Pose = crazy???

"Define your term. By "better" do you mean prettier to look at or more economical/efficient?"

Of course more efficient - "prettier" is a very vague trem. On the other hand (in my opinion) the most efficient form in most cases looks the prettiest.

"Jack Daniels has stated that his research has shown that what looks nice may not be economical for a given individual (and vice versa), so getting a person to "look" a certain way while running will not always lead to improved performance"

Did he write what he considers "looking nice"? Because there can be so many tastes about "looking nice" that it's impossible to fill the term with certain meaning. Again, at least to my taste, the prettiest technique is the most efficient one.

"Thus, if you're arguing that changing your form so that you appear the same as some idealized model will improve your efficiency and thus your times, the experimental evidence says "no". "

But if the idealized model is idealized on the basis of efficiency of his form, the answer should be "yes". The law of the Nature says: "Form follows function". That means, the best form is the one that enables to function the best.

"Personally, I think years and miles of training will lead an individual to an optimal form for that person, which may or may not look particularly efficient or pretty."

I dare not to agree. From my own running experience I can tell that miles of training can ingrain inefficient movement patterns. I constanly felt inability to accelerate effortlessly, the feeling was like driving in one gear due to constant braking with each stride. I felt I wanted to do something with my form but nobody told me what. When I found Pose, everything stated falling into its place, I think I had a technique problem and that made my mind open to look for a resolution. Now - I noticed that people who have a more efficient natural form usually tend to be more close minded, and they are typically the ones who are anti-Pose. That explains why triathlonists are more open to Pose than runners.

"While it's nice to watch someone who has a "pretty" form, I'd rather have an "ugly" form if it got me to the finish line quicker."

"Pretty" and "efficient" are synonims. If to someone and inefficient runner looks pretty - it means he hasn't got an eye. And "having and eye" may be developed, learning to understand what to look at.

"The big difference is presentation (IMHO) where the POSE method tries to highlight perception and separate it from result"

In my opinion the perception thing in Pose is one of its strongest merits - it teaches what you should feel in order to get the result. For example "pulling the foot straight under the hip". In reality when you pull the foot off the ground, the core moves forward, and in reality the foot is not under your hip, but a bit behind, but pulling " with the feeling of under the hip" makes the foot leave the ground as quick as possible. On the contrary - if you would be instructed to pull the foot to the postion where it physically is, the result would be a tremendously lagging leg.

If the "gravity thing" that POSE claims were actually true, then nobody would be able to use POSE while running on a treadmill - you would go crashing into the display.

This aspect of it is complete nonsense. It may well improve form/efficiency, reduce injuries etc, but it CANNOT harness the DOWNWARD pull (ie towards the center of the earth) of gravity to move you forward (ie perpendicularly to the line of gravity pulling u towards the center of the earth).

I see you've obviously read and understood what has been explained before in this thread.

Everyone is in agreement that forefoot landing is preferred for faster running. Everyone is in agreement that overstriding is not efficient (see Coe and Martin, pages 15 - 18). Everyone is agreement that the less time spent in contact with the ground, the better (just witness every track athlete who does butt kick drills). Everyone will also agree that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

But NONE of that is new or unique to POSE.

What POSE brings 'new' or 'revolutionary' to the table is the idea that you DON'T PUSH OFF and therefore LET GRAVITY DO THE WORK by PULLING YOU FORWARD.

(If you think I'm making that up, please refer to the numerous references on the POSE website that say those exact words.)

The truth of the matter is that if you want to run at all fast (or FAST), or if you want to run uphill, you MUST push off (and that means full extension of the leg through the knee and full ankle flexion, which you previously denied).

It is also physically IMPOSSIBLE for gravity to do any NET (again, flashing letters to highlight that word) work in the horizontal direction. That is basic physics.

So what are we left with?

People who are adament that their 'method' is the 'one true way' to run and yet the only things that differentiates their 'method' with good form as described by pretty well every documented expert are either misleading or plain and simply IMPOSSIBLE.

THAT is the basic point repeatedly hammered home in this thread that you and other POSERs refuse to understand, grasp or accept.

The answer to this question is NO. Do Geb, El G, Seb Coe and Tergat all run the same way? They all have damn good form (forefoot landing, driving leg, full knee extension, minimal ground contact time) but they certainly do not have the same form. If any of them tried to run like any of the others, they would end up being less efficient and therefore less speedy.

Most importantly NONE of them run POSE as it is described here and on the website.

Gatorade wrote:

"I do not like POSE being held up as the 'gold standard' of running technique"

Why? Because you don't like the "gravity" thing in Pose and thus you tend to reject everything that is labeled as "Pose" - or do you believe that there can't be a golden standart?

Did you not read the rest of my post?

"I'm not saying that every point in POSE in wrong...."

I do believe that there can theoretically be a gold standard - i just don't think POSE is it. But you have to be pragmatic too - people have slight physical variations and so their optimal gait patterns will vary at least a little.

In contrast to JimFiore, i don't believe that simply training a lot will lead to the body finding its best form.

I repeat...

"Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

pepper brooks wrote:

I repeat...

Yeah, so we're all retarded. What's your point? Some are just more retarded than others.

I would agree with a lot of what you have written with particular regard to the posetech forum. I have read so much rubbish there that has gone completely unchallenged that now I wouldn’t even waste my time going there.

Steve Magness approached the whole discussion in a very good natured and non- confrontational manner – something we have failed to do on this thread, but the main difference was quite fundamental. He focuses on the push-off and believes that if this is carried out correctly the foot will naturally recoil to a recovery position under the hips. I particularly liked the fact that he just talked about movement and avoided all this nonsense about different muscle groups. This was all described so much better in his own words in an article on his website. The one I can’t find.

This was actually a turning point for me, and one of the main reasons that I finally abandoned pose. I was able to forget the pose dogma and experiment with my running form in my own way. Definitely no drills! Now I try to keep it as simple as possible with just a few cues. In fact it seems to work best when I’m not concentrating on either pulling or pushing. Just being aware that the push is there but not doing anything with it. Then I really am floating!

Unfortunately all of this is a bit immaterial for me at the moment as I am laid up with a really crippling non – running injury that’s going to keep me out of action for quite a few months. Hence the fact that I have the free time to waste on letsrun!

Asterix

You have made many claims about statements on the POSE site but, they are not exact quotes. I cannot find where Romanov says gravity is doing NET work in the horizontal direction.

what follows is a quote from his site that contradicts your statements.

"The Pose model utilizes gravity as an integral external force that moves the body forward by resultant vector composition." (keywords: resultant vector)

"The combination of your body torque (the turning force from your body falling forwards from the support foot), produced from the vertical force of gravity, and the position of your support limb in relation to your general centre of mass creates forward movement without the necessity to push off from the ground."

He says vertical force! Where do you find him saying anything different?

"Our movements should be an integral part of this environment, organically united with it and using gravity as their source of energy, only minimally resisting its influence."

"a good runner taps the power of gravity to gather speed with minimum impact and expenditure of energy"

"The Pose model utilizes gravity as an integral external force that moves the body forward by resultant vector composition. This is because gravity is a source of free energy producing an uninterrupted constant force..."

"According to classical mechanics and modern biomechanics, gravity is neutral in horizontal direction of movement in running, and this postulate was never challenged until now. But today this paradigm doesn't fit with many facts emerging both from everyday practice and science research."

"It's well-known that gravity pulls a body straight down towards the Earth. The Pose Method's objective is to redirect gravity's downward movement into forward motion. "

Would you like more? Why all this talk about gravity propelling you forward if you don't think it is giving you NET benefit? What is the difference between POSE and non-POSE running with good form (eg Geb, Coe, El G, Bekele)?

Asterix

In his explanations he discusses the relationship between gravity and falling bodies. He specifically says that forward motion is achieved as a result of the combination of several vectors. He says gravity is a vertical vector.

As you quoted him:

"According to classical mechanics and modern biomechanics, gravity is neutral in horizontal direction of movement in running, and this postulate was never challenged until now. But today this paradigm doesn't fit with many facts emerging both from everyday practice and science research. "

There is nothing wrong with this statement. He explains that gravity is one of the component vectors that causes forward motion in running. Not the only vector. He explains how his running form interacts with this component vector. Again, there is nothing wrong with his statement and its explanation.

from you:

"Why all this talk about gravity propelling you forward if you don't think it is giving you NET benefit"

You cannnot not run without gravity. If you don't do some of the things he describes your feet would not get back on the ground. His 'talk' is about how a runner interacts with it.

Pose coaches do not get sales commissions. Shut your mouth, open your mind, then judge. I felt the same way about Pose and decided to try it. Best money I've spent. BTW, I'm transitioning to barefoot running. No more arguments about the Perfect Shoe, or rampant idiots that like to bash without having tried it first.

NoShoes wrote:

Pose coaches do not get sales commissions. Shut your mouth, open your mind, then judge. I felt the same way about Pose and decided to try it. Best money I've spent. BTW, I'm transitioning to barefoot running. No more arguments about the Perfect Shoe, or rampant idiots that like to bash without having tried it first.

I sell special gravity rocks (all the mass is aligned in the horizontal direction) that increase your horizontal resultant vector. If you wear these rocks in front of your CM (center of mass) it will propel your CM (center of mass) forward.

If you are interested in purchasing any of these rocks, let me know and I can give you some special pricing.

After reading discussions on the POSE threads I became interested and read much of the material on the PoseTech site.

Then I ran and analysed my form. I realized that my running style bore a lot of similarities to Pose form/technique. When running downhill my style was almost perfect Pose technique.

I developed my form under the tutelage of a coach with a PHD in exercise physiology that was a National class runner. When I started with him he made me lean forward more than I was, work on lifting my feet off the ground quickly and letting them fall. I excelled under his tutelage.

I now understand why I was near unbeatable when going downhill. It was the style of running. I still hold three records on public courses (2 5ks and a 3 miler). Each of the course records lasted 20 years and then the races were no longer held. The 5k courses had long downhills in the second half of the race. The 3 mile course was a downhill race.

Bravo. I lump you in the same padded room with Asterix. Have fun, don't let the Pose Cultists crucify you.

Phose Tech wrote:

[I sell special gravity rocks (all the mass is aligned in the horizontal direction) that increase your horizontal resultant vector. If you wear these rocks in front of your CM (center of mass) it will propel your CM (center of mass) forward.

If you are interested in purchasing any of these rocks, let me know and I can give you some special pricing.

Simple question - *HOW* does POSE take the DOWNWARD force vector of gravity and change its direction 90 degrees?

Simple answer:

POSE does not take the downward force vector of gravity and change its direction 90 degrees. There is no directional change.

The combination of vectors results in forward movement. One of these vectors is the downward force vector of gravity. This is what Romanov explains on his website.

Then you still need to push off (vector perpendicular to gravity). Each vector can only move in its orginal direction, although the net force is additive. HOW does POSE allow gravity to play any role in the forward vector? Or have well all misunderstood POSE?

You have taken a great deal of what I have written out of context. I can’t be bothered to dissect your post line by line, but obviously I failed to illustrate my point to you sufficiently.

What I was trying to show was that although an optimal running form might exist in theory, I don’t pretend to know what it is. Also in order for this optimal running form to exist you would almost have to have an optimal runner, and people are different physically in all kinds of ways. In addition to this it’s an ever-changing world. Who could have predicted how the Fosbury Flop could have changed the high jump (no, I don’t think Dr R is running’s equivalent To Dick Fosbury), or how the technology could have so dramatically changed tennis. This is the context in which I said that a perfect model was an illusion.

However, what I can say with certainty is that I have found from experience that it was possible to improve my running by making certain changes like minimalist shoes, relaxed forefoot striking, not over-striding and a quick recovery. This does not add up to a complete model, but I would at least like to think that most people would benefit from running in this way. Can I be absolutely sure? Not really.

Coming back to pose, why on earth would you suppose that I would think that pose is this perfect model and the only correct way to run. It must be obvious to you by now that I don’t think any of the so-called “science” stands up to any kind of objective scrutiny for all of the reasons exhaustively discussed on this already too-long thread and more. Maybe you buy this whole gravity nonsense, and that’s fine with me but don’t just expect everybody else to agree with you. I don’t, and I’m not interested in links to the posetech website to show me the error of my ways.

So what’s left: A few pointers about good running technique, some of which I would agree with and some I don’t, and a teaching method. The problem with teaching methods and coaches for that matter is that some work for some people but not for others. Maybe it worked for you. Well that’s great, but that’s all pose amounts to.

I am totally bemused by you last paragraph. Firstly, yes I do listen to the opinions of people whose credentials I respect. What really amazes me it that you cling to this notion of Dr R as the misunderstood genius, rejected by a world not yet ready for his ideas. Please! Give me a break. For every Newton and Galileo there are millions of plain old eccentrics with crackpot theories and as far as I’m concerned Romanov falls into the latter category.

All I can really say to you is that there is a whole world outside of the safety of posetech.com. Open your mind and look at it.

I have just noticed that more posers have joined the fray and to have to read the same old arguments all over again is way beyond my boredom threshold so I won’t be posting anymore. Have fun.