The argumentation of Jeremy Huffman

Jhuffman has single-handedly put me off ever trying POSE.

I feel like someone is pushing drugs.

They are not "prisoners of war." They're "enemy combatants." This is another favorite of mine: The Patriot act has stopped acts of terrorism in the United States. How do we know this? Well, we haven't had any attacks since 9/11 and the Patriot Act was started have we? Uh....no. Well, there ya go!

I didn't mean to get political but I've been reading these arguments and it's always "I look at things differently." Hmmmm...well.....you might as well say even though Newton and every freakin scientist on earth has proven gravity exists, with certain laws and parameters which have also been proven, I'm not going to believe it. I think differently, therefore it is true because I say it is.

You should just start a cult, that's the thinking which starts them anyway isn't it (all about me!)

this jhuffman cat cant be serious.

i dont think that there is anyone who could be this dumb and obnoxious in real life. i congratulate him on a job well done of trolling, and really hope that he is not as much of a dumbass as he comes off in his posts.

seriously, ive met a lot of idiots in my life, but rarely is there a gem like this jhuff character. there is no way this is a real person (as in, yeah jhuff might be a real person, but hes seriously yanking someones chain here).

i repeat myself, nobody is this fcking retarded.

track chick wrote:

Jhuffman has single-handedly put me off ever trying POSE.

I feel like someone is pushing drugs.

Whether the POSE method is correct or not, Huffman comes off more like a fundamentalist Christian trying to convert the masses, or a member of a pyramid scheme pressuring someone to join.

Those tactics do not usually work, so Huffman if you are serious about getting people to change to this, you may want to rethink your style of argument.

brawn wrote:

this jhuffman cat cant be serious.

i dont think that there is anyone who could be this dumb and obnoxious in real life. i congratulate him on a job well done of trolling, and really hope that he is not as much of a dumbass as he comes off in his posts.

seriously, ive met a lot of idiots in my life, but rarely is there a gem like this jhuff character. there is no way this is a real person (as in, yeah jhuff might be a real person, but hes seriously yanking someones chain here).

i repeat myself, nobody is this fcking retarded.

If you hang around letsrun enough, you get rewarded with post like this. BRAVO!!!

Jhuffman wrote:

Jimmy,

Do you care to comment on the Extensors Paradox study?

Huffy,

Let me see if I understand your point. Most runners do not run correctly because they do not allow gravity to guide their running. They run inefficiently because they push off the ground rather than fall. But this "extensor paradox" is provided as evidence that runners collected at random and studied on the treadmill can not be pushing off because of the timing of the EMG activity of the knee extensor muscles. It seems to be that the problem is solved, and no one needs POSE training.

Your response?

In reality, could the extensor paradox mean nothing at all? Perhaps your exhaustive studies have taught you about the temporal relationship between EMG activation and force development/joint movement in ballistic motions rather than static contractions. Please share your knowledge concerning this topic. I'm sure it's not news to you that, for example, the hip flexor EMG activity peaks while the hip is extended to accelerate the forward drive of the leg, but is silent most of the time that hip flexion is actually occurring, since the acceleration of the mib has already been accomplished. So perhaps you have some insight into how knee extensor EMG activity relates to force development which makes this situation different?

Jhuffman wrote:

My advice would be to stick with comedy, please avoid giving advice on good running form.

Well, if you want to be snippy, I'll respond in kind: I only take advice from someone whose opinion I value.

For the record though, I've never said ANYTHING about what constitutes "good form". No less a researcher/coach than Jack Daniels has stated that what appears to be good form for a given individual may not in fact be all that efficient. In other words, you can't tell someone's running economy just by looking at them. So, I categorically deny that I have said anything about what does or does not constitute "good form" on this thread. All I have said is that anyone who claims that a runner can produce a net energy gain by "falling" while running (due to gravity) is full of it. That someone would be you. You have yet to refute that argument. In fact, I know that you can't refute it, so I'll just let this be.

Jhuffman wrote:

If we are taking gravity as a motive force for the horizontal movement of the body, then it is only logical that such muscle behavior does not interfere with the work of gravity.

There you've got your study summed up nicely. If we take up to be down, then it is only logical that I can dance on the ceiling. Once more, ***gravity does not act in the horizontal direction*** and anything based on that premise is fundamentally wrong.

For something 'revolutionary' that has been around for 25 years, there seems to be a distinct lack of other physiologists, running experts and coaches pushing this style of running. Saying this, that and the other elite runner are running 'POSE' without knowing it doesn't really cut it (how did they come upon it without buying a book or attending a seminar?)

I've developed my own revolutionary running style. It's called FAST running. You can attend my course on it and I'll explain to you how to run FAST.

It's a proven system. People who win races run FAST. Pretty much everyone in this race ran FAST:

No one in this race ran FAST:

I can even provide photographic evidence. Somone running FAST:

Someone not running FAST:

The proof is obvious. Running with the FAST style is the best way to run. Send your cheque or money order to me and I'll send you a brochure and sign you up for my course.

Isac Newton wrote:

you burn more calories when running a mile verses walking a mile.

Dumb question Sir Newton, but is that true? Obviously burning at a faster rate, but same calories for same distance covered?

Jimmy,

I am glad we have finally agreed on atleast one thing. You should avoid giving advice about running form.

Jhuffman wrote:

Jimmy,

I am glad we have finally agreed on atleast one thing. You should avoid giving advice about running form.

Fiore only said he never gave advice on running form, not that he should avoid it.

In a similar spirit, though, perhaps you should stop trying to use physics, Huffy.

Gaining kinetic energy by moving in a gravitational field is called falling. I suppose, since we're also assuming the feet are in contact with the ground, it could be called "crouching." None of which has to do with the form used in lowering the center of gravity. While I would love to see a runner finishing his or her 10K crouched a foot above the ground, I don't think I could wait long enough after the finish to see it.

Now, if you want to argue torques, friction, etc., to justify a certain form, that would be at least feasible. However, not even the coaching books I've read have ever managed to get the physics right in that regard, so you won't be alone if you fail.

Do you think it's possible that pose works for you for some other reason than the physics debate that, in the eyes of observant people, you've clearly lost? I really have no more knowledge of running mechanics and such than any other typical runner, but maybe you're just confused and POSE has some other benefits in this area? Or maybe it's just a mental advantage that gives you confidence, you know, gravity is in your corner, but I guess that wouldn't explain the supposed decrease in injuries with pose.

If pose is working for you, perhaps you should look more into why this is the case instead of staying on the already sunken ship of "gravity pulls you forward."

2+2 does equal 5

for very large values of 2.

Good work Asterix! I'm convinced. Where do I send the cheque?!

Days beginning with M wrote:

2+2 does equal 5

for very large values of 2.

Very good but not quite there! If we look at the limit where 2 approaches the value 3, we see that 2+2 equals 6. Thus, we have "gained one" from our target of 5. That's free energy baby!!

Is it true that Dr. Rosa's Fila camps are really POSE clinics? I understand that the Kenyan Athletics Authority decided to spend all their money on POSE clinic rather than pay for athletes to race on the European circuit.

To answer your question, it's a myth that you burn as many calories walking as you do running and thus that walking 5 miles burns as many calories as running five miles. One of the reasons for this is that using oxygen burns calories. So the harder you run the more calories you burn.

Unfortunately another moderator hatchet job has erased a few good responses in this thread.

First rule of college coaching:

Don't come on the message boards and make an ass of yourself.

If you were recruiting, which I doubt you have time for because POSE literature keeps you busy.

But if you were, I'm sure coaches you recruit against are happy to go against you.

I'll also say that POSE didn't help your cross country kids at all. Apparently actual training wins out over form anyday.