Pose = crazy???

Jhuffman wrote:

Asterix,

I have known from the beginning what your intent is. To be as nice as possible I think you are a very rude individual. Thus, what little time I have on the internet I will avoid spending it discussing things with you. So, please feel free to continue without me.

Translation from the cheap seats:

"I cannot answer Jim's questions without revealing the contradictions between what adherents (such as I) CLAIM POSE is and what it really is. (That and the fact that I don't really know what the hell I am talking about)).

So now I am taking my ball and going home. Nyah Nyah na Nyah Nyah."

Jhuffman wrote:

Asterix,

I have known from the beginning what your intent is. To be as nice as possible I think you are a very rude individual. Thus, what little time I have on the internet I will avoid spending it discussing things with you. So, please feel free to continue without me.

So, instead of simply answering the questions, you are instead going to call him "rude" and run away from the questions?

If you fell so strongly about Pose, why do you continue to avoid direct questions? By doing that, you fuel the thoughts that it's all a gimmick, don't you understand that?

JimFiore wrote:

I agree with your a and c, but I'm not sure about b.

Jim, I think his b) is just a continuance of a), if I understand the scenario correctly.

The CM of the system would be shifted forward due to that rear leg being in contact with the ground. When the lead leg is brought forward, there is a balancing force directed through the rear leg. Since it is not on a frictionless surface, it will result in a net forward acting force on the center of mass.

If the system was suspended by a harness around the weight, then moving one leg forward would presumably result in the other leg moving back, with the center of mass constant.

Since his a) says we're pushing with both a vertical and horizontal component, after accounting for gravity, we're still left with that horizontal component. This is obviously going to be propelling the CM in the same direction.

I'd rather not contemplate one of my legs falling off.

LOL...Okay lets not lose our legs over this.

I don't know if (b) is really accurate. Sort of a common sense thing for me and it may change when I get common sense.

However, this is the mental imagery I am using. I am thinking that if you are standing, lift one leg and extend forward you have to apply counter force (as you say) with your other leg or fall. If you don't apply counter force then your CM has to move forward because you are going to fall.

This may turn out to be something we have to revisit but I think (a) is hitting at the real point we are coming to.

With some qualifications and explanations we seem to be in general agreement on the aswers to your questions.

Let me give you the Q of the QED so you know where I think this is heading and you may already be able to supply the answer.

For the sake of argument assume that your pushoff vector is at a 45 degree angle to the ground and a 45 degree angle to the gravity vector. The push vector and the gravity vector form a resultant with a horizontal component. The smaller that angle is between the ground and push vector the greater the resultant horizontal component. The larger it is the less the resultant horizontal component. Do I have this correct? If I do, does the gravity vector add or substract from the resultant horizontal component? Does the angle change how gravity affects it?

This is the Q part. We are in the ED part. But, maybe you can answer this now that we have established our definitions.

Asterix,

I follow your line and agree. I was thinking of this in isolation (as in your statement about the harness). Obviously, the CM of the runner has to move forward with respect to the ground or he wouldn't be going anywhere (this is why I mentioned "relative to the nose", meaning the CM of the runner moving from say, 3 inches inside his stomach to 1 inch outside his navel). Perhaps I was reading in/overanalyzing.

Asterix, Jim

It appears we are in agreement. What do both of you think about my Q?

Asterix,

I am assuming you know what I mean when I say QED. Hence, no explanation. If you don't just ask and Jim or I will explain.

ST,

I follow you. Regarding the angle of the push-off vector and the components, I think this gets a little more complicated. It sounds like you are describing a situation where the magnitude of the vector is constant (thus decreasing the angle with the ground increases the horizontal component and decreases the vertical). I don't think this is accurate. I don't think the vector magnitude needs to be constant, rather, the vertical component needs to be constant. After all, a certain amount of energy needs to be added to the system to reach the prior height of the mid-flight portion, otherwise this runner is going to get "shorter and shorter" with each stride. Thus, if we decrease the angle, the magnitude of the vector must increase which will increase the horizontal component while leaving the vertical intact. Thinking ahead, it seems that limiting the vertical displacement would be a positive as less energy will need to be added on the next stride as the body isn't going as high. This assumes, of course, that the percentage of energy given back in the recoil is fairly constant in light of this change. I believe there is anecdotal (if not experimental) data to back this up, namely, the desire to keep stride rate fairly high which naturally limits vertical displacement.

Oh, I forgot to add: The gravity component (vertical) doesn't add or subtract to/from the horizontal component. They're perpendicular.

ST wrote:

For the sake of argument assume that your pushoff vector is at a 45 degree angle to the ground and a 45 degree angle to the gravity vector. The push vector and the gravity vector form a resultant with a horizontal component. The smaller that angle is between the ground and push vector the greater the resultant horizontal component. The larger it is the less the resultant horizontal component. Do I have this correct? If I do, does the gravity vector add or substract from the resultant horizontal component? Does the angle change how gravity affects it?

I don't think you can mix and match the two vectors like that. Each needs to be looked at individually (since they are at 90 degrees to each other).

The vertical component of your 45 degree pushoff is to address gravity. Either it is greater than gravity, in which case you will rise up, or it is less than gravity, in which case you will continue to lower towards the ground (and not be a very effective runner, regardless of what method you use).

Since we're aiming for continued motion, I think it's safe to say the vertical component must be greater than gravity (since there will be a stretch of time during the stride when airborne and landing when you are not applying this force while gravity doesn't take a break).

If you reduce the angle between the ground and your pushoff, then simple geometry tells us that its magnitude must be increased since we have a minimum required vertical component (sin theta = y/force where y>= gravity; smaller theta means force must be bigger).

The point of this is that your question "does the gravity vector add or substract from the resultant horizontal component?" appears to get things backwards.

The resultant horizontal component is dependant on the angle of the pushoff that will give the minimum required vertical component to supercede gravity and not gravity affecting the resultant horizontal component. (Hope that makes sense.)

Without spending too much time analyzing what you have said I think you are correct.

I want to understand the static model before we go on to the continuous one because I think the continous will be derived from the static.

With regards to my Q and the static model what are the answers to the questions?

Asterix, Jim

I am establishing a fixed angle, looking at only two vectors, and removing all of the variable elements so I can do a static model analysis. I understand what each of you are saying about changing and optimal angles. I want to understand this interaction first.

Let me think about this and do a little vector math. I will get back to it as soon as I can. As I said for my QED I think this is the crux of the issue.

Asterix wrote:

The resultant horizontal component is dependant on the angle of the pushoff that will give the minimum required vertical component to supercede gravity and not gravity affecting the resultant horizontal component. (Hope that makes sense.)

I think we can all agree on this, yes?

ST wrote:

For the sake of argument assume that your pushoff vector is at a 45 degree angle to the ground and a 45 degree angle to the gravity vector. The push vector and the gravity vector form a resultant with a horizontal component. The smaller that angle is between the ground and push vector the greater the resultant horizontal component. The larger it is the less the resultant horizontal component. Do I have this correct? If I do, does the gravity vector add or substract from the resultant horizontal component? Does the angle change how gravity affects it?

The gravity vector neither adds nor subtracts from the horizontal component. The actor is obliged to provide a vertical component to the push-off that at least equals the magnitude of the gravity vector. The smaller the angle between the push-off vector and the floor, the greater the magnitude of the push off must be (and the greater the resultant horizontal component will be) to attain the required vertical component.

A smaller angle between push-off vector and the floor (are you likening this to 'leaning'?) does not cause a greater resultant horizontal force, but it does make it necessary for the actor to avoid falling onto the floor.

We could also take into account the need to maintain a net zero moment about the COM - this further increases the necessary horizontal component of the push off as lean increases.

Look, some of this discussion is interesting, and yes some is beyond my capacity to fully follow.

But aren't you guys getting off-track?? The whole question really was " is Pose 'crazy' ?", and then more specifically: are the explanations for what POSE is and why it is a supposedly more efficient form form of running valid?? WEREN'T THOSE THE QUESTIONS???

Does ANYONE disagree that the below statement ,taken directly from the horses mouth (from the POSE website), is just an utter impossibility?? ANYONE??

"Pose Method is...... achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy."

Gravity moving one forward as the primary force instead of muscular energy??!?!?!?! C'mon!! This is the first sentence on the website! Let's start and (maybe finish there). Is this impossible or not?

why?? wrote:

"Pose Method is...... achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy."

You're right. Its nonsense. Most of his writing is vague or unclear enough, that perhaps it is possible to interpret it in a way that makes some sense (though IMO that is rarely the most apparent meaning). With that statement however, it is getting pretty difficult.

He also just doesn't speak 'the language of science' very well at all. I mean, is he talking about 'force' or 'energy'?? It makes it very difficult to really pin down what he's tring to say.

Alex S...thank you, I am assimilating all of this.

Why???...be patient we are going through process. A process we decided to go through. We could have started another thread with a different name but then people that might be interested in our process might not find the thread. You don't have to participate, you can let us continue.

Guys...as I said I have much to digest now that we have laid out a good framework. But, I have to attend to business for the next 8 hours, sorry I can't really come back to it sooner. Thanks for being patient.

Why has this gone 20 pages? Seriously? Left, right, left right...is running that freaking difficult?

Alan

Asterix wrote:

That may be a valid point, but I certainly have not got that feeling from either the POSE site or others who have posted on this thread. Some (both here and there) have been quite adament about NOT pushing and that gravity really does help pull you forward without saying it's really about perception and not reality.

(But then that's getting ahead of the discussion as it is currently developing.)

I certainly respect the forward discussion, to understand and attempt at an audit... but keeping with my point:

I think there are several places I have seen over the years in articles about Dr. R (such as RW) and on the website that state just about exactly what I have said regarding "conscious effort”. I firmly believe Dr. R would say/has said as much (“… wis… uh … no conscious efforts…” is probably what he has said in some video). I do believe there is another line he uses where he states he is only the messenger, this is nothing new, etc. If you look at it from Dr. R’s point of view, a guy trying to make a living as a coach using a simple, concise package to teach it. It is really simple… Dr R is just a coach/teacher doing his business.

Now, the website has certainly helped to propagate some fanaticism and cause people to take the POSE method somewhere else which include deviations from what Dr. R would probably say or do. Of course, it is good for business… which is a family business with bills to pay. Unfortunately, some of the people who have spent (too much) time on the POSE website have come to this website and spouted information that is misrepresentative of the “method of teaching”. It does not represent the basics of the teaching and perception of running. They may try to defend, but it only makes the discussion turn sour since these misrepresentatives start yanking information out of their arse-hooles. Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that Dr. R is not that greatest writer in the world. I’m going to guess that English is his third or fourth language and he tends to use many hyperboles when writing. If you don’t take what he writes with a large grain of salt, you might be misled to take statements like “…gravity does all the work…” at face value.

Just because someone is a POSE method coach doesn’t mean they “get it”. Having been to see a POSE coach, I can vouch for that. They have been taught to teach a specific set of ideas and look for certain issues. I don’t believe it is hard to become a POSE method coach. You go the class and pay the money. I have a feeling Dr. R understands this has set up the levels (I, II, III) to help the consumer understand what they are getting. I have never met JHuffman and I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is probably a great coach. However, he has not displayed too much common sense with regards to preaching about the POSE method on the internet, though I do know he is very helpful to people on the POSE website. There a very few people on the internet that I would regard as getting it AND having the ability to convey their ideas well on the internet. OK, maybe just Jack. Even Jack has his point of view and firm convictions that must be regarded as his opinion.

So, I’m wondering what the proof is here with regards to the ongoing discussion? Is it to prove or disprove the POSE method works? I think it works for only those people that accept the ideas of perceptions and don’t think too hard about it, and for people that think too hard about running but know to take what they need or can use from the POSE method perception wise. It certainly doesn’t work from the outside looking in, but again, that’s not its purpose.