Pose = crazy???

Gatorade:

The whole 'Net Gain', 'You don't have to put energy back in', was something dreamed up by the opponents to pose that simply refuse to read what Romanov, you and others have said without twisting it and inferring things that are not said nor were they intended. Romanov says on his site you have to put energy back into the system but, the non-posers were not willing to read that far.

I read your explanation of recoil the first time, understood what you meant, and appreciated it. It was obvious to me that you said energy had to be put back in, it was there in black and white on my screen. You were addressing voluntary and involuntary actions at the time and that confused the less skilled critical readers. To continue arguing about your use of the word recoil after you defined what you meant by it says a lot about the people that were complaining and nothing about you.

As I alluded to earlier, the opponents to pose are only interested in nitpicking about their inference with regards to gravity. They are not interested in the real concept Romanov is presenting which is efficient interaction with all forces involved in running (gravity included).

I applaud you for trying to bring some sensibility to their negativism.

That may be YOUR definition, but it is not a uninversal definition. Effort, is effort, which is "exertion of power," or "the amount of exertion expended for a specific purpose" , or "the force of energy that is applied to a machine for the accomplishment of useful work." NOTHING is said about perception at all. And when I am running fast, I am thinking "run!", not contract this muscle at this exact moment, relax this muscle at that exact moment, now contract this muscle at this moment. The ENTIRE EFFORT of running could be considered somewhat "unconscious". So just because one is not thinking 100% consciously "contract quadriceps concentrically NOW!" in order to push off and up after ground contact, they are indeed sending a "conscious" message to their muscles to do so. It's NOT like the truly unconscious beating of one's heart. Those are different pathways of the nervous system. So call it "unconscious" as much as you want, it really isn't.

Well if pose had really just said that (what you wrote above), it wouldn't have been so hard to accept, but pose ALSO said that gravity is the PRIMARY force that moves one when one is running pose, and in other places has suggested that one ONLY needs to use their hamstrings to move them forward, and that no other muscle contractions are really important, and those concepts are just plain absurd.

So defend POSE all you want (clearly you will until your least breath), but the attackers have had absolutely valid critcisms of romanov's explanations for why pose is different than "normal running" and how it is special/how it works. He made it sound way more magical than it really is, and he did so IN ORDER to sell product. And clearly, his plan has worked!!!

Since no one has answered it before, can you provide a cite that provides a definition of recoil that matches what Gatorade arbitrarily defined it as?

I my own perception, I'm defining climbing a set of stairs as 'falling up' them since I'm perpetually off-balance when doing so. Therefore I am completely correct when I say that one can 'fall up stairs'.

Can you tell me how you made that 'obvious' conclusion based on:

Gatorade wrote:

The English to English version: the recoil energy brings us to the running pose for the next falling, and on the next falling you again have a portion of "free" energy from gravitational pull. I see it like this: recoil produces energy, when you are in running pose you have lost it, but with the next fall ( which is free) you gain it again, to be used again to get into running pose.

Gatorade wrote:

I can say it, because "no pushing" means NOT PERFORMING PUSHIMG ACTION.

Gatorade wrote:

No, we needn't to push-off.

Gatorade wrote:

Pose says that is teaches to harness free energy.

And as has been amply demonstrated, Gatorade himself still presents a confused picture of what he means by voluntary and involuntary actions. You aren't seriously trying to deny that, are you?

"Nitpicking"? We're are talking about THE most fundamental concept in the whole POSE explanation!

It says right there in black and white on the POSE site: Let gravity do the work.

What possible inference can you possibly get from this statement other than gravity providing a NET benefit?

Why is it not possible for the POSE site to simply state:

1. Land on your forefoot.

2. Land under your center of mass.

3. Quickly pickup (pull) your feet off the ground.

4. Keep short strides with minimal vertical ossicilation.

Why mention gravity at all since it only leads many (or most if you go by terryh's anecdotal evidence of POSE followers) people to believe it is a source of free energy? (Also note Gatorade himself professing that belief, quoted above.)

Can you not admit that despite your conclusions of his writing, that Gatorade has also written completely contradictory statements? Or are those quotes not evident in black and white (or black and yellow) on your screen?

ST wrote:

You were addressing voluntary and involuntary actions at the time and that confused the less skilled critical readers. To continue arguing about your use of the word recoil after you defined what you meant by it says a lot about the people that were complaining and nothing about you.

Are you referring to the "less skilled critical readers" who pointed out a bunch of physical impossibilities such as Mr. Gatorade clearly stating that recoil was sufficient on its own to regain former height? Gee, how dumb of me to assume that he meant that energy needed to be added when he explicitly said it did not. Or perhaps you are referring to the "non-posers (who) were not willing to read that far" in spite of the fact that they waded through and then picked apart published statements from both the pose site and its supporters here?

The fact that you willingly ignore such gaffes says a lot more about you than it does about the people who pointed out these obvious errors.

And still, no one in the pose camp has attempted to answer the quandry that I posted some time ago. In spite of the effort expended to pin down the biomechanics of what pose claims, here we are, falling back to "perception" and the redefinition of common terms. I've got news for you, if this is all about the perception of effort versus real effort (energy expenditure), then you've just made moot all of the previous arguments concerning free energy.

If this is your idea of sensibility then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.

Jim:

When Gatorade was pressed for an explanation of his statements he defined what he means when he says recoil, pushoff, etc. with the following excerpts from his posts.

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

Pose doesn't claim that "gravity is enough to continualy drive the system". Pose says that gravity is the prime mover in running. These are two different things. Please, don't twist things for your convenience.

Yes, you must add - and recoil does it by bringing you into previous height....The difference between the recoil of a bouncing ball and a human leg is that metabolic process takes place in muscles

In a live organism the release of stored energy can't be separated from reflective contraction of miofibrilles. Means, upon foot landing proprioreceptors get impulses from nerves and involuntary contraction of certain groups of miofibrilles takes place. Recoil is divided into recoil of bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles

In a live organism it's impossible to separate "pure physical recoil" from reflective conraction of muscles reacting to landing impact

You can't influence neither "physical recoil", nor reflective mucular contraction, and you can't separately measure them, so for practical purposes it is called " muscle recoil".

No, we needn't to push-off. Let's agree upon terms: when I say "no push-off", I mean "not performing a conscious pushing-off action"

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

Then when all of you pressed him further with these statements

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

"You have very clearly stated your belief that POSE professes the human body to be a lossless system and capable of generating free energy."

"So, since it is now established explicitly that POSE believes in a lossless human body capable of generating free energy"

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

He responded with

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

Please, quote me saying it.

Where have you found it written about generating free energy?

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

Whether you accept it or not, it is clear, that when asked to explain himself he said...the body is not a lossless system, there is pushoff, energy is added. His definitions of recoil and pushoff don't have to match yours or mine so long as we can understand within the context of how he uses the words what he is trying to say.

AS I reread many of the more frequent posts I find that posers and non-posers are saying many of the same things. Most all are saying there is pushoff, the body is not a lossless system, energy must be added, and to use Asterix's term there is no 'NET Gain'. This is excellent.

You should be pleased that both sides are coming together on all of these issues and that we are actually approaching an answer to the thread originators statement.

I am neither a poser nor a non-poser. I have already said I do not think I could switch to perfect pose form without suffering injury due to my age. I read your statements and others here with an unbiased view and so do not get hung up with the definitions of words, I only try to understand what is in the mind of the writer because I want to learn. I point out the actual specifics that I have read from the pose site, and the discrepencies that I see so I can better understand and facilitate this process. I have learned much from posters on both sides of this argument.

I think if everyone put down their swords we might be very close to a conclusion beneficial to all. And, I want to believe that you chose the life path of being an instructor because you enjoy helping people learn whatever their persuasions might be. But, only you could tell me if that is true.

P. S.

I have had a passion for electronics since I was a child. As I got older that transformed from radio communications to music, high fidelity and gadgets. I have built, receivers, amps and speakers. I did not realize it until now, but I have been to your site many times and I believe I downloaded some of your material. As I recall you did a good job of mixing humor in with technical explanations. I don't want to bring up your private life here but, I think a lot of these folks would enjoy your site.

Doesn't this imply that Michael Johnson doesn't run pose.

He's not 'using gravity' he's bringing his recovery leg through as fast as he can.

For the last time, it does not matter if the recoil is voluntary, reflexive, sub-conscious, or pixie-dust induced. Energy expenditure is energy expenditure. When I look at the history of posts, what I see is someone (Mr. Gatorade and you) trying to have it both ways. Take this quote that you referenced above:

"Yes, you must add - and recoil does it by bringing you into previous height....The difference between the recoil of a bouncing ball and a human leg is that metabolic process takes place in muscles"

Yes, he says you must add, but then he states that the addition is via recoil. What the hell is that? If you're stating that recoil is really an additional muscle contraction not associated with the prior landing, then why call it recoil? If you're stating that recoil is the release of energy stored from the previous landing (which is what was established), then it is NOT sufficient to bring you to the previous height, PERIOD (and you may recall that Mr. G charged that that was just supposition on my part). While it is true that a rubber ball does not exhibit any metabolic processes, that does not influence the basic underlying physics of translating PE to KE and back.

This is like someone stating "The human body needs to have calories and oxygen to function, and you can get those calories by breathing the oxygen." You then argue that because breathing is an "intake" and eating is also an "intake", he was really saying that people need to eat and everyone is being unfair to say that air doesn't contain calories. Your logic is specious at best.

Thus, I come to a set of possible conclusions:

1) You have a deep seated desire to resolve issues and be seen as some sort of "peace maker", even if the process requires excessive tomfoolery.

2) This is your method of trolling.

3) You are delusional.

I grant that there may be other possibilities, but if any of the above are correct, I have no desire to continue with this mess.

Your conclusions about me are incorrect. I am a teacher and a student. From knowing about your background I would conclude the same, and that is why I was willing to continue. Am I wrong about this?

If you recall, I stated at the outset of our interaction that I wanted to learn more about pose and about the objections to it. My logic is not specious. I am open minded to understanding both sides. You have difficulty with my position because I don't have to agree or disagree based on the side from which the statement originated.

If you understand what Gatorade is trying to say then complaining about his definitions gets in the way of progress on the issues. I agree that the Oxygen example is ridiculous but, it is not the same as Gatorade's statement.

So you've been presented with both sides. You have found where the POSERs talk about pushing off and adding energy back to the system.

Would you like the specific cites (yet again) where they very clearly and specifically also state the opposite?

Do you not see their inherent contradictions?

I don't see how completely ignoring statements made by Gatorade et al that contradict your explanations can at all be called having an open mind. You seem very determined to avoid addressing the numerous times they've talked about not pushing, about not adding energy, about gravity doing the work.

Just like most of the rest of us, you started from a preconceived conclusion and based all your posts on that conclusion. However, unlike some of us, you've been consistent in ignoring repeatedly posted evidence that goes against your already determined conclusion.

You've stated things that go against what is written on the POSE site since it helps wrap up your interpretation all nice and neat. But that still does not change the fact that numerous descriptions both here by POSERs and on the POSE site itself do NOT conform with the laws of physics, no matter how much you ignore them and point out other statements.

Here again, we can't understand what Gatorade is saying because he has very clearly stated different and opposing things: you push off/ you don't push off; you add energy/you don't add energy; gravity does the work/we do not get a net benefit from gravity.

Why does it have to be so complicated? We're talking about running!

Why can't the POSE site (and POSE followers) simply say:

1. Land on your forefoot.

2. Land under your center of mass.

3. Quickly pick up your foot.

4. Keep your strides short and fast.

Why go on about gravity, since it can't give you any more of a benefit than it gives me?

Why go on about not pushing off and 'recoil' (whatever definition you are using today) is enough to continually drive the system since that is not REALLY what they mean?

This thread will never end

15.10 wrote:

Doesn't this imply that Michael Johnson doesn't run pose.

He's not 'using gravity' he's bringing his recovery leg through as fast as he can.

No.

What is described is essentially the "Pose Position" where it is stated that the foot should be placed further back.

Asterix wrote:

Why does it have to be so complicated? We're talking about running!

Why can't the POSE site (and POSE followers) simply say:

1. Land on your forefoot.

2. Land under your center of mass.

3. Quickly pick up your foot.

4. Keep your strides short and fast.

Why go on about gravity, since it can't give you any more of a benefit than it gives me?

Why go on about not pushing off and 'recoil' (whatever definition you are using today) is enough to continually drive the system since that is not REALLY what they mean?

reviews the Weyand study. Basically, the faster the runner the more force yielded by the foot (force plate reading) and the shorter the contact time. If my memory serves me correct, contact time of the best distance runners is 1-2 video frames, 1/30 to 1/15 of a second. Maybe faster for sprint.

According to this site,

:

I (slow twitch) Slow 100 milliseconds Slowly

IIA (fast twitch) Fast 50 milliseconds Fast

IIB (fast twitch) Very Fast 25 milliseconds Fast

Here is a quote from Expolsive Running by Dr. Yessis:

Push-Off

"The pushoff involves one major joint action- ankle-joint extension. The greater the ankle-joint extension, the greater the driving force that can be generated.

It takes 1/10 of a second for the slow twitch to ramp up to full power, and 1/20 of a second for the IIA. This does not add up, the slow twitch are not fast enough to react at the time of contact. Maybe if you only used IIA during contact time it could come closer.

As I see it, it makes much more sense that the foot is traveling at a great rate at contact time yielding the great force. The foot, IMHO, is "thrown" to the ground. This is why the push-off argument in favor of Pose exists.

Now, if one whats to argue that the Dr. Yessis definition is wrong, then we have a different problem in that the definition of push off varies.

Asterix:

I did not start with a preconceived notion. I was open to arguments from both sides and you should be able to see that. I have accepted and agreed with some of yours.

I am not ignoring posted evidence. I have repeatedley said there is some misinterpretation and miscommmunication on both sides.

I have stated precisely what is written on the site. And, I have pointed out where you have not and, you in turn have said that you were providing the only possible conclusion to statements on the site. I have further said that there are other possible conclusions.

Gatorade has now definitevely stated his position on pushoff, and added energy, and those statements are in agreement with you. You succeeded in establishing this point and it was accepted.

"Why can't the POSE site (and POSE followers) simply say:"

I don't know the answer to this question. I can only conjecture that Romanov is writing about the interaction with the forces that affect your running and gravity is a significant one. He thinks it is a necessary part of his explanation about an efficient way to run. Maybe some of his statements about gravity cause confusion but, I still cannot see where that is wrong or makes the style wrong. Because, his point is you have to interact with gravity so do it efficiently.

I am participating so I can learn something. I do not care who wins the argument. I do not care about what was said 30 pages ago. I only care about the outcome from a good analytical approach. From and objective viewpoint I see that both sides are now saying almost the same thing.

ST,

You’re trying too hard to find a common ground. Your talent for a putting a palatable spin on an unacceptable statement or idea is equal to Tony Blair. There is still considerable disagreement.

For example, does anyone on this side of the argument actually believe that Pose is “the only correct way to run”? With regard to the push off I find Gatorade’s latest position somewhat ambiguous, but even if he himself felt that he was now in agreement with Jim or Asterix, and I doubt that he does, it goes further than that. It’s not just a question of push off or no push off, but how the push off is executed, the amount of ground contact time etc, etc. The differences are numerous.

Furthermore, if people feel that they have been misrepresented it’s up to them to say so for themselves.

Thanks for the compliment but wrong political persuasion for me. I am not trying to put a palatable spin on an unacceptable statement. Unlike others present I have retained my objectivity.

I have stated a fact and that is that both sides have said the body is not lossless and energy must be put back into the system. There are no longer any ambiguities with regards to those two statements. If you can't see that then you are hung up about 'winners and losers' and not a dialogue that might result in enlightening some people.

No one on either side has said Pose is "the only correct way to run". That is ludicrous. Where did you get that?

"Furthermore, if people feel that they have been misrepresented it’s up to them to say so for themselves."

They have repeatedley said this! But, apparently you have not read that part of their posts. So why does this offend you?

Please reread Gatorade’s previous postings and you will find that he has stated this quite clearly on several occasions. It is obviously a firmly held belief. I agree, it is a ludicrous statement.

You are not as close a reader as you would have us believe.

terryh:

No disrespect intended, save us both some time, you grab and reprint the quote I missed.

ST wrote:

No one on either side has said Pose is "the only correct way to run". That is ludicrous. Where did you get that?

"completely convinced that Pose Method was the only right way to correct technique"

(He's even posted on this thread.)

"As far as we Posers are concerned, Pose is the correct way to run."

ST wrote:

I have stated precisely what is written on the site. And, I have pointed out where you have not and, you in turn have said that you were providing the only possible conclusion to statements on the site. I have further said that there are other possible conclusions.

Ok, let's start back at the top then.

"In running, this is achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy."

Just so we don't 'misinterpret' anything I am using the following definitions:

Gravity: the force that acts through the center of mass and is always directed towards the center of the Earth. Unless we are on a slope, this will ALWAYS be perpindicular to the ground.

Primary force: the force greater than any and all other forces involved.

Movement (in running): the net change in position of our center of gravity. On a flat surface, this will be parallel to the ground.

Instead: meaning one and not the other.

Muscular energy: any and all forms of energy output by the muscles.

So, my interpretation of the above quote is that the most significant source driving our body while running in a direction parallel to the ground is gravity, a force that is perpindicular to our direction of movement.

Is this or is this not an acceptable (only) interpretation?

Does this not mean that gravity does more work in moving our center of mass in a horizontal direction than anything else, including muscular effort?

Isn't this interpretation in direct contradiction to everything you are now saying about what POSE and POSERs explain?

And why do I get the head-banging-against-the-desk feeling that we're right back where we started and preparing to cover the exact same ground that was covered in painstaking detail many times before?

Quick, I need some ice for that burn....!

Jim, Asterix et al., I have enjoyed your demolition over the past few weeks. As everyone sane knows, there are no international runners espousing POSE' methods. Along with your scientific critique, that should be enough to convince any doubters. Good work chaps.