Training with the POSE method

wetre wrote:

FORWARD MOMENTUM

Yes, running speed comes down to FORWARD MOMENTUM. Please note that this is in a direction parallel to the ground or perpindicular to the direction gravity acts.

There is no way the force of gravity, acting at 90 degrees to your direction of motion, can have a net aid to you unless you wish to end up with your center of mass flat on the ground.

You can use it to begin a rotational motion around your feet, but everything you 'gain' by 'falling' forward, you must replace by using your powerful, well-developed leg muscles to raise yourself back to your starting height.

If you fail to understand these basic properties of gravity, I'd strongly suggest you back away from the computer, lest you hurt yourself. If you find yourself saying "I can't explain how freefalling works", then that is a very good indication you don't understand what you are talking about.

Asterix wrote:

But from what I\'ve read, the form they are trying to teach isn\'t \'proper\' and appears to violate fundamental physical laws.

So, mr. scientist, they violate fundamental laws of physics? I know very little about science, but I know you can\'t violate fundamental laws (unless the laws are incorrect).

It kind of reminds me of the old joke: Guy #1 \"Do you belive in infant baptism?\" Guy #2 \"Believe in it, hell I have seen them\"

Here is a scientific challenge for you: \"pose\" runners claim to run and even have video footage of themselves running by \"only\" (according to their own self perception) contracting their leg by pulling their hamstring up and falling forward. Given that you can\'t violate the laws of physics, how is this possible?

the dude man wrote:

Here is a scientific challenge for you: "pose" runners claim to run and even have video footage of themselves running by "only" (according to their own self perception) contracting their leg by pulling their hamstring up and falling forward. Given that you can't violate the laws of physics, how is this possible?

Just because someone "claims" to run a certain way doesn't mean that that is what is actually going on and video is certainly not going to definitively prove them right. By my own "self perception" I am the smartest person in the world. Does that automatically mean this is true?

To run the way they "claim", by falling and letting gravity pull them forward, violates the laws of physics. Since, as you pointed out, you can't violate laws of physics, they are obviously not doing what they say they are.

As explained previously, any falling must be balanced out by a corresponding raising of the center of mass. Forward motion is obtained by pushing back in the opposite direction.

TAKE AWAY ALL THE 'SCIENCE' FROM YOUR ARGUMENT.

All that is important is

ELITE RUNNERS = FORM, forward lean(you admitted it)

REG AMERICAN RUNNERS = SHITTY FORM

Screw explaining any of it. It's life examples. And it's not that the forward lean just automatically makes it like your flowwing forward. Your legs are still moving you forward like you said, it's just that it kinda feels like you are running downhill when you have a foward lean. You just have to try running while working on certain techniques and develop your own style. I don't expect people with bad form to understand what i'm saying, but i am posting this stuff so that I can maybe have the hope of introducing a few runners on here to open their minds and improve their form.

And people don't get caught up on forward lean, it's only an aspect of better form. don't think if you lean forward thats all you need to do. It's a combination of doing certain things that improve your form.

Why? Are you saying 'science' is irrelevant? On what principals do you think they based the development of the computer you are typing with? What did they use to determine how strong to build the walls of your house if they didn't follow scientific laws? Why can't you provide an explanation of POSE that doesn't attempt to violate the laws of gravity?

What's the cut-off to be an 'elite' runner in your world and not a regular (non-USAnian) one? 14, 15 minute 5km?

How do you know what my form is like? Anyone can name off several elite runners who have crappy form (Zatopek, McCloy) and non-elites who have much better form.

Well, that is always a good way out if you find you haven't got anything substantive to support your case.

Problem is, people open their minds and then find they have nothing to put in there since you have been unable to provide a qualified explanation of this methodology. If the best you can do is say "it's free falling, you don't understand and I can't explain it", then people would be better off keeping their minds closed.

Likewise, just because you claim that you are pushing back to propel you forward, this is not necessarily the case, right?

Gravity works. I gurantee it. You can use it to move you forward; you can contract the leg with the hamstring.

the dude man wrote:

Likewise, just because you claim that you are pushing back to propel you forward, this is not necessarily the case, right?

What?

i don't know about anyone else at this point, but my head hurts

friday reader wrote:

i don't know about anyone else at this point, but my head hurts

I feel your pain. I am continually amazed at how people can simply disregard very BASIC physics in order to promote their agenda. Mind you, we're not talking about vague situations with possibly tricky second order effects, but very simple introductory mechanics which have been studied and well documented for centuries.

People can bitch all they want with conjectures about American runners having apparently "poor form", but I'm more concerned about that portion of the citizenry who are apparently science-illiterate (and proudly defiant of it).

Asterix, please, it pains me to see you make the effort to present the refutation of this "falling forward" argument YET AGAIN. You might as well be arguing with a 14th century European that black plague isn't caused by a malcontent god. Contrary to a hypothesis presented in another thread, on letsrun, science is not a trump card.

Jim,

I generally like you posts so don't get me wrong. I am curious though if you have been to the posetech website and really read some of Romanov's writings. I understand that he is a businessman but he is also a respected physicists. His theories have been the subject of academic debate and none of his colleagues deem him to be a medieval dogmatist. In fact, he tends to cite the disregard in the running community for the lack of knowledge of the role of gravity in running:

What we have in this field is a huge amount of research materials, describing the running technique from different angles and aspects (biomechanics, physiology, psychology and so on), but not a single proof about some commonly accepted proper technique. That's why there exist so many different running styles on an equal basis, which is ridiculous, just from the common sense point of view, such as its relation with the gravity, etc. If running with the heelstriking is good and accepted from the scientific point of view, this "science" goes against Newton's mechanics. The gravitational field doesn't allow us to be free too much, only within certain limits . That's why we do not have human sizes getting out of a certain frame (height, weight, number of bones and muscles). It's all related to gravity requirements.

I have always been a skeptic. But, the more I read (from many sides), the more I am convinced that Romanov's ideas are well within the realm of acceptable and, in many cases, enlightening.

I think the better analogy might be quantum physics which seems to disprove many of Newton's laws but can actually be reconciled nicely with a better understanding of the complex systems in play.

Running is not simple from a physics point of view. Its complexity is hard to simplify. I think that is what Romanov's main goal is--too simplify the physics into a teaching method.

Best,

Scranton

p.s.

Of course gravity can only pull you down but that doesn't mean you can't fall forward. Try it sometime. Or go to his site and watch video of the woman falling forward.

If you want to understand running biomechanics, do not read Romanov, read Peter Cavanagh, who published more excellent on the mechanics of efficient running gait than anyone else. In articles such as "Relationship between distance running mechanics, running economy, and performance", "Mechanical and muscular factors affecting the efficiency of human movement." and "A biomechanical comparison of elite and good distance runners" he does a pretty comprehensive survey of what constitutes an economical running style. The information on the kinematics of good running form is available to those who want to find it. He summarizes in one paper that "no single variable or small subset of variables can explain differences in economy between individuals but rather that economy is related to a weighted sum of the influences of many variables."

However, among variables associated with increased running economy are:

1. choosing an optimal stride length

2. a low vertical oscillation of center of mass

3. a more acute knee angle during swing

4. decreased ankle extension at toe off

Factors 1 and 2 argue that the POSE technique do not automatically guarantee increased efficiency. Any "falling" motion will certainly induce a greater vertical oscillation. Also, as his research indicates that every runner has a different stride length/stride rate that is most efficient, and which can vary widely among individuals without regard to height, automatically shortening one's stride will not necessarily improve economy. True, Dr. Jack Daniels believes that stride economy is a matter of practice, so that the reason an individual may be more economical at a longer stride is because of the repetitive use of that stride, and that economy will follow as the stride is adjusted. This, however, is just a theory. Certainly the individuals who switched to the POSE technique in the study co-authored by Romanov saw a substantial decrease in running economy.

Factors 3 and 4 are more supportive of POSE. However, it is my opinion that economical benefits of the decreased knee angle during the swing are not the result of the active recruitment of the hamstring muscles, which POSE seems to promote, but a passive response to increased acceleration of the leg forward (most likely due to recruiting the core muscles rather than the hip flexors.

In the end, there are two major issues with POSE, which are actually separate. The first is whether POSE form is good form, the second is whether the explanation is pure garbage. I liken it to accupuncture. I've had it, I know people who swear by it. So, I could easily believe it works. But as soon as you tell me that the reason it works is because of meridians and chi flow, I will call BS. POSE supporters should not be surprised when people who are scientifically literate dismiss their preachings even if the POSERS are certain that the techniques have value.

Nice post. I have read Cavanaugh. Good stuff. Romanov has also cited his work as a source for his methodology. In some sense, he seems to try and take Cavanaugh's scientific observations about running and develop a method to implement them. Also note that in the study co-authored by Romanov, the athletes had a mean decrease in stride length and vertical oscillation but an increase in oxygen cost. This speaks more to Cavanuagh's point that no single factor determines efficiency.

The analogy to accupuncture is apt. But, somehow, POSE runners are developing better form. Something is working. It is not unlike the typical "running drills" which do not do anything for form by themselves yet coaches and runner swear by them.

I think conversations like this will move things forward.

wetre wrote:

I run all the time thinking about my own form, and things that I have been taught by world class sprinting coaches, but I have never researched POSE at all.

Wetre,

You sound like you are a sprinter, which, in my oppinion, discounts every word you say, and, infact, revokes your right to speak. Unless your last name is Gatlin or Warner(sp prob.) then I refuse to listen to you.

"commonly accepted proper technique" is BS. Excepting gross errors, no such animal exists. Pretty is not necessarily efficient. Daniels has stated that his research on economy shows that what "appears" to be good form may not necessarily be efficient for any given individual. That is, person A may exhibit a "nicer" or "prettier" form than person B, yet A may have worse economy. Consequently, "learning to run with a certain form" does not in any way guarantee that a runner will see an improvement (by chance they might, but they might not). I believe that history shows this to be true. If you look at some of the great runners of different eras, you discover that some of them "looked" terrible. Zatopek comes to mind as one. On a more subtle note, I recall reading an article where Geb complained of an asymmetry in his arm carriage (couldn't we all be so cursed...) My personal experience makes me believe that you can alter your mechanics to produce a positive outcome over time, but this is largely an area of adaption to specificity of training (i.e., your body will evenutally find an efficient form simply by doing; this is not like learning to do a lay-up or fingering a musical instrument which are much more precise skills). I also think you can correct gross errors such as excessive overstriding via drills, but this will take time. In any case, it doesn't mean that you'll have a "pretty" form.

In short, I think trying to correct obvious biomechanical flaws may be a good thing although it will take a while, but that trying to run with a specific "pretty" form is probably not the best use of your time.

I don't think this analogy works. Theories of physics represent constant refinement. Einstein didn't so much "disprove" Newton as much as he refined Newton's framework to make it applicable to a larger set of (more extreme) situations. Every college physics program still teaches classical Newtonian mechanics because it still works (within its limits).

In contrast, what I see in the Pose Method is anti-science. The very core idea is provably false; that is, that a runner can somehow "gain energy" through a process of "continually falling forward" across a horizontal surface. This violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, in order to prove that his hypothesis is correct, Romanov has to prove that the laws of thermodynamics are not correct. I think that's a staggering bit of work and it's not something I would bet on even with astonishing odds.

There is one other observation I will make. It may very well be that Romanov has hit upon something that works for a specific subset of runners and that his hypothesis for why it works is completely off base. This would be akin to Lydiard claiming that long runs are important and the reason they work is because by running long your body absorbs more ultraviolet light directly from the sun than on a shorter run, and it's the UV exposure that increases your aerobic base. One could argue that that is utter nonsense on a variety of levels, but that doesn't disprove the effectiveness of long runs per se. In this context, what is needed are studies that directly compare groups of competitive runners, some using Pose, some not, and see what shakes out over time. I seem to recall someone posting a link to an article in another thread showing that Pose was not deemed effective (although I do not recall the details of the study).

if i was a sprinter, i would not be giving advice to distance runners, but i do live in LA, where we come into contact with sprinters much more often

the dude man wrote:

Likewise, just because you claim that you are pushing back to propel you forward, this is not necessarily the case, right?

In the interest of sparing Jim Fiore further pain with my explaining things to a brick wall, I'll keep this short.

When 3:39 JHuffman steps on to the track for his next race to show how great being a POSER is, will he be wearing spikes or flats?

If he runs by simply falling forward and bringing his legs up to catch the fall, without any pushing in the reverse direction, he will have no need for spikes.

One wears spikes over a similarly weighted flat because the spikes give you better traction on the track, enabling you to push back stronger and more efficiently to propel yourself forward. If you don't push back, then flats will do you just fine.

Any bets on whether he'll be wearing flats or spikes?

I will save you some sleepless nights. I will be wearing spikes when I compete later this season. The reason is to have a stable support to fall from, not to have traction to push myself upwards. You may understand this better if you were to actually learn what the Pose Method techique teaches. Good day!

BTW- I to often feel like I am talking to a brick wall. The feelings mutual!