Pose teaches how to do it CONSCIOUSLY, so that not only the naturally talanted ones could learn to run correctly.” |
| Alex S |
| ||
Which is why 'waiting for reflex contraction' is too slow. Also, muscles must be pre-activated to maximise elastic energy storage anyway. So voluntary contraction in anticipation of contact is necessary. Therefore the argument that the push-off involves no voluntary muscle activation is false. Of course this has no bearing of the energy input / output issue - but motor control is my area and how running is controlled is a further interesting issue to me. |
| here's why |
| ||
So which is it? A form of running or a method to teach it?
As you clearly cannot see the difference yourself, a little self help is in order first. |
| JimFiore |
| ||
|
here's why: Obviously, you did not understand what he meant by that. When he says "method" he really means "form", and when he says "form" he realy means "method". It's one of those "alternate definition" things. Oh yes, I forgot to mention that a "form" can in fact also BE a "method". Suddenly, this thread reminds me of an old Monty Python skit where a young couple goes to buy a bed but everything the salesman says is 10 times too high ("Otherwise, he's perfectly alright"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg6P8BT0AuI&mode=related&search= |
| John Richard |
| ||
Alex - Since motor control is your area, this would be agood time for you to expand on what you mean by 'waiting for reflex contraction' and explain "voluntary contraction in anticipation of contact". I can probably guess, but some examples might be good. TIA |
| Jhuffman |
| ||
|
Asterix, Sorry to get off topic, What is your running experience? years running etc..? We obviously disagree on many things associated with running mechanics. My running experiences over the last 16 years have shaped my belief in what running efficiency can and should be. I was just curious to understand better how this may have shaped yours. |
| here's why |
| ||
Translation: I have proven a complete failure at defending my position with anything resembling logic, physics, or race results, so now I'm going to resort to the "My PRs are better than yours" defense. I'll do this in the guise of "genuinely" hoping to "understand" how you have been "shaped by your experiences" but of course, that's disingenuous crap. I'm really trying to distract attention away from how thoroughly ridiculous and self-contradictory POSE has been made to look by the your tireless efforts to not let me or gatorade get away with bullshit arguments |
| Jhuffman |
| ||
|
here's why, You are wrong again. You really should quit trying to read peoples minds. I would email Asterix personally, but I don't know his email address nor his real name. Btw- I am continueing to teach and practice the Pose Method technique. Sorry if this upsets you! |
| Asterix |
| ||
I appreciate the thought and interest, but my running experience is irrelevant to this discussion. The points I've argued do not depend on whether I am a 3:59 or a 7:59 miler or whether I have a PhD in physics or biomechanics or am simply a high school graduate. I have not been presenting new theories or concepts but trying explain existing ones (and pointing out flaws in others). Suffice to say I'm an experienced runner who has had good races and bad races. I've run on the track, cross-country and roads at a wide variety of distances. If you've found something incorrect in what I've written previously or logic that doesn't hold together, by all means point it out. I've certainly done the same for others! |
| Jhuffman |
| ||
|
Asterix, I am done with the personal attacks. I understand that nothing I have to say will change your perspective. I would however like to know for my own knowledge, how your experiences have influenced your beliefs. Could you be more specific with your experience. You can email me at my personal account. I would appreciete it. |
| here's why |
| ||
Only if you charge money for it (or convince some sucker to pay their hard earned money for it). No need to read your mind, though, your intentions are clear. I, in turn, though not nearly as tireless as Asterix, will continue to point out your snake oil when I see it. Don't much give a crap whether it upsets you or not. |
| Asterix |
| ||
That's good to hear. Maybe you can have a look at the numerous outstanding questions directed to you in responses to various posts you've made over the last little while.
Is running really that different in the US than it is in Canada? I've taken high school physics courses. I've train and I've run races. I've run in various conditions on various surfaces on various courses. How does any of that change the direction gravity acts, whether Geb straightens his leg and drives off but runs 'nearly perfect POSE', whether energy absorbed on landing is enough to regain lost height and propel you forward or whether one can come up with a clear and simple explanation from the POSE site that not only doesn't contradict itself, but that conforms with the physical laws of the world we live in? |
| Gatorade |
| ||
|
" Also, muscles must be pre-activated to maximise elastic energy storage anyway. So voluntary contraction in anticipation of contact is necessary." ---------------------------------------------------------- Pose tells you to pull the foot off the ground as quick as possible. "Pull", like any other action, consists of: 1. Command to pull. 2. Actually pulling. Pose says that you have to pull before your foot touches the ground. This has made a lot of confusion, because those who are "physically-minded" will of course say that it's impossible to pull if you are not yet on support. Pose explains: since the pulling action consists of two parts, you give the command before the foot lands, as a result the pull is in time. If you give the command when your foot is already planted, you'll be late with the pull, too long on support with all the consequences. The command of course makes some changes in muscular tone of the foot prior to landing, and if this is what you call "preactivation" - I have no problem with it. The difference between Pose and power running is that in Pose you think "pull", in power running you think "push off". And what you think changes the movement itself. |
| Gatorade |
| ||
|
"I have not been presenting new theories or concepts but trying explain existing ones (and pointing out flaws in others)." ----------------------------------------------------------- Like the one with the patellar reflex explanation? LOL, because I recal how sure of youreslf you were writing that crap. |
| JimFiore |
| ||
I hope you are not suggesting that most runners wait until their foot actually hits the ground and then actively think "push".
Yes, but it does not allow you to violate the physics of energy expenditure. For example, no matter what you think, one cannot reach the former height of a stride solely from the release of energy stored on the prior landing. This thread has suffered the fate of all other letsrun pose threads, namely devolving into a morass of smoke and mirror claims with cries that "others don't understand", in spite of the fact that very specific statements on the part of prose proponents have been shown to be physically impossible or to contradict other statements that they have made. I have only one question left: Are there any former "fence sitters" reading this who still haven't made up their mind about pose? If not, this thread no longer has a purpose. |
| Alex S |
| ||
Alex - Since motor control is your area, this would be agood time for you to expand on what you mean by 'waiting for reflex contraction' and explain "voluntary contraction in anticipation of contact". I can probably guess, but some examples might be good. TIA[/quote] There was some talk earlier about the physical push-off in POSE arrising purely 1) return of elastically stored energy from landing 2) reflex contraction with no voluntary contraction At least that is how i understood what was being said. I disagree with aspects of this (maybe because of what the poster meant, or maybe just because the way the terms were used - who knows on this thread!!) For the elastic elements in the muscle-tendon unit to be loaded with any appreciable force on landing, the muscle filaments must be prevented from sliding past one another - this is achieved by activating the muscle to create the cross-bridge linkages between the actin and myosin filaments. Landing with quiet muscles is like pulling on an elastic band without attaching the other end to anything - activating the muscles is like fixing the other end. If the muscles truly were quiet on initial landing and you let reflexes 'take care' of the muscle contraction, you have ~50ms delay for the simplest reflex plus the time taken for tension to build in the muscle. This delay would result in sub-optimal elastic storage (making you less efficent) and IMO would also compromise joint control in the 'loading phase' which would increase injury risk. So for optimal performance, there needs to be muscle activation prior to the landing. Gatorade seems to be in agreement that muscle activation prior to landing does occur (though he might not agree with what i call it and the terms i will use to describe it. Also, i don't believe it is limited to the foot - he doesn't say it is, but he only mentioned the foot so i'm unsure as to whether that is his belief). I would have to refer to the pre-activation as voluntary. It is definately not a relfex. The 'command' for the whole body action (that Gatorade is calling 'the Pull') arises from the judgement that contact is approaching and the intention to continue running. The pre-activation is a part of the whole-body action. You could easily choose not to perform that whole-body action (i.e. you could collapse onto the floor instead of continuing to run - a sand pit would be advisable!). I can't agree with it being called involuntary - you just have to remember that performing a voluntary action does not equate to being conscious of what muscles are activated and when etc - see my posts on previous pages for further examples of this. Compare doing drop jumps with eyes open and eyes closed (until landing) - keep varying the heights so that you can't judge the timimg of the landing from the timing of take-off. Its very difficult and uncomfortable with eyes closed because you can't time the pre-activation very well without the vision. If it was just a case of letting the landing trigger your reflexes, then closing your eyes would cause little problem. |
| John Richard |
| ||
I think that's a good example. Thanks. |