Pose = crazy???

Hi ST, nice to hear from you again.

Romanov's writing is not that clear, which leads to the possibility of different interpretations. With your foreknowledge and capacity for rational thought, you are able to read and interpret what he writes in a way that actually makes sense. But, for someone reading without any foreknowledge of physics etc, i don't think that your 'correct' interpretations are the most obvious.

On first contact with core POSE material, it does appear that it is some special new technique (not just a method of teaching an existing 'good technique') that is 'powered' by gravity. True, in some articles he does talk about the push off - but these few articles are like small sidenotes - that many people probably never read or incorporate into their understanding.

Whether or not your interpretation is what Romanov is trying to communicate, the overwhelming result of POSE, IMO, is a proliferation of MISUNDERSTANDING. This, i think, is the real issue for us 'anti-POSERs'.

Hi Alex, thanks, I wish I had more time for this leisure it has been fun and informative.

I think you have put your finger on the real point. Romanov's initial description and statements are somewhat abstract and maybe even misleading. This turns some people off before they get an opportunity to understand what he is really trying to say. The 'sidenote' articles clarify his ideas and make them consistent with accepted mechanics but, they were probably written later because clarification was necessary.

Learning about pose I would liken to studying philosophy. You have to remain objective, 'suspend your disbelief', and give the concepts time to become clear. Then when you understand what the philosopher is trying to say you can perform a knowledgeable and unbiased analysis.

The same with Romanov's opening article. If you don't get past the first couple paragraphs without thinking he is saying something fundamentally wrong you are not likely to get to the real points.

I spent three weeks digging thru it and following this thread before I began to comprehend. But, I have a mantra I use for these types of studies that helps me to remain objective. I got it from a philosophy lecture 30+ years ago, "Everything you know is wrong it is just a question of degree".

Sir lance-lot,

Again, you just like Jim/Asterix/JY, though very inteligent people, you are all very confused as to what the Pose Method Technique represents to human movement. ST, has made a very good assessment of where this thread has gone and what must take place for it to be productive. Unless you guy's remove your bias towards learning something new, you will never understand the essence of efficient movement. Good day!

So your answer to the two possible conclusions I state above would be number 1, that Gatorage and JHuffman do NOT understand what POSE is saying and are doing a disservice to it by continuing to spread false and misleading information?

It's either that or the POSE explanation is fantasy. Follow the progression. Clear, straightforward questions were asked and answered, providing an unambiguous, non-misquoted explanation of what POSE says from a three year POSE follower and a certified POSE coach. What they stated (before Gatorade's furious backpedalling and new definition of recoil) is simply physically impossible. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

It's also interesting that you say to use strictly what was written by Romanov on the site since you also say:

So, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying not to listen to certified expert coaches like JHuffman, since they are likely to be misquoting and misunderstanding POSE. You are also saying don't take everything that Romanov says on the site at face value since he likely isn't describing POSE very well.

So who can be taken as an authority on POSE if not the inventor and those he has certified as experts? What is POSE if not that described by the creator and the followers he's trained himself?

Jhuffman wrote:

Again, you just like Jim/Asterix/JY, though very inteligent people, you are all very confused as to what the Pose Method Technique represents to human movement. ST, has made a very good assessment of where this thread has gone and what must take place for it to be productive. Unless you guy's remove your bias towards learning something new, you will never understand the essence of efficient movement. Good day!

So you are saying that Gatorade has misinterpreted or misrepresented POSE when he said that there was no conscious additional push-off and that:

"The energy absorbed upon landing is used:

1. To regain the lost height.

2. Adds to propelling the body forward, the prime mover being gravity. That is - it aids to transform the downward action of gravity to horizontal." ?

I'm pretty sure you said the exact same things earlier as well. Are these points correct or incorrect?

ST

I have enjoyed your posts and I would agree with quite a lot of what you write, but there a few points I have to make in response.

I can see your point of view, but the problem is, that in the two years I spent trying to learn Pose it soon became very obvious that this “misunderstanding” of pose was shared not just by anti-posers but by almost all of the Pose practitioners that I met. I can assure you that the belief in free energy was quite widespread. As a further, more specific example of misunderstanding, during he first clinic I attended, Dr R was very fond of describing Michael Johnson’s technique as “perfect”. Of course he didn’t actually say that he was running in a Pose style, but soon it became quite common to hear Pose supporters saying exactly that. I saw this kind of thing repeated many times.

I think that we are all agreed that Dr Romanov’s English can be almost impenetrable, and this could just be the fact that English is not his first language, but I think it is more than that. I’m not going to be kind to Dr Romanov now. I believe at times that his style is quite pretentious, using unnecessary “scientific” terms and long meandering descriptions to lend gravitas to his statements, when a simple straightforward explanation would have sufficed. To go one step further, and perhaps be even more unkind one feels that these vague, imprecise statements are often there to cover the lack of substance behind them.

Whilst I was trying to learn Pose I too, toyed with the idea that I was being told something that was not perfectly correct in order to reach a greater understanding. That is not a teaching method that I’m happy with, and I’m not absolutely sure that it applies here. You can only “suspend disbelief” for so long!

If everyone was able to read between the lines in the way that you can there might not be a dispute, but teaching the fundamentals of good running technique isn’t rocket science. It shouldn’t be this complicated. I rather like the notion of learning Pose being like philosophy as a concept, but really, if learning Pose is like understanding Kant or Wittgenstein, very few of us are going to get it.

Perception. Yes, Dr R loves that word, but the problem is that it takes us into some very subjective areas. Even if we suspend our disbelief in some of the more outlandish claims we still have the problem that people do not always perceive things in the same way when learning a physical skill. Sometimes one coach works really well for one runner but not for another. We see this all the time. Unfortunately, Pose is too didactic and inflexible to take this into account. It’s just a neat packaged little product, ready to sell to the customer.

Eventually I did take a sort of pick and mix approach and just take the aspects of Pose that I agreed with, but none of these are unique to Pose. In rejecting the idea of gravity as a driving force I would have to say that I have abandoned Pose. I have since then experimented quite a lot with my running technique. I would love to run in the way that Geb etc, run with a full extension of the hips, as this is close to what I believe to be “the correct way to run” but as I am in my late fifties now I think it’s a bit too much to ask! What I have now is a sort of hybrid style with a bit more emphasis on pushing than in true Pose style, but as they say, it works for me.

With all due respect, you are playing games with words, and that is becoming downright silly. Words have precise meanings, and thus if one is using these words incorrectly, they are simply wrong, plain and simple, NOT "misunderstood" or "misintrepreted." I am taking the exact opening words from Romanov's POSE site(not some obscure journal entry he wrote 20 years ago). If he meant something different, he's had plenty of time to correct it. Clearly he doesn't want to correct it.

No kidding. Did I say claim that Dr Pose said gravity was the ONLY force for movement in running "pose" ?? NO. Dr Pose said gravity is the PRIMARY force for movement when running pose.

No, you're wrong. It (Romanov's words) means that "gravity is the PRIMARY force" moving one when you using "pose". You can understand that, right?

"ONLY" , "PRIMARY", and "SIGNIFICANT" are words with different meanings. Romanov used the word PRIMARY. This is an utter absurdity, and until he distances himself from that, he should be chastised, and NOT defended as you are doing.

I never said that Romanov was wrong about EVERYthing he wrote about running and his "pose" style, just MANY things, and many important things. Again, see the difference?

And other times teachers say things that are just flat-out wrong, and this calls into question the validity of their teachings especially when the incorrect statements they've made are the cornerstones of their teachings. If the accidentally misspoke, they can correct themselves. If they do not correct themselves, then one is likely to doubt their teachings, as I and many other doubt much of what Romanov says.

And as far as purposely "stating things that are not perfectly correct to help the student achieve an understanding", is Romanov teaching in Zen Koans or something? I thought he was a scientist! If he is a Zen monk trying to teach running enlightenment by deconstructing/dissolving my ego and rational mind with his purposely irrational statements, well then, I will need a few years in a monastery before I consider his lessons!

I have already done so. Some of his comments have been useful in getting me to think about running style/biomechanics in general. But such a small contribution as that is nothing worth shelling out $ for and does not outweigh his negative contributions towards understanding running biomechanics. And YOU , on the other hand, should be willing to criticize the BAD (incorrect statements) that he says, instead of wasting time bending over backwards to find ways to defend his indefensible statements. Right? You are wasting more time than we "bashers". We are at least trying set the record straight on what is truly possible when running.

Romanov apparently wrote:

"The Pose Method is a system for teaching of human movement........in running, this is achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy. "

If someone says that gravity is the primary force in running, I take it that that's precisely what he means. The two key words here are "primary" and "force". Primary is that which is most important or influential. Force, in the context of running, is that which propels you forward. This is blatantly, measurably false. While it is true that gravity plays a major role in being able to run (after all, without gravity you're just going to fly off into space), that does not mean that it's the major force. In fact, we have determined that of the energy absorbed by landing, some is wasted and some is transferred back to a vertical displacement (helping the runner to achieve the initial height). This is like borrowing money from a bank. They hand you $1000. You use it, and then give it back to them with interest (that's the recoil and the interest represents the losses). You can't use this idea in place of a job. You get, but you have to give back (with interest), so there's no net gain. This is why you don't want a lot of vertical displacement. It's like borrowing less from the bank, and thus the interest (or mechanical losses, in our case) are reduced.

Now, if someone wants to argue that gravity plays a major role in running that's one thing, but the man apparently said force. Maybe others want to stick words in his mouth, but I'll go by what he, in fact, said, and what he said is, in fact, wrong.

Sir Lance-alot:

I wish that were the case but, it is not. Words do not have precise meanings. They have varied definitions and usages. The meaning is supposed to be related to the context of the usage. The same word often means different things to different people. The art of communication and in teaching is learning what an individual means when he uses certain words. That is why a good dictionary has more then one definition. How often have you watched two people argue and realized they were saying the same thing they just did not understand what each other meant when they used certain words. I am not playing games with words. I have learned in life from working with people in many different cultures that understanding another is not about the persons words but the thoughts the person is trying to convey. With all of that said, I think we probably agree that Romanov could and maybe should have explained his concepts differently. Lastly, I kindly asked Asterix, Jim, Jeremy, etal to continue this so I could learn some things. I am not bending over backwards to defend anything. I am trying to filter through to learn about this concept and I am not interested in nit-picking over someone's inability to communicate well.

Asterix:

I really can't comment about pose and the worthiness of a Tom Cruise movie because I find them both entertaining...LOL I can say that as I sort through Jeremy's and Gatorades more recent posts I find that they do say the body is not a lossless system and you have to put energy back in to the system (even though you constantly say they don't). I thought it was agreed long ago (Jim correct me if I missed something) that whether the input is due to voluntary, involuntary, relfexive, etc. it does not matter. The result is still the same, you put energy in.

Are they doing pose a disservice? Are they spreading misinformation? That depends on the listener. To me, no they are not. To you, I think you will say, yes they are. And, that is not a problem, we can disagree on this. I and many others like me, am the type of person that responds to their intent. You are not, you and many like you, want it precise and correct within the framework of your understanding. And, I cannot deny that.

TerryH:

Your point is well taken. And so that I am clear as to my meanings. When I said 'suspension of disbelief' I was referring to the way he discusses gravity. Before, I took issue with it I wanted to understand what he was trying to communicate. As to your statement about a hybrid style, I am in agreement with you. I don't think my current body mechanics are going to allow me to achieve it. But, a style with features of pose, yes I can do that.

Jim:

Quit nit-picking the man's communication skills. I told you. I have read your other posts and that is not your style. The folks here have respect for you, when you do this the discussion goes off into another 'he said, she said, you can't speak English' thread, and then I have to read through 3 more pages of posts...LOL

To All;

If any of the posters that have been participating in this recent dialogue think that you do 'NOT' have to put 'MUSCULAR ENERGY BACK INTO THE SYSTEM' then say it now for all to see so there is no longer any equivocaton on the matter.

I don't think I'm nit-picking. He said what he said. It's direct and clear, and I'm dealing directly with content, not grammar or form. Further, the content is at the very crux of the matter. It is not a frivolous aside.As far as your comment to Asterix about others NOT saying that the body is a lossless system, I think you're being disingenuous. Although they never used those specific words, saying that the energy stored upon landing is sufficient to regain lost height is indeed a description of a lossless system. Here are Mr. Gatorade's own words, with his own caps:

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT MUSCLE RECOIL ( STORED ENERGY) IS NOT ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE IT? Do you have any tables, diagrams or something that shows relation ( let's say) between leg muscles diameter, diameter of ground contact and weight load on the foot - something that would illustrate to what height the CM can be brought back solely due to recoil? Having such kind of data would help you to prove that recoil is not enough. Other than that I see the "recoil is not enough" as a speculation.

I think that post establishes clearly what his position is regarding energy input/output. It also establishes that he has a very weak background in basic physics.

As Jim has just referenced above, Gatorade was quite clear in what he said. Further:

Gatorade wrote:

So to sum it up:

1.Gravity pulls you forward when you get unbalanced on the balls of your feet.

2. Recoil brings you back. [/quote]

Misinformation? You tell me. You say POSE endorses adding further energy to the system by pushing off.

Gatorade (and JHuffman in his earlier posts - cites can be provided upon request) is very clear that is NOT what he is saying.

Who is correct about POSE, you or Gatorade?

If he is incorrect about POSE, then why have you and JHuffman not clearly identified where he went off course pages and pages ago so that people reading here about POSE wouldn't be confused as to what it really means?

What is their intent? He is very clearly saying POSE is one thing (and this is supported by anecdotal evidence, certified coach JHuffman and the POSE site itself) while you are saying POSE is something else.

Is there intent not to spread the gospel of POSE?

Would my intent at educating school kids be enough to overlook the fact that I am teaching the Creationism instead of evolution? You seem to say their misbeliefs can be forgiven since their intent is good.

Asterix - Jim:

I follow what you are saying, I don't agree in total but, I want to get one point resolved.

So there would be no more confusion, 'he said, she said', inference, misinterpretation, etc. on either side. I asked for anybody that beleives "you do 'NOT' have to put 'MUSCULAR ENERGY BACK INTO THE SYSTEM'" to say it.

I did not ask either of you to say somebody said it earlier, etc.

So far no one has responded to my question saying you do not... Be patient a little longer and if no one says it then there is no more argument on the point. Call it a change in position, a misinterpretation or whatever. Allow this to happen and be happy that everyone agreed to the same conclusion.

I don't want to believe that any of you are just trolling for a fight. I think you have put in the effort because you are genuinely interested, and I appreciate that. But, I have read where both Gatorade and Huffman said you have to put energy back in and so I don't expect anyone to respond to my quesiton.

"You had plenty of opportunity to clarify that you were only speaking metaphorically and that not pushing (or consciously adding energy to the system) was only 'perception' and not reality. Yet you (and JHuffman) consistently failed to do so."

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

Are reading-glasses that expensive over where you live?

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

"You are attempting to create a whole new definition since your previous explanation was shown to be fantasy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=recoil&x=0&y=0

"to spring or fly back, as in consequence of force of impact"

Ever heard of Sir Isaac Newton? Does the law 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' ring a bell to you?"

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

According to your reasoning recoil of a foot of a live human and a corpse should be the same? And if it's not the same - will you bother to tell me why?

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

"Patellar reflex takes kinetic energy from the hammer, delivered to the tendon on impact, and stores it up as elastic potential energy. It then releases this energy back to the kinetic energy of the lower leg snapping up. This is the definition of muscular recoil. No more energy is added to the system than that from the hammer and the kinetic energy of the snapping leg is less than delivered from the hammer (since the body is not a lossless system)"

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

This is the dumbest thing you ever wrote. Why then doctors examine those reflexes with their hammers? Those reflexes then should be the same in every person, even the one with neurocomplicated fracture of the spine - and in a corpse as well? Alex S has tried to explain to me (LOL) how a reflex works - and although his explanation is an over-simplification, read his post below - I hope it will suite your level of understanding .

"You had plenty of opportunity to clarify that you were only speaking metaphorically and that not pushing (or consciously adding energy to the system) was only 'perception' and not reality. Yet you (and JHuffman) consistently failed to do so."

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

Are reading-glasses that expensive over where you live?

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

"You are attempting to create a whole new definition since your previous explanation was shown to be fantasy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=recoil&x=0&y=0

"to spring or fly back, as in consequence of force of impact"

Ever heard of Sir Isaac Newton? Does the law 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' ring a bell to you?"

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

According to your reasoning recoil of a foot of a live human and a corpse should be the same? And if it's not the same - will you bother to tell me why?

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

"Patellar reflex takes kinetic energy from the hammer, delivered to the tendon on impact, and stores it up as elastic potential energy. It then releases this energy back to the kinetic energy of the lower leg snapping up. This is the definition of muscular recoil. No more energy is added to the system than that from the hammer and the kinetic energy of the snapping leg is less than delivered from the hammer (since the body is not a lossless system)"

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

This is the dumbest thing you ever wrote. Why then doctors examine those reflexes with their hammers? Those reflexes then should be the same in every person, even the one with neurocomplicated fracture of the spine - and in a corpse as well? Alex S has tried to explain to me (LOL) how a reflex works - and although his explanation is an over-simplification, read his post below - I hope it will suite your level of understanding .

No one has responded and said "you do 'NOT' have to put 'MUSCULAR ENERGY BACK INTO THE SYSTEM'"

The point stands. All of us participating herein agree that energy must be put back into the system.

I would appreciate it if there was no more 'he said, she said' statements about this fact.

Gatorade wrote:

Alex S has tried to explain to me (LOL) how a reflex works - and although his explanation is an over-simplification, read his post below - I hope it will suite your level of understanding .

Simplifaction, yes, over-simplification? I disagree.

My first intention was to clarify to Asterix the nature of the stretch reflex to try to keep the discussion on track.

My latter points regarding longer loop reflex and descending inputs were to show that things were not just as simple as a mono-synaptic stretch reflex and, contrary to your assertion, we do have a degree of control over our reflexes.

Did i simplify to a point that misrepresented what actually occurs, or was it appropriate to the discussion?

I am a PhD student in motor control - please don't think i am a layman out of his depth regarding control of human movement.

"Did i simplify to a point that misrepresented what actually occurs, or was it appropriate to the discussion?

I am a PhD student in motor control - please don't think i am a layman out of his depth regarding control of human movement."

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

No, your explanation is quite appropriate ( and enough to let Asterix know that he is talking about things that he has no clue - but I see it constantly from his posts about Pose), and it's not neccessary to go into details of neurology. I think the basics is enough.

About controlling reflexes - agreed, you can to some extent control some of them. But when your foot lands, you can't prevent muscles from reflectively contracting, maybe you can make them contract with less force (e.g., "soft landing" vs "hard landing", but again this is the matter of perception ). And this contraction generates force that acts together with passive elasticity of tissues. My point is that they both can't go without one another, that's why they are labelled as "recoil". Maybe it's a bad term since it makes so much confusion - you are free to offer another term to define a sum of passive tissue elasticity and reflex muscle contraction. It appears that the word "recoil" in mechanics and in biology have different contents.

Did you or did you not write all those previous quotes I cited from you?

Different Young's modulus? Would you expect better bounce from a tennis ball fresh from the factory tube or one that has been left on the court over the winter?

If that's the dumbest thing I ever wrote, then I'm doing pretty good.

Yes, as Alex S pointed out, I missed the boat on that one. I admit it, I was WRONG on explaining the patellar reflex. Someone showed my mistake and I've accepted that.

Is the recoil of the muscles due to landing still enough to propel the body back to its original height and provide some forward momentum?

A cite to the definition of "recoil" that applies it to the Newtonian world of mechanics was provided. Other than your assertions, can you provide a cite that refers to YOUR biological definition of "recoil"?

Maybe you missed it, but there were responses above from both JimFiore and myself quoting Gatorade where he explicitly answered your question before you asked it. Just because you don't want any "he said, she said" doesn't change what he wrote.

Does he or does he not say NOT to put energy back into the system?

Gatorade,

Just make it absolutely clear to those of us without a scientific background, are you claiming that this “recoil” that you describe is sufficient to regain the height lost in falling and propel the body forward?

Is this the “free energy” you referred to in an earlier post? That is, that this recoil does not cost the body anything in terms of effort.

That's a yes or no answer I believe, to both questions.