Pose = crazy???

JHuffman was a very fast runner. Emphasis on WAS. Since he found POSE, he hasn't posted any impressive times. I'm not even sure if he races anymore. And I also doubt his ability as a coach seeing as how his D3 cross country team is only a few ticks below awful.

It's a direct cause of your foot being in contact with the ground for a finite period of time. While your foot is on the ground, you can only move a determined distance forward, hence your speed is set.v = d / tWe must either increase our range of motion or decrease our time on the ground, to increase our speed.

Yes, it is true that muscles can produce less force at higher speeds ... yet at the speed of normal running, it is not yet the limiting factor.

I can think of an interesting eperiment involving this topic.

Pose figure,

I bet I am still faster than you! Emphasis on STILL FASTER.

"This is what confuses me about pose. These people, ok maybe its just 2 or 3 of them, are vehemently denying any criticism of pose and doing all that they can to make it look good. Why don't they just say, hey you know what, pose works for me, it works for some friends/teammates of mine, and if you don't think it works, f*** off."

An interesting turn - from "demolishing" Pose from physical standpoint to dissecting motives why posers defend their beliefs. Your question can be turned in the opposite direction: since all "anti-posers" consider themselves "mainstream" - why do they bother to argue with a handful of idiots that proclaim their flawed beliefs - and do this already for 26 pages? Apparently they are not Renato Canova caliber, LOL, so the value of their arguments is corresponding.

I can't speak for other posers, but all I can say that there was a thread on

www.posetech.com

about this thread, and it attracted almost nobody's attention - that is, the attitude of the "Pose mainstream" was like you said: "It works for me, so f...k off". So the argument of making a buck from proclaiming Pose is ridiculous. ( By the way, who told you that making a buck is a bad thing?)

I can speak only for my own motives to participate in this disscussion. Partly they are the same as JHuffman's - maybe someone who doesn't even post on this thread will read and understand, other than that I do it for fun. I don't have a slightest intention to turn Asterix et al into posers - it would be like peeing against the wind.

Contrary to JHuffman I'm not a coach and all I have to do with running is run myself.

A" RATIONAL person, who developed a sound, successful training program would have taken the approach I suggested in my post under the name posenaked. However, you can see by Gatorade and Jhuffs reponses here, that they are clearly not rational people."

Yes, I must agree, if being rational means doing only the things that will give your certain benefit. Following this train of thought gathering aid for starving African children is a waste of time. I have a friend who is an alpinist, he has lost half of his fingers in one of his climbings, and once alomost froze to death - and I see rational people sitting on the couch with a beer and a bowl of potato chips and wondering: what the hell is he looking for in those mountains?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"JimFiore wrote:

Just to be clear, are you saying that all of the vertical displacement comes from the energy stored in the muscles/tendons from the prior landing?

Jhuffman wrote:

Yes, it is also a part of the horizontal movement."

If, by "vertical displacement" you mean regaining the lost height, my answer is - ideally, yes.

"JimFiore wrote:

Further, is any of this stored energy also used as part of the horizontal movement, or does it just go into the vertical?-------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhuffman wrote:

Yes, the muscle/tendon elasticity is all that is needed to bring the CM to the optimal position."

Trying to answer your question like you put it - yes, it is used as a part of horizontal movement ( the thing you call " involuntary push-off", holding on to the idea that some kind of a push-off is neccessary), and of course it goes into vertical copmponent to regain the lost height.

Now, after being cross-examined, I have a question for the whole anti - Pose camp:

Do you believe that ( presuming that push-off is the driving force in running) gravity contributes to pulling a runner forward? Please - yes or no.

I'm sorry but you POSEers just come off as strange,defensive and cultish.

As said, doing something for fun is never rational.

"As far as not seing a soul or reason while looking at a brain through a microscope is concerned, all you've managed to describe is a researcher who is using an inappropriate tool for the job at hand. Just because I can't measure coronary problems with a bathroom scale doesn't mean that you don't have clogged arteries or a messed up valve, what it means is that I should put the scale aside in favor of an echo-cardiogram."

What instrument in your opinion would be appropriate to discover reason or soul? I don't believe that measuring dopamine, serotonine or endorphine levels will contribute to such discovery.

I don't want to get off-track here, but "reason" is a concept. Who says that it must exist as a specific structure or area of the brain? It's kind of like saying that there must be an area of "green" in the brain because you can see the color green. No. The neural network that is you responds to an external stimuli. That response in this case is what we call "green". Further, "soul" is a metaphysical concept and no one has ever proven the existence of one or what it might entail on a physical level, so even hoping to measure it with a tool is rather pointless because you haven't defined what it is you're measuring.

In any case, do you agree with Jhuffman's answers to my queries? It appears that you do but you seem to be hedging your bets a bit. Would you like to expand?

In answer to your question, YES, it appears that gravity plays a role in running, and on several levels. To be more specific, does it play a role in forward motion? YES, and I have stated as much in prior posts. The question is not DOES it, but HOW and to what extent? I think EVERYONE here is in agreement that the landing shock (caused by gravity) is stored in the muscles/tendons and then released on the subsequent stride. That is a use of gravity (basically, a translation of potential energy to kinetic energy and back). That is entirely different from saying that one can "fall forward" by simply lifting the leg, over and over and over. It's like two people agreeing that gasoline can move a car: one says it is done through an internal combustion engine and the other stating that the gasoline molecules push against the Earth's magnetic field to create a force. They both agree that gas can make a car move, but the second explanation doesn't make physical sense.

But again, do you agree with Jhuffman's straight-forward answers to my concise questions?

I am quite sure that his 'vertical displacement' does refer to the lost height.

When you say "ideally", are you talking of a theoretically perfect world (inhabited by the frictionless surfaces and massless pulleys of introductory physics courses) or by someone who is running 'perfect' POSE?

So let me see if I've now understood this fully and properly (forgive the slowness of this process): the energy absorbed upon landing by the muscles, tendons, etc, is enough to not only regain the lost height but also provide a forward component without the addition of ANY further energy into the system?

Basically: no.

Stand a pencil on its end. Its CM is directly over its support on the table.

Tip it so that it starts falling (ensuring enough force is applied to the support to keep it stationary). Allow it to fall flat.

Assuming constant density, the CM is now half the pencil length away from the tip previously supporting the weight. This does represent a horizontal displacement of the CM.

However, the pencil is now flat on the table and in no position to do any more falling.

If we want to do more, we have to grab the pencil and apply a force through its CM to raise that CM back to its starting height (as well as drag the support tip back under the CM so that we've now got a vertical pencil supported at a point half its length away from its starting point).

We're now ready to repeat the falling process.

But, if we were to look at the forces that acted upon the system, we see that after the gravity induced rotation, we need to add a whole big whack of a force to lift the pencil back up.

If the pencil were following perfect POSE, when it landed on the ground, it would store the impact energy and rebound straight up, restoring the CM to the starting height and dragging the support tip to get back underneath it.

Even with a perfect super-ball type pencil, I can not envision how that process would work without having to constantly push the support to get back under the CM.

Gatorade wrote:

Trying to answer your question like you put it - yes, it is used as a part of horizontal movement ( the thing you call " involuntary push-off", holding on to the idea that some kind of a push-off is neccessary), and of course it goes into vertical copmponent to regain the lost height.

Let me be clear that these questions have nothing to do with "involuntary push-off" (or even voluntary push-off for that matter). All I'm asking is whether or not the energy stored by the landing and then released is sufficient to regain the former height and if it also contributes to forward motion. You can declare that there is no push-off whatsoever.

All I'm trying to ascertain is where the energy is coming from because we need to do two things: get the body back to where it was vertically, and translate it horizontally. I have stated that at least some of that energy comes from a push-off muscle contraction (a vector which contributes to both vertical and horizontal). Further, some of it comes from the release of energy stored on the prior landing. You have stated that a push-off is not necessary. Therefore, you either believe that the stored energy is sufficient by itself (which is what Jhuffman has said), or you believe that there is another component to this. Is it the former or the later?

After reading Asterix's post I realized that either him or I may have misinterpretted the "does gravity contribute" question. Do you mean that it's part of the process or that it adds net energy to the system? I answered the former while Asterix has answered the later.

Without a doubt, gravity is involved in the running process (in this regard, it "contributes" to it), but it does not add energy to the system for the purpose of forward motion in aggragate. To be more specific, we are saying that whatever it adds on one stride is taken away later. If I hand you a dollar and then take it away, even if we do it 1000 times, you have gained nothing. We can say that money has changed hands but you have not gotten richer.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused, but this only points up my efforts to be very specific about terminology. A simple word like "contribute" and you get what appears to be two different answers.

JimFiore wrote:

After reading Asterix's post I realized that either him or I may have misinterpretted the "does gravity contribute" question. Do you mean that it's part of the process or that it adds net energy to the system? I answered the former while Asterix has answered the later.

To save Gatorade et al. from trying to address multiple responses, I think we are pretty much taking it the same way (and so I'm good if you just respond to JimFiore's questions and not mine since they appear to be going to the same place).

In the pencil analogy, gravity is part of the process (pencil falling over). I think JimFiore's description also seeks to determine whether gravity is enough to continually drive the system once it is in motion. So we're basically saying the same thing.

sfu'ed wrote:

It's a direct cause of your foot being in contact with the ground for a finite period of time. While your foot is on the ground, you can only move a determined distance forward, hence your speed is set.

v = d / t

We must either increase our range of motion or decrease our time on the ground, to increase our speed.

Aah, i misunderstood what you were saying first time - when you said "for that time" i didn't take it as a fixed time - i get it now.

Not particular addressing anything you've said now, just making some further comments:

IMO, decreasing the contact time should occur as a result of moving through the range of motion more quickly. Instructing runners simply to decrease their contact time can often lead to them decreasing the range of motion they go through during the contact phase - they do less work per stride and so have to increase cadence to compensate (to do same total work per unit time). They decrease contact time in a way that is ineffective in terms of increasing their speed (IMO). I think this type of gait is what would result for many runners if they followed POSE - an under-emphasis of the drive compared to what most elites do (and what i think is optimal).

sfu'ed wrote:

Yes, it is true that muscles can produce less force at higher speeds ... yet at the speed of normal running, it is not yet the limiting factor.

I have to disagree here. I think it has a profound effect on human running speeds. So when a sprinter hits his top speed of ~10 m/s, why can't he apply the sufficient force to accelerate further??

I think it would certainly be a factor at submaximal paces too.

Gatorade wrote: Following this train of thought gathering aid for starving African children is a waste of time.

Umm, no. You would have had to get off my train of thought, taken another train about 1000 miles the opposite direction, then change trains again for an even longer train continuing in the same direction.

I don't think making a buck is a bad thing, but I think making a buck off uninformed idiots for a training program that really isn't fundamentally sound and quite misleading is dishonest. Also, I am not the only poster to note your cultish ways. While people doing incredibly high mileage often think they're training is better than high intensity, nobody ever accuses them of being a cult, yet you posers are frequently labeled so. Is this just a mass coincidence, or is there some truth to that?

I will now refer to the best show on tv, South Park, to further illustrate my point. In this show, they have an episode called The Biggest Douche in the Universe, and they claim Jonathan Edwards to be this douche (not Edwards the politician, Edwards the guy who "communicates" with the dead). Edwards is the biggest douche because he gives unenlightened people false hope, while getting rich via taking their money. Edwards and those who believe in his abilities defend him about as vehemently as you all defend Romanov and pose. The children of South Park realize that Edwards is doing something that anyone can do (I believe they call it cold reading or something). Anyway, Gatorade, I am so much better at life than you and huffman, and you both are welcome to eat out my asshole.

Apparently, this is the webmaster for the posetech.com site and Dr. Romanov's daughter.

I think I'm in love.