Pose = crazy???

Brawn,

Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to continue to LoOk FoR gramiticAl errors in my writing?

Amazed,

No, and you are not my student. I don't have the time to answer every question on letsrun regarding the Pose Method. That is why there is a website dedicated to its existence(

www.posetech.com

). If you have specific questions I am more likely to spend some time if I am emailed to my personal account, not from anonymous people on letsrun.

Then why do you answer any questions? What criteria do you use to answer anything? Time can't be an issue, because you've spent plenty around here talking up Pose. You seem to like plugging Pose, but everytime someone posts an intelligent question or challenge to what you say, you throw a tantrum or post a useless link to the Pose website that solves nothing.

Either answer all the questions asked of you, or don't answer any.If you choose the latter, then please quit coming here a spamming the board trying to get free advertising for your product.

Jhuffman,

I asked you about why your communication skills are so poor, then you took a shot at mine. I proceeded in explaining why your English reeks of a second year transfer student from Slovenia.

Ok, I will contribute something to the discussion now. Pose is clearly retarded. It is a bunch of jackasses trying to make a buck off some idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the coach of an incredibly bad dIII cross country team, which indicates to me that your coaching skills are suspect. Your communication skills are already a display of ineptitude. I am sorry I am coming at you a little harsh, but a hate idiots.

"Jhuffman,

I asked you about why your communication skills are so poor, then you took a shot at mine. I proceeded in explaining why your English reeks of a second year transfer student from Slovenia.

Ok, I will contribute something to the discussion now. Pose is clearly retarded. It is a bunch of jackasses trying to make a buck off some idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the coach of an incredibly bad dIII cross country team, which indicates to me that your coaching skills are suspect. Your communication skills are already a display of ineptitude. I am sorry I am coming at you a little harsh, but a hate idiots."

Good to find another intelligent discussion participant! Concerning Slovenia - you sound like a Russian ( Russians also think that everything that is not Russian is shit). I stepped in because for me, too, English is a third foreign language. And if you, dumb asshole, think that a value of someone's communication skills is determined by how good is he in foreign languages, have in mind this: it's better to know three foreign languages, than to know only your native and feel proud that you were born in a big country. Your post smells of chauvinism.

Concerning the rest of your post - don't try to express your opinion about things that you don't have a slightest understanding - you sound like a mentally disabled.

Now, after having exchanged bouts of mutual friendliness we can return to the discussion about running, LOL.

"See you think you can get the leg to cycle through faster by pulling it from the ground and pulling it through the cycle back to the ground"

No, Pose doesn't require to pull the foot throughh the cycle - it's incorrect. You should pull the foot off the ground just enough to break contact - and then do nothing. Try a drill: while standing, pull your foot up, engaging hamstrings for the whole "foot travelling". This is incorrect. Now do the same in another manner: jerk the foot up using hamstrings, and relax them at once - the foot will fly up by itself. This is correct. When running you should not LAND the foot on the ground, but you should LET IT DROP on the ground by itself.

"And furthermore this stretch reflex will pull the leg through faster than can be done by consiously trying to pull it through"

You have a misunderstanding of what Pose says: it's very incorrect to pull the foot through. You should jerk the foot up and then let it do its bussiness on its own.

"The only thing you really pay attention to is putting the foot down underneath "

At least you are talking what Pose is all about - perception, not physics. I mean, you talk about what to pay attention to, and not about vectors, etc. But - from Pose standpoint it's very incorrect to pay attention to landing: focusing on landing leads to reaching out in front of the GC with tight calf and ankle muscles - a recipe for injuries. One should re-tune his thinking, letting the landing happen by itslef.

"I was saying that you see Geb and think he's running POSE"

Yes, sometimes his form is very much like Pose, sometimes less, sometimes I would like a more compact stride.

"I see Geb and think he's running my idea of correct running form"

For me, sometimes he is, sometimes not. That's because his form changes depending on effort level. In general concerning form he is one of my favorites.

"There is a standard that can be called the best."

Glad that we have come to some kind of agreement so far - it's boring to read those "everyone-should-run-like-it's-best-for-him" posts.

"And in my opinion it's not pose."

What is it then? If you say there IS the golden standart, but it's NOT Pose, then you should take the next step:

1. Describe what in your opinion IS Pose.

2. Describe the differences between Pose and your golden standart.

As far as I'm concerned you can call that golden standart whatever you want ( if you are allergic to brand name Pose), and the next step would be to find a method of teaching so that every runner or even sedentary person ( not only those with natural talant for running with good form) cpould learn this gold standart. This is what Dr R. made.

"It's something else, the only difference is I don't have a fancy name to sell it with. So I'll call Tellez style running"

Fine with me, names mean little, what counts is what meaning we put into them.

"Have you ever tried other running methods?"

The answer is "yes".

"And don't give me the oh for 10 years I ran "normal"."

No, it was not 10 years. It was about 20 years.

"No you probably didn't, you probably heal banged and then changed to Pose which is a step up from heal banging because it at least gets your foot to land basically flat under your hips."

I have been competetive in kyokushin karate in my young years. I had a friend who was a competetive 10K runner on a national level at that time, we both used to run together. Needless to say that I was no match for him in running, and what amazed me was that in order to keep up with him I had to use twice more effort. Due to his influence my heel-banging technique was erradicated quite soon, and all the 20 years of my running I was a forefoot runner. I already wrote about that in order to change something a person must feel the need for change. My problem was that although I had enough speed and endurance, the inner feeling of running didn't quite satisfy me, I felt as if I was running at the same gear, changing speed was difficult for me - accelerating used more effort than the acceleration was. My runner friend told me not to overstride ( which he himself was doing, LOL), he said that while accelerating one should feel like an increasing wind blowing form behind - but all I felt was tryinig to push off the ground with more force.

Pose was a discovery for me. It clearly explained what I should do in order to achieve this or that. Now, 3 years into Pose, I'm not a Pose master of course, but I'll never run the old way for sure. And when I get tired and feel that I start to fight against the pavement, I tell myself: "lean and pull!", and I feel light on my feet again.

I'm telling you this so that you can know that my case is not changing form heel banging to something a tad better.

brawn wrote:

Who is Jhuffman people?

I know he is some sub4miler, but is it just me or do the style of his posts sound like they were put through some translator or something. What does Jhuffman do for a living now? Im just curious because the guy is to running form what Islamic extremists and radical Christians that shoot up abortion clinics are to religion.

Regardless of whether or not he knows his stuff, he has no idea how to argue, sound credible, or just not come off as a prick.

Brawn,

No offense, but you started things off with this inflammatory post. Then after that, you bragged about how fast and smart you think you are.

This thread had recently become more mature and interesting with less name calling until you began posting.

I think you need to let the more mature folks (Asterix, John Richard, etc. continue to do the critiquing of the pose method)

Perhaps you can go start an "insult Jhuffman thread" if that's your goal.

Steve

(just a lurker interested in the running physics stuff)

Amazed,

I thought I have made this clear already. I direct people to the Pose Tech website so they can learn for themselves how to run with maximum efficiency. Whether you believe me or not I think Pose Method is the Gold Standard of running efficiency. My product is teaching efficient running if you don't like that product then just don't buy it.

Thank you! Finally direct answers to simple questions.Maybe now we can get a definitive answer to the original question of this thread (especially since we've defined what components are necessary for a 'good' and efficient stride).To summarize our progress so far:- POSE calls for landing on the forefoot - Good advice (but not unique or new to POSE)- POSE calls for landing under the CM - Good advice (but not unique or new to POSE)"Does POSE believe there is no concious, voluntary push-off beyond the return of energy loaded up on landing?"

Our first contradiction. We'd previously reached agreement between ST, JimFiore, Alex S and myself that there MUST be a conscious push-off since the body is not a lossless system and simply can not return all the energy stored up on landing.

"When POSE refers to 'gravity doing the work', are they referring to returning the trailing foot towards the ground, or motion of the entire body?"

Second point is less important but this contradiction has been addressed by Steve M with respect to bringing the foot through.

Most important though, is the first point, that of "allowing the GCM to fall forward". This implies that there is net movement driven by gravity that does not need muscular work to compensate for.

Of course there is going to be a forward component of displacement as the force of ground friction pushes back against the point of rotation, but we are then left with a CM that is lower than when we started. This is basic rotation about a point.

How it is to be returned to the starting height WITHOUT further addition of energy is probably THE biggest flaw in the POSE explained methodology.

Now Gatorade apparently says this is not important as "what Pose is all about - perception, not physics. I mean, you talk about what to pay attention to, and not about vectors". However if you perceive something that flies in the face of physics and vectors, then it is very likely your perception is misleading or plain wrong.

I'm not sure whose word we should take for being authoritative on this matter. Gatorade apparently isn't a certified coach, but is "3 years into Pose". JHuffman is actually certified, but hasn't been into POSE half as long: "My Pose Method of running journey began in mid-April of 2005" (http://www.posetech.com/services/JeremyHuffman.html)

Since the latter has actually identified himself and his credentials, I'll go with him as being more representative of POSE.

"Does POSE believe that gravity provides a benefit to forward motion that does not require a voluntary push-off to compensate for?"

Since my question was basically overlapping with the others, it is not surprising the answer repeats the same contradictions with our previously established running definition.

For those who are still following the tortured progress of this thread, here is my interpretation of where we stand:

1) POSE calls for landing on the forefoot

- Good advice (but not unique or new to POSE)

2) POSE calls for landing under the CM

- Good advice (but not unique or new to POSE)

3) POSE says gravity will pull the CM forward (as well as down)

- While physically possible, it is going to leave you with a lower CM

4) POSE says you do NOT need to consciously push-off

- This, in conjuction with the previous statement, is where we part company. The body is NOT a lossless system and therefore it is NOT possible to load up muscle elasticity with enough energy on landing to return the CM to the starting height.

- Also, although it is couched in some hand-waving terminology about "muscle effort to maintain proper positioning of the foot and body", this is actually refering to force directed parallel to the surface of the gound (perpindicular to gravity - here we are with the vectors Gatorade says to ignore) that is the result of friction between the foot and the ground.

The perception of this force may be different, but it still qualifies as a 'push', even if no further energy is applied in an attempt to regain the lost height.

So, if I've misinterpreted any of the numbered points as to what POSE says or means, please point them out before we get to whether my counter-points are valid. Just say something like "point 4 is wrong. It should say..."

I'll assume that if this is not clarified in any further posts made by JHuffman, that he agrees with the four point description of POSE since it is his vision of POSE we need and not that of the website.

No point in arguing about things if they aren't even stated correctly in the first place.

I apologize in advance Steve, I know I shouldn't resort to stupid name calling, but I as well had been lurking in the post and (maybe it is just me) there is something about Jhuffman that just seems really unnatural. Those interested in the phsyics and stuff only, just skip this.

Gatorade you wrote: And if you, dumb asshole, think that a value of someone's communication skills is determined by how good is he in foreign languages, have in mind this: it's better to know three foreign languages, than to know only your native and feel proud that you were born in a big country. Your post smells of chauvinism.

WHAT? When did I say that someone's communication skills are determined by their ability to speak foreign languages? Jhuffman is an American born and raised, so that is why I made the comment about him sounding like he was from Slovenia. As a native English speaker (like Jhuffman) I would hope my English would be better than someone who only learned it a couple years ago. I'm not saying this makes me smarter or a better person or anything, it's just that a native speaker shouldn't sound like that. And I'm from Connecticut, of Irish descent, the only reason I chose Slovenia is because it is random enough that I thought it would be clear I was simply saying Jhuffman's English is mysteriously bad.

And to Steve Jutton, I do not think I am smart or fast, I know I am smart and fast. Not as fast as some of these dudes, but considering my only running experience prior to this was the mile in fall ball every year, I think a 4:09 is pretty damn impressive. I'm also bigger than a lot of you punks too (though I'm trying to lose a little weight), standing in a 6'2 180.

Jhuffman, we can end it at this. You coach at Louisiana College, a team which was likely bad when you inherited it, and still is bad. Your writing and communication skills are suspect at best, especially for a native speaker. Gatorade, I don't know how you twisted my words so bad, well actually, I do have one idea...

Much of what is on the POSE site is vague, and unclearly written etc.

During the course of this thread, POSERS have claimed that some misunderstanding of POSE (by non-POSERS) has come about through the mis-interpretation of Dr. R's writing - e.g. whether certain phrases are talking about mechanics or percetions.

Therefore, it is helpful to the discussion if those who are 'experts' in POSE could communicate what they understand about the technique.

Clear, direct answers to well defined questions would be very helpful.

Huffman, i have nothing against you - don't take this as me bashing you. I think it would 1) be helpful to this discussion, and 2) enhance the credibility of both you and POSE if you would give direct answers to clear questions, rather than referring to Dr. R's articles or giving answers that dance around the issue at hand without addressing it.

I understand that to you, some question from the non-POSERS might be seem to be 'missing the point', but please appreciate that these are pertinent questions to many other people. If you have any clear direct questions that you feel are pertinent to the discussion, i'm sure the non-POSERs will be happy to respond.

Absolutely agree with all points in your post.

Alex S wrote:

I think it would 1) be helpful to this discussion, and 2) enhance the credibility of both you and POSE if you would give direct answers to clear questions, rather than referring to Dr. R's articles or giving answers that dance around the issue at hand without addressing it.

In his defence (presumably), I believe he has taken a stab at straight answers to the latest questions.

Pending his approval/dispproval, I think we've got the four key points that describe POSE listed above.

Two of them I think you'll have no problems with. It is numbers 3 and 4 that obviously present conflicting opinions.

Hopefully he'll give the thumbs up/down to whether those four points accurately represent POSE and we can move on to the flaws.

Grammar police wrote:

That's one hell of a sentence from an 'excellent writer.'

brawn wrote:

Yes, because I proofread and put as much effort in my posts on letsrun as I did in my classes and will at law school.

Turn on your sarcasm detector.

Gatorade, et al:

I see a mention that "pose is about perception and not about physics". Of course, any physical action IS about physics, so I assume you mean this in terms of a thought process. Although Asterix has defined four points, I'd like to focus on just one little thing because I don't want to get caught up in one of those "that's not what I meant" exchanges.

Regarding the initial concept of pulling the foot up instead of using a push-off, I see three possible ways of interpreting this. Please tell me which one is the one you mean (and if none of them fit, please give me a fourth):

1) The idea of lifting versus pushing is mental imagery. It is not to be taken literally. For example, if someone said to run like your head was on fire, they don't really mean for you to torch your head. Thus, although the idea is to THINK "lift your foot"; there IS a resulting muscle contraction that moves you forward, you just don't focus on it.

2) Same as #1 except that the muscle contraction is a reflex reaction, like when the doctor taps your knee with a hammer and the lower leg kicks out. It happens, and you really can't prevent it.

3) Lifting is NOT figurative, mental imagery. All you should do is lift. There is no muscle contraction, voluntary or reflexive, that creates a horizontal force. Horizontal force comes from gravity moving the center of mass forward and down.

PERCEPTION and REALITY are often at odds. I want to make sure which we are talking about.

sjm1368 wrote:

John Richard, I think you misunderstood or misread my post or at least it definately seems that way seeing the section you quoted.

I never said to "think" about pulling the leg through. What I meant is that YOU (as in you pose people) think that an athlete can get the leg to cycle through faster by PULLING. I was saying that IMO this is wrong and that the leg will cycle through autimatically and faster (w/out any thought to pulling) if the push off is correct.

Thanks for the clarification. I got it the first time.

i got injured trying to do pose

JimFiore wrote:

Gatorade, et al:

I see a mention that "pose is about perception and not about physics". Of course, any physical action IS about physics, so I assume you mean this in terms of a thought process. Although Asterix has defined four points, I'd like to focus on just one little thing because I don't want to get caught up in one of those "that's not what I meant" exchanges.

3) Lifting is NOT figurative, mental imagery. All you should do is lift. There is no muscle contraction, voluntary or reflexive, that creates a horizontal force. Horizontal force comes from gravity moving the center of mass forward and down.

PERCEPTION and REALITY are often at odds. I want to make sure which we are talking about.

3) Jim, is the closest. Lifting is conscious and is the focus. All the other stuff happens without conscious effort.

I went back to the Charlie Francis thread to see what studies he was referring to.

The only study mentioned is the Weyand study. This study has to do with foot time and force dictating cadence and not swing time, something like that. I wonder if it is this study Charlie cites when he states “nothing positive can come of any conscious action DURING GROUND CONTACT”. Maybe someone else could clarify. My point is that Dr. Romanov is not the first/only coach to say push-off best not be thought of consciously. I think the reason is humans can’t react quickly enough. Perhaps this would lead one to believe that push-off needs to cognitively start BEFORE landing. Just a thought, I am no coach.

It is also my understanding that Charlie Francis is a fan of the reverse leg press because it teaches the hamstrings to be hip flexors. If you do like Jack at the POSE site states, pull before landing using your hamstrings, you may in fact be extending the before ground contact causing the foot to slam into the ground. Just a thought, but it doesn’t really matter when you are actually running… it’s a little distracting.

--

Brawn wrote:

And to Steve Jutton, I do not think I am smart or fast, I know I am smart and fast

--

Ok, I'll agree with the "fast" part, heh heh heh.

(Steve returns to the lurking shadows)

John R-

You have demonstrated the problem. In spite of indicating item 3, you're actually describing a FIGURATIVE use of the term. You're talking about THINKING of pushing. I'm trying to discern whether or not pose says that pushing ACTUALLY HAPPENS, not whether or not you should actively think about it. You can avoid thinking about something, yet it still happens. That's entirely different than it not happening at all. Why am I being so persnickety about this? Because it makes a difference when you look at the physics of it, and that's where you can determine whether or not a claim is viable.