Training with the POSE method

Jeremy Huffman wrote:

The reason is to have a stable support to fall from, not to have traction to push myself upwards.

Do you realize what you are saying?

Your "stable support" is the result of traction from the spikes on the track, acting in a direction directly behind you (and parallel to the track). This stable platform is what you push against to propel yourself in a forward direction, giving you speed. (I never said anything about pushing upwards with the spikes. You can do that just fine with flats.)

Jeremy Huffman wrote:

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.

Actually, an UNstable platform would be preferred if the point is to fall. Also, you don't really need "traction" (which generally refers to a horizontal component of friction) to "push (your)self upwards". In that case, what you need is a stable platform. Consequently, I deduce that you have this completely backward.

Finally, accusing someone of being "scientifically brainwashed" is kind of like denouncing someone for not believing that Friday the 13th is unlucky or because they have a large vocabulary and know how to spell. That's just plain dumb.

Asterix, I take my earlier comment back. If approached correctly, I can see how this can be rather amusing.

No, it wouldn't JIM. Pay attention, your body is falling forward from the ball of the foot. So I repeat it is IMPORTANT to have a stable support for the foot to pivot from. I understand the problem here, you have never attended a Pose Method clinic. So I will dismiss your ignorance. Please, do yourself a favor and go to a clinic, ask your questions to Dr. Romanov he will be more than happy to clear up the confusion for you. Good day!

Jhuffman wrote:

Pay attention, your body is falling forward from the ball of the foot.

I thought it was being propelled forward and slightly upward.

Jhuffman wrote:

I understand the problem here, you have never attended a Pose Method clinic. So I will dismiss your ignorance. Please, do yourself a favor and go to a clinic, ask your questions to Dr. Romanov he will be more than happy to clear up the confusion for you. Good day!

My my, but we're getting a little testy, aren't we?

Don't talk about ignorance Mr. Huffman unless you're an expert on the subject. Oh wait, I guess you are, at least as far as basic physics goes. As I said before, this method may prove to be effective for some set of runners, but if it is, it isn't because of the reasons stated. In spite of what the web site claims, you cannot gain a continual "forward propulsive force" through the act of falling. This is not a matter of opinion. It's simple mechanics. It makes about as much sense as dunking a basketball by "falling upwards".

In all seriousness, I have never been to a Pose seminar but I have looked at the web site and my reaction to it is that it exhibits all the hallmarks of a money-making cult. That is, we have a singular leader who espouses some belief that is supported with high-sounding jargon, which upon analysis by anyone with even cursory knowledge of the subject can be shown to be self-contradictory drivel. The adherents invariably denounce those who do not buy into the scheme as stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, misguided, etc. because they haven't "found the way", which of course, requires the purchase of a book, DVD, atendance at a "seminar", or some other outlay of hard-earned cash.

Face it buddy, you haven't found running perfection so much as you've found a religion.

They are called "clinics". And if you attend one you can discuss your confusion with Dr. Romanov himself. Which I am certain he has as much or more experience on the subject.

I've got a better idea. Have Dr. Romanov call me or any of my buddies in the mechanical engineering or physics departments at the college, and we'll be glad to discuss HIS "confusion".

Jhuffman wrote:

They are called "clinics". And if you attend one you can discuss your confusion with Dr. Romanov himself. Which I am certain he has as much or more experience on the subject.

He has as much or more experience with "confusion"? I'd be inclined to agree with you since it appears his and your explanations do not jive with 300+ years of extensive Newtonian mechanics study and proof.

Any high school physics student can draw you a force diagram if you haven't picked up a text book yourself.

Will one of the moderators nuke this thread? Thank you.

Jim,

With all due respect to your knowledge of Biomechanics(and your friends). Although, I can't speak for Dr. Romanov I am quite certain that he has a clear understand of biomechanics and does not need your clarifications. I do hope you continue to enjoy your running and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Good day!

Jhuffman wrote:

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Now that's just a cop-out. You've been presented numerous times and in numerous formats clear descriptions for why the explanations you've given don't hold any water.

Instead of countering with logical, factual arguments, you've gone on about 'talk to Dr Romanov...attend a clinic...open your mind'.

People have opened their mind and applied real scientific knowledge to these theories. Why haven't you?

Saying "we will have to agree to disagree" is saying you are unwilling or maybe even unable to open your mind to constructive criticism. I can see why that would offend an engineering professor such as Jim since proper analysis is a fundamental component of a quality education. Why did you not receive that?

Alright, I am sure my view will not make a bunch of difference to anyone but, here it is for what it’s worth. I am not an elite runner, but at least average or slightly above (2:30’s marathoner). I do spend extensive time examining elite runners form, and what makes them so efficient. I am by no means a POSE believer, or disbelieve but I do think I may have some insight to satisfy both the physics scholars, and the POSE folks.

It quite obvious that you can not continually fall forward as you run to generate FREE energy or you would end up on your face. Yes, you can lean forward and accelerate as your CG moves forward but that stops as soon as you bring your foot forward under the CG. At this point you are not falling anymore. If you look closely at videos of elite runners in slow motion you will see that they are actually thrusting their chest forward to a slight degree which gives the appearance of a forward lead that is quickly negated as they plant their foot under the CG. This action is repeated with every stride.

So, in essence they are not falling forward, but are using their body weight to help propel them forward by using what I call a ‘wobble’.

So I believe Jim is right in the sense that the POSE method may help some runners achieve better running form, but the explanation they use as to ‘why’ it works is not correct.

You got me. It's all a crock. Thank you for your time and especially your money. I'll be returning to Pluto on the next available flight. Do not try to follow me...

I have been reading this thread trying to understand both sides and I have a question for Jim Fiore or Asterix. A lot of what you two say seems solid (and, honestly, so does some of the other side) but I was wondering how it is possible for people to run on a treadmill if they run the way you say they do. It seems like during the support phase your foot is mving backwards and if you pushed back, your leg would kick out way way back. It seems like you would have to pull more with your quad or knee or hamstring or whatever. Does that make sense?

treadmillguy wrote:

Does that make sense?

Short answer, no. I don't want to create yet another treadmill thread, but your leg isn't moving backward on a TM anymore than it does over ground. All that has changed in your scenario is the way you are referencing the motion. As humans, we tend to reference everything to the Earth, thus, when you're running down the street it is obvious that your leg is not "moving backward". On a TM, the same standard for reference would be the belt, not the TM's frame or the floor. Referencing the runner's foot to the floor would be like riding next to a runner on a bike and referencing their foot to you instead of the Earth. In that context, the foot also appears to be going backward.

This assumes that you have a reasonable quality TM with no slippage.

JimFiore wrote:

but your leg isn't moving backward on a TM anymore than it does over ground

for all the intelligent things you have said, that comment might be the dumbest. So the belt of a treadmill isn't moving backwards? So if my foot comes into contact with the belt, it isn't moving backwards. I am seriously doubting that you have any background physics now.

Read his post again. He said the foot is not moving backward RELATIVE TO THE BELT.

no, he said "your leg isn't moving backward on a TM anymore than it does over ground." That is simply not true. On regular ground, you use move your body over stationary ground using force (it is being debated on this thread on how that force is generated). On a treadmill, the ground is moving underneath you and you are maintaining the same position by NOT going backwards. If your support foot stays on the treadmill belt, you will move backwards and find yourself further back on the treadmill.

i don't really know a whole lot about this POSE method, so i'm not going to try and say whether or not it's legitimate or not.

what i do want to say, is that last semester i did a research paper on Scientology, and from just reading over the POSE website, it reminded me a lot of many of the pro-scientology websites i went to.

that's all.