GRAVITY DOES NOT PULL YOU FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!

perfectform wrote:

Perpetually changing support allows for a sustained fall. The change of support maintains a constant height for your center of mass . . .

Maintaining a constant height for your centre of mass is not falling!!! by definition!!!

Again, the pen falling on the hand moving forward analogy. The pen is falling, but the hand is remaining under the pen's center of mass. By 'definition' the pen is now not falling, but only leaning, hence the emphasis on leaning when discussing Geb vs. Mottram. leaning can be then be described as a suspended fall, suspended by the foot always being under the center of mass.

So, if gravity plays NO role in forward movement, why don't you lean backwards or stay perpendicular to the ground when running?

Watch Romanov starting off, his forward movement is caused by leaning forward, noting that he is on freshly zambonied ice:

http://posetech.com/video/vidplayer/play.php?id=22

Gravity does play a HUGE role in running, seeing how running is technically a sustained fall suspended by change of support always keeping the support leg under the center of mass. The further the degree of leaning with proper change of support keeping the support leg under the center of mass, the higher the velocity. Running speed, therefore, is 100% determined by the angle of the lean and the ability to sustain proper change of support. The purpose of training for running, therefore, is to condition the body to maintain proper change of support at greater angles of leaning. The tools used to achieve this goal for distance running are the improvement of aerobic capacity, lactic threshold, muscle endurance, muscle memory, and training the body to utilize fat stores and even lactic acid (cite: Scientific Approach to Marathon Training, Canova) as energy sources.

You are not understanding relative motion. There is absolutely no way your pen can remain 'leaning' forward indefinitely without its center of mass lowering (by the pen falling right over). Moving your hand at whatever speed you want is not going to do it as the pen is positioned relative to your hand and its center of mass is pulled by gravity straight down, well beyond its base of support and hence it will fall.

So the ideal should be to aim for a 90 degree angle of lean?

Your conclusion about the pen is false. You've applied elementary physics to get a half right conclusion.

The 'ideal' should be to maintain the highest degree of leaning at which you maintain proper change of support. Your comment on a 90 degree lean is equivalent to saying, on a flat surface hold 115rpms in a 65front, 10rear gear ratio while biking. Yes, this gear ratio and cadence would be the fastest bike ride ever, and yes, a 90 degree lean with proper change of support would yield the fastest run ever. But, is it humanly possible?

This is getting redundant. I hope some of my points were comprehended so that runners who truely want to run efficiently can go out and see some of these concepts in action and see for themselves that leaning forward is the foundation of running speed, proper change of support is the challenge.

Ok, let's apply elementary physics. We'll start with a force diagram.

Lets say you've got your pen leaning at a 45 degree angle. The force of gravity acts through the center of mass (we'll assume the center of the pen), straight down, perpindicular to the plane of your hand.

The force you are applying with your hand (assuming you continually accelerate the speed you move your hand) is applied to the tip of the pen (and has a portion that acts as a torque perpindicular to the length of the pen).

The only way for the pen not to fall over would be to apply a force that acts through the center of the pen or higher that can counteract the force of gravity. Since you are not touching the pen other than at the opposite tip, no such force exists and the net force will cause the pen to tip over.

You said " Running speed, therefore, is 100% determined by the angle of the lean and the ability to sustain proper change of support" which is putting the cart before the horse.

Running speed is 100% determined by the ability of your aerobic and anaerobic systems to work your muscles to propel your body mass in a net forward direction. That is what you train. Getting whatever 'ideal' angle of lean you want will not do you a whit of good if you don't have the engine to move the mass.

YOu guys are a bunch of dumb ass mother f***ers. When you run leaning forward, gravity creates a moment causing you to move in a manner that would lead into a forward roll, but then you catch yourself when your leg hits the ground. The process of getting to this point is aided by gravity but this is a completely inefficient way to run. End of discussion.

When I was racing, I used gravity to pull me forward. Here's how:

Look to the moon. When the moon is down (not in the sky) gravity will pull you down. You will get tired easier. On those days, suddenly breaking away from the pack is good because they will have difficulty catching you in the last half of the race. Gravity will pull them down. Dr. Stupid is right.

If the moon is overhead, you will NOT get tired as easily. Instead you will get half way through the race and wonder why you still feel so strong. On those days your strategy needs to focus on that strength. Extremely fast early pace puts false fear in the other runners because they will know they will be tired later on. You have a better chance of getting away and staying away! Dr. Stupid is wrong.

The moon has a massive gravitational affect on the Earth. It creates the tides. Of course it can affect you just as it does the oceans.

Dr. Stupid needs to read my book (www.gerrylindgren.com) to know these things.

perfectform, you are the stupidest f*** in the history of this message board.

Sorry mate, you're just not getting it.

If the centre of mass is staying at the same height there is no falling. If there is no falling then there is no transformation of gravitational potential enerngy into kinetic energy (i.e. forward motion). Are you claiming the energy comes from nothing??

In your pen analogy:

The pen falls a little initially and gains its lean angle and a little forward velocity. From then on, you are right that the pen is no longer falling - but you are wrong that the pen's motion is still powered by gravity.

Whether you realise it or not, you are applying a horizontal force to the base of the pen. You are applying this force through a distance. This is 'by definition' doing work - you are putting the energy into the system as you move your hand.

Regarding lean and cadence for speed:

You cited Michael Johnson as an example of high speed due to high cadence. I would use the same example to show that a lack of forward lean is does not negate high speed.

There seems to be some confusion over what people mean by gravity "plays a role" in running. Yes, if you lean forward, gravity will effectively act on your center of mass and cause you to fall unless you don't counteract by running forward. Gravity is also the reason you can push off and return to the ground with your feet. In this way gravity certainly plays a roll.

Whether gravity does any NET work is an entirely different question. Just because gravity is causing you to fall forward at all times does not mean it is doing any net work.

Some people have said that if you lean forward, you will fall over, therefore gravity pulls you forward. Yes, because you are standing in the first place, you have enough potential energy to fall forward. But if you are running on flat ground while leaning forward, this potential energy doesn't come into play because your center of mass stays at the same height, as someone said, and so gravity can not be doing any net work.

So you are really the only one doing net work, since you have to get from point a to b by exerting force.

try that how comprehension thing again:

The purpose of training for running, therefore, is to condition the body to maintain proper change of support at greater angles of leaning. The tools used to achieve this goal for distance running are the improvement of aerobic capacity, lactic threshold, muscle endurance, muscle memory, and training the body to utilize fat stores and even lactic acid (cite: Scientific Approach to Marathon Training, Canova) as energy sources.

Improvements in physiology are a result of movement, not the other way around. Movement is caused by disturbing balance. If you video tape yourself going from standing still to moving forward, the first thing to move is the angle of your hips. Why? because this is what intitiates movement and the continuation of this anle of your hips is what sustains movement. Changing support quickly and properly is what ensures you are not stopping yourself. Stopping yourself causes more work than is needed. It is by eliminating this extra work that people draw the conclusion that gravity is working for them. I feel it is more accurate to just say you aren't working against gravity, as it is only pulling down.

Alex,

You failed to read the part where I stated that energy put into moving the hand forward is equivalent to the energy put into the lifting your feet under your hips.

Michael Johnson was leaning at about 15% when the angle in relation to the ground is measured from the hips. His back muscles are extremely over developed, so his upper body 'curved', but his angle from the hips was about 15%.

I know a majority of posters on this board are stuck behind a desk, hence the higher number of posts from 9-5pm during the week. But, try to get and run a bit and objectively try running focusing on the lean. Notice that leaning too much, more than you handle for quick change of support, causes overstiding and heel striking. Notice that you do not need to push off. Take note of this and the other notes I've shared, go out and run and then come back and write genuine, constructive comments about your experience.

perfectform wrote:

Alex,

You failed to read the part where I stated that energy put into moving the hand forward is equivalent to the energy put into the lifting your feet under your hips.

Intersegment movements are of no consequence when consider the centre of mass (i.e. the movement of the whole body in relation to the environment.

Perfectform wrote:

"This is not a new, revolutionary way to run. It is a better way of teaching proper running technique."

This seems like a reasonable claim.

Why, then, add all the psuedo-science about perpetual falling? It's plainly not possible to "perpetually fall" over the surface of the earth, gaining momentum through some sort of miracle of gravity. Jeesh, what garbage.

If the Pose method really aims to teach good running form (feet under the hip, moderate forward lead, etc) let's just say so ... instead of assigning overblown terminology and trying to sell it like snake oil.

QUOATE"Why, then, add all the psuedo-science about perpetual falling? It's plainly not possible to "perpetually fall" over the surface of the earth, gaining momentum through some sort of miracle of gravity. Jeesh, what garbage.

If the Pose method really aims to teach good running form (feet under the hip, moderate forward lead, etc) let's just say so ... instead of assigning overblown terminology and trying to sell it like snake oil.[/quote]

If you were not so blinded by your current perspective of running then you would understand why POSE METHOD running not only can happen, but is also a most efficient way to teach running mechanics. As I have mentioned before I have learned this method of mechanics roughly about 3to4 months ago. I support its legitimacy whole heartedly because I have experienced the result of a more efficient footstrike and an ease of running with which I hadn't experienced in 14 years of training/racing. Although I am very happy with the performances that I have accomplished thus far with my previous running form (800m-1.47.80/1000m-2.19.68/1500m-3.39.12/5000m-14.13.65/10k-30:34). Yes, I do believe that now that I have a more efficient running form that my personal bests have a greater chance of being lowered.

Since, I am now coaching athletes as well as training competetively myself, I look forward to passing this knowledge of efficient running on to others. If you are ever able overcome your skepticism I recommend that you find a Pose Certified coach to show you how to run using an optimal Pose Method of running technique or atleast spend the $150 dollars on the self-teaching manuals. Good Day!

Jhuffman wrote: Although I am very happy with the performances that I have accomplished thus far with my previous running form (800m-1.47.80/1000m-2.19.68/1500m-3.39.12/5000m-14.13.65/10k-30:34). Yes, I do believe that now that I have a more efficient running form that my personal bests have a greater chance of being lowered.

OK, fair enough. But since you sound so confident, lets see some new PR's with the "pose(r)" method. In the meantime, could you teach me you your old form? Because I would like to run as fast as you have done.

Jhuffman wrote: If you are ever able overcome your skepticism I recommend that you find a Pose Certified coach to show you how to run using an optimal Pose Method of running technique or atleast spend the $150 dollars on the self-teaching manuals. Good Day!

You sound like someone who has a financial incentive in promoting pose! Is Dr Poser paying you?

perfectform wrote:

Michael Johnson was leaning at about 15% when the angle in relation to the ground is measured from the hips. His back muscles are extremely over developed, so his upper body 'curved', but his angle from the hips was about 15%.

I didn't see a "15%" lean (did you mean "degrees" ?) in MJ's form. I do see what you mean about his the curve in his back which makes his form possibly appear more upright than it may actually be, BUT......he does NOT lean substantially more than many other sprinters who are 100x times worse runners than he. THERFORE......some lean in a runner's form MAY help in some way ( I would like to hear more from Jim Fiore on this concept), but it is no the essential element of running fast that you try to make it appear to be.

Furthermore, this whole idea that one needs to virtually only lift their feet off the ground, right from under their hips, without virtualy any "pushing" action by the hip flexors is absurd. Try it right now: run leaning forward and simply pull one's feet from the ground (but REALLY just pull the feet up immediately, do not actively extend the legs backwards at all or push off). What happens? You barely move forward at all! You more or less run in place. Is THAT what you want to achieve? When running, there is great propulsive force created by the power of the hip flexors/buttocks. To ignore that aspect is absurd. Earlier you said something about the hip flexors being "too weak" (or something like that) to do lots of work. WHAT?!!?! That's nuts. If you are talking about studying great runner's strides/form, what is the single biggest difference between the form of a Bekele or Geb and a jogger? Is it their stride rates? No. Is it how quickly they pull their feet from the ground? No. But it IS how great their hip extension is with each stride. It is absolutely amazing how much power and flexibility they have in their hips. They do not pull their feet from the grounds until their feet are FAR behind their bodies, and the hip extension angle is quite large.

Here is a quote from "Training Distance Runners (Martin & Coe): "As running velocity increases, stride frequency increases, but stride length increases even more, most likely from the recruitment of additional skeletal muscle fibers." And if you see the figure they show demonstrating this relationship, you will see that stride length DRAMATICALLY increases more than stride frequency increases when comparing the two at paces between 8 & 5 minutes per mile.

You running using only your hamstrings(pulling your feet directly from the ground to your butt), and I will use my hips/butt and the stored elastic energy in my calves and achilles/quads/knee tendons.

Oh, one last thing:

pulling one's feet off the ground immediately after foot-strike (the recommendation of Dr Poser) does the following: it causes "early toe-off/take-off", thus resulting in shorter stride for two reasons (from Coe/Martin):

1)"the longer the heel is left in contact with the ground....the greater the prestretch of the calf muscles. This will increase both stride length and power."

2) "Early toe-off results in a shorter stride and MORE vertical displacement of the center of mass creating a less efficient running style than later takeoff which enhances stride lenght and lessens vertical displacement."