Pose = crazy???

If you didn't lift your foot and let gravity pull your foot back to the treadmill surface you would crash into the display.

If you didn't "harness the DOWNWARD pull" you could not run.

Formosan Joe excuse the repost but, I meant to write the following:

you said:

"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."

If you didn't lift your foot and let gravity pull your foot back to the treadmill surface you would crash into the display.

If you didn't "harness the DOWNWARD pull" you could not run.

LOL

ST wrote:

If you didn't lift your foot and let gravity pull your foot back to the treadmill surface you would crash into the display.

If you didn't "harness the DOWNWARD pull" you could not run.

....harnessing a constant force that pulls u down????

Alpha Mike Foxtrot....

"....harnessing a constant force that pulls u down????"

Of course. How does your foot get back to the ground?

"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."

Still when you land with the relaxed foot, etc., you somehow feel that this makes you closer to the said "optimal running form". How do you know this?

"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."

You point out 3 things - relaxed landing, quick recovery and not overstriding as key elements that allowed you to improve your form. And , yes, you can be absolutely sure that 100% of people would benefit from it. Why? Because doing the opposite than the 3 mentioned things leads to braking, and you can't be efficient if you are braking. Now the value of Pose teaching is ( at least it was for me, and to everyone who took time to master it) is that it teaches you HOW TO achieve this - what to do in order to to land relaxed or not to overstride, because telling "don't overstride" doesn't help much. How are you going to learn to land relaxed? If you don't do it by nature ( very few people do this naturally), there is no way to land relaxed by giving yourself a command: "Land relaxed!", because you can't relax by command ( like you can't force yourself to fall asleep), the more you try to land relaxed,the more rigid is your landing ( the Pose term for this is "active landing"). In order to land relaxed you must just let the landing happen, and you can't let it happen if you mentally are focused on landing. So the only way to let it happen is to mentally focus on the opposite movement - pulling the foot from the ground. What is valuable in Pose is that it teaches to work with mental cues and images. Just do a simple experiment: start running in place with minimal foot lift. Now make a sligh lean forward ( a very very slight one, just to start moving forward), making the foot movements exactly the same as running in place. Now running like this start to count your steps, making count every time your ball lands on the ground. Now do the same, but make count every time your hamstring pulls the foot off the ground. Now alternate between those two methods and see how the pressure on the ball of the landing foot changes with every method. When you count the landings, you'll feel your ball land harder than when you count pulls. Note that externally you are doing the same motion.

"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"

I would put this way: there IS a correct way to run - and it would exist even if Dr. R wouldn't have been born at all. If we agree that a correct way to run consists of a sum of certain elements of correct running, these elements make a system, and Pose is a way to teach this system. If one doesn't like Romanov or the name "Pose" - it can be Smith and the name "floating", or "gliding", whatever you want. So it al boils not to whether people believe one can harness gravity or not for running - but whether there is one correct way to run or not. I believe the latter. And the fact that people with worse form can have faster times doesn't prove anything at all.

"Firstly, yes I do listen to the opinions of people whose credentials I respect"

What credentials are you talking about? Biomechanic scientists? They can't compare Pose to non-Pose, because if we remember the study that as if proved that Pose had less movement efficiency - they compared conventional runners with other conventional runners who were just starting Pose for the sake of the experiment - it' s obvious that learning new movement patterns one can't be efficient, and as far as I remember the study revealed that the most efficiency was displayed by the runner who had the least experience as a conventional runner. To compare efficiency, one would have to compare the same person pre-Pose and Pose, and he would have to have the same Pose mileage as pre-Pose - which is hardly doable.Credentials may mean a lot of quite different things, and the value of opinion of two people with the same credentials can be different.Or do you mean credentials of coaches of champion runners? These coaches rarely develop a runner from the begining, more often they get good material from others, so often the credentials of a caoch depend on how lucky he was to get his hands on a naturally gifted runner that was developed by a good coach before him (and having a good number of champs in his team automatically attracts other potential champs - of course, the coach must be a good one to keep showing results) . Of course many of such coaches are deaf to any new ideas, bacause they are already caoaching champs and see no need for change. People like to stick to what they were taught, because they feel comfortable with it.

"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."

The world IS ready for his ideas,and they are accepted more and more. The one condition that is neccessary to accept is that a person sould feel THE NEED FOR CHANGE.

"For every Newton and Galileo there are millions of plain old eccentrics with crackpot theories"

Agreed, but Newton and Galileo were among them,and only tme sorted out who is who.

" as far as I’m concerned Romanov falls into the latter category"

The operative words here are " as far as I'm concerned".

terryh wrote:

... 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 do believe this is the same point Jack on the POSE list makes often... or used to. Now he says you only need to lift the foot as much as needed.

I would agree about no drills. They didn't really transfer to running for me.

That is true and what we've been trying to convince the POSERs of all along.

The point is, in physics (which is what describes the Real World(tm)) is that a vertical force can do no NET work in a horizontal direction. Anything you 'gain' by 'using' gravity, must be paid back in full with interest (since we don't have a lossless system).

So your saying that in this new 'paradigm' that gravity is NOT neutral in the horizontal direction? That a vertical force can provide a NET benefit in the horizontal direction? If it isn't "neutral", then either it aids or it hinders. If it hinders, then why all the mention of 'harnessing' gravity?

Yes there is. See my previous paragraph. Please explain the physics of how a vertical force can possibly not be "neutral" in the horizontal direction.

It doesn't matter what other vectors you want to bring into play, gravity remains and always will remain a vertical vector. As such it can NEVER provide any benefit (ie be anything better than "neutral") in the forward running direction.

And that is the problem. What he (and other POSERS) talk about "interacting" with gravity just does not fit with the current laws of physics. If you genuinely do have a new "paradigm", then please let me know when you are submitting you paper to the Nobel institute so I can book my ticket to Stockholm. You'll be turning to world on its head if you can show how gravity can be anything better than neutral for forward motion. (And being 'neutral' would be the best case scenario for an idealistic lossless case, so the Real World is going to be even worse.)

"In his theory all the forward motion is supplied by gravity."

""This method is all about letting gravity do the work,'' Romanov said. "By leading with the body, you'll be in a position to let gravity drive you forward. In turn, you'll save energy....The runner then changes the pose from one leg to the other by falling forward and allowing gravity to do the work."

Does POSE (and the vaunted Dr R in particular) say or not that gravity (a vertical vector) does net work (or 'save energy') in the forward direction? What is the meaning of "gravity do the work" or "gravity drive you forward" if it isn't directly saying gravity can do net work in the horizontal direction? (Or in Jack's case from the previous forum quote, in the upwards direction.)

Have you actually done a force diagram of these vector additions? Since gravity can provide NOTHING in the horizontal direction, anything that you let it do to pull you 'down', you must somehow replace by pushing 'up'. The body is not a perfect lossless elastic system and therefore you must continually add energy to the system (ie push-off) to return it to its original height. Unless you are running downhill or end up with your face in the mud.

It's not like the phrase 'gravity do the work' accidentally slipped in one article. It's all over the place and repeated ad nauseum by POSERs here and on their forum. As explained here and in other threads numerous times, it is fundamentally impossible and yet POSERs refuse to acknowledge this (without providing any scientific explanation of why).

Whether there is ONE correct way to run is debatable, but the fact that there are significantly different styles amongst Olympic medalists and world record holders I think is strong evidence in favour that there is no universal one correct way. What works for one person may not work for another.

But I don't get why you are willing to ignore the belief about whether one can harness gravity or not for running because it has been explained numerous times that gravity can provide no NET benefit to running. You can talk all you want about vectors, but gravity is still vertical and running is still horizontal and never the twain shall meet.

So what can one use to support one's case? POSE doesn't provide an explanation of how the physics of a vertical force works in a horizontal direction. A study has shown POSE to be less economical (but there's apparently an excuse for that). And now you're saying that this undefined 'worse form' but faster times means nothing?

What is the criteria for 'worse form', esthetics? Radcliffe looks terrible running, but detailed analysis shows that other than her head bobbing, she's got a very smoothly flowing center of mass with little wasted effort. The fact she's crushed the marathon record supports her being an efficient runner.

When the Nobel institute is ready to feel the need for change in which direction gravity can provide net assistance, please get back to me. Otherwise the most basic part of the POSE description is nonsense and makes the rest of it look like a make-believe world, whether it is or not. Trying to draw paralles to Newton or Galileo is meaningless if you can't provide the science to back up the claims.

People are willing to change, if you can prove your case. Just look at the quantum mechanics revolution over the last century. When POSE does the same with their new paradigm of gravity, then you'll get legitimacy. I'm not holding my breath though.

When you walk or run you lift your foot and it is the force of gravity that pulls it back to the ground. If you think there is another force pulling it back to the ground then tell me what it is? And before responding to anything else I say please, answer this.

Romanov:

"According to classical mechanics and modern biomechanics, gravity is neutral in horizontal direction of movement in running"

Asterix:

"So your saying that in this new 'paradigm' that gravity is NOT neutral in the horizontal direction? That a vertical force can provide a NET benefit in the horizontal direction?"

Your inference and assumptions are incorrect. No, that is not what he is saying. He says the force of gravity contributes to forward motion in running. That is the paradigm he is describing. He is not refuting the currently accepted laws of Physics and he is not saying that gravity provides anything other than a downward vertical force.

"If it isn't "neutral", then either it aids or it hinders"

Incorrect conclusion resulting from your prior incorrect inference. It is an essential component to running motion. You can apply a small or large amount of force to counteract the vertical component and redirect it horizontally. If you do it correctly you fall forward and get forward motion. If you do this incorrectly you fall backwards.

Romanov says learn how to minimize the energy you have to put back into the system for best efficiency. Your style affects how much energy you have to put back into the system.

"It doesn't matter what other vectors you want to bring into play, gravity remains and always will remain a vertical vector. As such it can NEVER provide any benefit (ie be anything better than "neutral") in the forward running direction."

This is incorrect analytical thinking and assumption. You are comparing apples to a combination of apples + oranges. Whatever you mean by "neutral" is superfluous. It is axiomatic that a single vector force only provides force in the defined direction. Forward running motion is a combination of many vectors. Gravity is one of them. How you interact with it affects your efficiency.

You proselytize constantly about "NET" gains and "neutral" in your posts. Romanov does not use those words. He says gravity is an element of running and learn how to efficiently utilize it. Efficiency is his goal.

"What is the meaning of "gravity do the work" or "gravity drive you forward" if it isn't directly saying gravity can do net work in the horizontal direction?"

You constantly say this about quotes out of context. It is 'your inference' and your conclusion from 'your inference'. Your inference is wrong therefore your conclusion is meaningless. In the full context of Romanov's articles it means your running style can affect the efficiency with which you interact with gravity.

Your URLs are articles written by people other than Romanov. The statements quoted "There is no push off, no glide, no horizontal pawing" are metaphors that are used to help runners focus on the aspects of the Pose style. They are psychological aids. Read between the lines.

My Coach from 25 years ago had a PHD in exercise physiology. He constantly told me don't push, Lift, roll forward, let your foot fall, pick it up as soon as it hits the ground. The more I concentrated on his metaphors the better I became. Everyone on the team used his technique. He coached us to one of the top Cross Country teams in the country.

Since we're talking about a vertically acting force, I've got problem saying it is gravity. But we're talking about vertically, not horizontally.

You make two contradictory statements in this paragraph. Currently accepted laws of physics say that a vertically acting vector force can not do any net work in the horizontal direction. That means the BEST you can hope for from gravity is for it to be neutral in terms of horizontal motion.

But you also say gravity contributes to forward motion. That ain't neutral. As explained before, anything that gravity aids in moving you forward (such as by falling around a pivot point), you must pay back with interest.

And that right there is the fundamental problem with the whole POSE explanation. No matter what words you use or thought processes invoked, you can not 'redirect' gravity in any direction other than straight down. It's not a superball that you can deflect or a stream of water you can channel.

And any benefit gained must still be paid back with interest, hence why vertical oscillation (ie changes caused by gravity) should be minimized.

Gravity is vertical. Any vector sum that includes gravity that results in a net forward force will still have exactly the same forward magnitude if you removed the gravity vector. That is basic physics. You can add all the gravity vectors you want and you will still not change the net forward force magnitude.

Those words are on his site. Either they came from him or he endorses them. Are you saying that there is misleading or false information on the POSE site?

So why the direct statements from Dr R about 'letting gravity do the work'? Are we to just 'interact' with gravity or have we redirected its direction of force to give us a horizontal boost?

My apologies then. I'm sorry I missed the explanation on the POSE site that clarified all their descriptions were just metaphors. I certainly got the impression they were speaking about actual descriptions.

I also made the mistake of assuming that the Romanov in the quote from

"""This method is all about letting gravity do the work,'' Romanov said. "By leading with the body, you'll be in a position to let gravity drive you forward. "

was actually the same Romanov who created and touts POSE and not a seperate article written by someone else. This author obviously didn't understand the metaphor concept and is misconstruing the description to directly say gravity does work in the horizontal direction. I'm sure the real Dr R will be glad if you could bring this to his attention so he can get the incorrect material off of his website.

I said:

When you walk or run you lift your foot and it is the force of gravity that pulls it back to the ground. If you think there is another force pulling it back to the ground then tell me what it is?

You said:

"Since we're talking about a vertically acting force, I've got problem saying it is gravity."

If you have a problem saying it is gravity, then tell me what pulls your foot back to the ground?

FYI

It does not change the essence of this discussion but, the vertical vector force of gravity that you continually refer to is actually a resultant vector of a combination of near-infinite to infinite vectors. Because, of this multitude of vectors that the force of gravity is not uniform across the surface of the Earth.

This becomes important in surveying when we try to get very precise in the mapping of the Earth's Gravity Geoid. In GPS engineering it affects our estimates of elevations and locations because the gravitational forces on the surface of the earth vary. When we build a GPS receiver and provide location information we also provide the GEOID model that is being used. The model that is most accurate for North America is not the same as the model that is most accurate for Europe.

ST wrote:

I said:

When you walk or run you lift your foot and it is the force of gravity that pulls it back to the ground. If you think there is another force pulling it back to the ground then tell me what it is?

You said:

"Since we're talking about a vertically acting force, I've got problem saying it is gravity."

If you have a problem saying it is gravity, then tell me what pulls your foot back to the ground?

You see this is the key to good running. The downward pulling force on the foot must be maximized. To fully take advantage (“harness”) this wondrous force I advise my students to increase their mass. This increases the available gravitational force that they can harness.

With America's obesity epidemic and my gravity harnessing technique, I believe America can once again have the top runners in the world. I'm currently working with a couple 400 lb students, just wait until they are able to master my technique. Low mass runners like the Kenyans are about to become obsolete.

"You make two contradictory statements in this paragraph. Currently accepted laws of physics say that a vertically acting vector force can not do any net work in the horizontal direction. That means the BEST you can hope for from gravity is for it to be neutral in terms of horizontal motion."

I am not making contradictory statements. You continue to infer something that is not said. What is said is that forward motion in running is the result of a combination of forces. Gravity is one of them. NET work and neutral are your terms. There is no free lunch. How you interact with gravity affects the energy cost (efficiency) of your forward motion. That cost can be less or more.

If you lean forward you fall. You could jump 3 feet into the air and fall landing in the exact same spot and position. If you did your energy cost to get to that position would be greater than if you just leaned forward and fell.

"And that right there is the fundamental problem with the whole POSE explanation. No matter what words you use or thought processes invoked, you can not 'redirect' gravity in any direction other than straight down."

Once again...Forward motion is a resultant vector. When a ball rolls down a ramp the resistance of the ramp (upward vector from the Earth) combines with the vector imparted by gravity to create a forward motion vector.

You have fixated on your singular vector analysis but, Romanov is talking about the combination of vectors that results in foward motion.

[quote]ST wrote:

Once again...Forward motion is a resultant vector. When a ball rolls down a ramp the resistance of the ramp (upward vector from the Earth) combines with the vector imparted by gravity to create a forward motion vector.

quote]

When you are running, gravity does NOT contribute to forward motion, it hinders it. The running effort vectors are UP and FORWARD, which added to the DOWNWARD vector of gravity, gives you net forward momentum. If you dont have UPWARD movement, the net vector is still pointing DOWNWARDs, unless you apply enough force in the forward direction to compensate for friction (which is uselss in the case of running.

Using the analogy of a ball on a ramp is specious - that is a frictionless environment where gravity IS the primary force vector. Consider a mortar and a shell. Whats the best way to fire the shell the fartherst distance? To shoot straight? No...to fire in an arc. The same priciple applies every time you push off - to travel the MAXIMUM distance per push off, you need UPWARD momentum to compensate for the CONSTANT pull of gravity.

Wrong. In running you are not providing a horizontal vector. The combination of all vectors results in horizontal movement. Lying on your back and pushing against the wall with your feet provides a horizontal vector.

"ramp is frictionless environment"...wrong and superfluous to the concept. "where gravity IS the primary force vector"...wrong again. The combination of vectors causes the ball to roll down the ramp and forward.

In your push off analogy, with your foot as the fulcrum point...to be most effficent you need to apply the least amount of muscular energy required to offset the downward force of gravity on your leg and to provide lean that causes you to fall forward.

Asterix:

After you answer the question of what force pulls your foot back to the ground tell me what is providing your horizontal direction force.