Pose = crazy???

Is jhuffman retarded or just terrible at typing?

I'm no grammar nazi, in fact I will probably have a few typos in this post, but this guy can't spell anything.

How does this man make a living? (I know, as a coach, but holy shit he has the spelling abilities of a short bus third grader).

Jhuffman, it's a miracle you graduated high school, let alone went to college.

Your posts throughout the thread and board as a whole are littered with spelling mistakes that don't look like typos.

In your last couple posts-- "continueing" and "appreciete"

the second one may be a typo, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But "continueing"? Are you serious? That's not a typo, as your fingers should be nowhere near the "e" key. I would find more examples, but I think everyone hear has noticed this too.

So seriously, I don't expect you to respond because you're clearly a loser... But holy shit man, get an education, how are you not ashamed of your stupidity?

While I never defend Pose and or huffman, you need to cut it out brawn. There are a few people blowing big holes in the Pose fraud, please don't ruin the thread with your infantile spelling corrections. Most of us can draw conclusions from what we read without your assistance.

I'm not saying you need my assistance to read his posts. I'm pointing out that someone who is a college coach and a grown adult should be a better speller than that. He is clearly an idiot.

brawn wrote:

I would find more examples, but I think everyone hear has noticed this too.

hard to argue that your "hear" is a typo, too. i guess this puts you in the same boat as jhuffman, according to your own criteria. you don't live in a glass house, do you?

It is to bad you are not as concerned about your running as you are your grammer. As pointed out you are not quite as good at grammer as you would like to believe. Enjoy you running Pal:):):):)

JHUFFMAN, HOW DO YOU SPELL GRAMMAR? AND WHY, IF YOU ARE A HIGH SCHOOL/COLLEGE GRAD DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

OR THAT CONTINUING IS NOT SPELLED CONTINUEING?

I SHOULD STOP, BUT IT FEELS SO RIGHT.

thats what she said.

"For the elastic elements in the muscle-tendon unit to be loaded with any appreciable force on landing, the muscle filaments must be prevented from sliding past one another - this is achieved by activating the muscle to create the cross-bridge linkages between the actin and myosin filaments. Landing with quiet muscles is like pulling on an elastic band without attaching the other end to anything - activating the muscles is like fixing the other end."

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

At last, on the page 32 of the thread, you started to talk about the topic. I agree with your above statement, with one "but": Pose is about what is being done, and not what happens. That is, it's more about psychology of movement, than physics, or physiology. The process that you described indeed takes place, and I won't argue. But I believe that if you think "pull", or if you think "push-off" - the DEGREE of what you call preactivation is different, although I don't know if it's possible to measure the degree of preactivation. Pose teaches not to do anything more than is absolutely necessary, it teaches to land soft, with quiet muscles. "Quiet" landing doesn't mean preactivation doesn't take place, still when you see one runner jammimg his foot into the ground upon landing, and the other runner just barely touching the ground and letting it go - you clearly see the difference. The thing is that you can't give yourself a command "to land softly, with quiet muscles": the more you try to land soft (i.e., the more you are focused on landing) - the more rigid your landing will be, and the more rigid is your landing, the longer you stay on support. The only way out is to STOP being focused on landing - that is, to focus on the opposite, i.e., pulling the foot off the ground. Do the drill: stand in running pose, start leaning forward until you get unbalanced and have to land with your airborne foot. Now do the same, but when you get unbalanced, instead of landing with the airborne foot pull the support foot off the ground. The landing of the airborne foot happens nevertheless, but if you make the drill several times and focus on WHAT YOU FEEL, you'll see two different movements. ( Just don't read about it, but get up and DO it, the difference must be felt, and not reasoned out). If you focus on pulling the foot off the ground - the preactivation still happens, but without any attention of yours. This is what I call "involuntary", or "reflex", although it's not pure reflex, but a sum of several components. Maybe I should call it " unconscious" instead of "involuntary" - although it makes little difference. On the other hand, does a pure reflex like patellar need preactivation? The sphere of interest of Pose is commands that you give. For example, if you gve the comand " pull the foot UP with hamstrings", - in reality this doean't mean that ONLY hamstrings are involved, but the movement will be different than if you give command "pull the foot with hip flexors": focusing on hamstrings will bring the foot UP, focusing on hip flexors will bring it more forward which leads to landing in front. So IMO your statement about preactivation doesn't contradict to what Pose says. Hell, I even remember I've read somewhere where Dr R. writes about experiment where you are told to go downstairs in complete darkness - and how you land when you believe there are no more steps left - and there is one more step, and when you believe there is one more step, and there are no more steps left (similiar to the drop jumps you described).

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

"Gatorade seems to be in agreement that muscle activation prior to landing does occur (though he might not agree with what i call it and the terms i will use to describe it. Also, i don't believe it is limited to the foot - he doesn't say it is, but he only mentioned the foot so i'm unsure as to whether that is his belief)."

Of course it is not limited to the foot - the whole body is anticipating landing. But I don't see how this contradicts Pose teaching, and what does it have to do with proving that Pose is wrong?

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

"I would have to refer to the pre-activation as voluntary. It is definately not a relfex. The 'command' for the whole body action (that Gatorade is calling 'the Pull') arises from the judgement that contact is approaching and the intention to continue running. The pre-activation is a part of the whole-body action. You could easily choose not to perform that whole-body action (i.e. you could collapse onto the floor instead of continuing to run - a sand pit would be advisable!). I can't agree with it being called involuntary - you just have to remember that performing a voluntary action does not equate to being conscious of what muscles are activated and when etc - see my posts on previous pages for further examples of this."

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

Will the term "unconscious" be satisfactory to you?

"I think we experience this very feeling quite often when running over uneven ground in poor light. It happens to me occasionally when I step off the curb in the dark and misjudge the height. It's actually a great example because it shows quite clearly how we are making unconscious judgements all the time."

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

If you would agree to lower yourself to the degree that you would go to the Pose site - in the video library a couple of weeks ago you can find a video of Debbie Savage showing the benefits of Pose in trail running. Mastering immediate pulling the foot off the ground is a recipe for injury prevention on uneven surfaces.

I remember when the Iraq war first started, this I raqi guy kept coming on giving updates about how the US was on the verge of defeat. It reached its pinnacle when you could see Baghdad smoldering in the background while this guy kept talking about how thew Americans were being driven out. This was a about a day before the complete fall of Baghdad. I always wondered what happened to that guy. After reading Gatorades posts, this is one mystery solved.

"I remember when the Iraq war first started, this I raqi guy kept coming on giving updates about how the US was on the verge of defeat. It reached its pinnacle when you could see Baghdad smoldering in the background while this guy kept talking about how thew Americans were being driven out. This was a about a day before the complete fall of Baghdad. I always wondered what happened to that guy. After reading Gatorades posts, this is one mystery solved"

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

LOL, another self-taught humorist! You're one of those "it's all about the win" guys? I mean - win the discussion ( not a race, of course). In this light we can follow your story: Baghdad fell, and you can see is as a victory. But in the long run Americans totally f***ed up in Iraq - just like they did in Vietnam, and now all they want is to save their face and leave, pretending they achieved their goals. In this light Iraq analogy with this discussion is good.

Whereas Pose is all about "winning the race", right, After all, you can see on the Pose sight all the champions Pose has directly influenced. Shoot, just look how Huffman's times have inproved since he started Pose... not to mention his stellar team. But I didn't come here to argue; just to laugh at you. I promise not to respond to your your next desperate attempt at saving face.

"At last, on the page 32 of the thread, you started to talk about the topic. I agree with your above statement, with one "but": Pose is about what is being done, and not what happens."

To perform, you only need to know the movement 'commands', but most of us are here to discuss HOW running works - not just what to do. Control is the link between the intention to move and the resulting actual movement. I don't think thrashing out what actually happens was missing the point (though neither was it the whole point by itself for me).

"But I believe that if you think "pull", or if you think "push-off" - the DEGREE of what you call preactivation is different"

Whether you think pull or think push, you are performing a 'whole body action' that is far more than just the pull or push you are thinking of. Within this action there is both the pull and the push aspect and much more. For some people using the conscious cue of focusing on the pulling aspect might help them get the action optimal. For other people focusing on the push might help. These two options for helpful cues is far from an exhaustive list. I don't agree with the POSE one-size-fits-all approach saying that focusing on the pull is the only way to arrive at the correct action.

"Pose teaches not to do anything more than is absolutely necessary, it teaches to land soft, with quiet muscles. "Quiet" landing doesn't mean preactivation doesn't take place"

To me, the term "quiet muscles" means no activation - i.e. if you were monitoring an EMG channel, there would be no signal other than background noise. Landing with quiet feet - as in making little sound - i agree is entirely desirable.

So when you say "quiet muscles" - what is quiet?

Of course pre-activation does not mean maximal activation - as you point out many people do over-activate prior to landing and jam the foot down. The runner who over-activates landing 'jams', the runner who under-activates 'collapses'. Get it right and you 'spring'.

"The thing is that you can't give yourself a command "to land softly, with quiet muscles": the more you try to land soft (i.e., the more you are focused on landing) - the more rigid your landing will be, and the more rigid is your landing, the longer you stay on support. The only way out is to STOP being focused on landing - that is, to focus on the opposite, i.e., pulling the foot off the ground."

I don't think its impossible to land softly without focusing on pulling away from the ground. If i jump off a high step, a soft landing is what i think about and what i do (land 'into' a squat). For me running, yes, not focusing on the landing is helpful, but i focus on the drive rather than the pull. When my foot is nearly down, i drive, rather than land, then drive. But i would not presume that this would be the most helpful cue for every other runner.

Its not a main point here, but why does a more rigid landing lead to more time on support - i don't see any definate cause-effect relationship.

"the preactivation still happens, but without any attention of yours. This is what I call "involuntary", or "reflex", although it's not pure reflex, but a sum of several components. Maybe I should call it " unconscious" instead of "involuntary" - although it makes little difference."

I am happy to call it unconscious. I certainly would not call it involuntary - it is an aspect of a volunary action, but i can see how the lack of conscious attention to it could tempt one to want to call it involuntary. I cannot see any way that one could call the pre-activation a 'reflex'. The motor impulses associated with the pre-activation arise as a result of activity in higher brain centres - you are anticipating foot-ground contact, reflexes do not anticipate.

"On the other hand, does a pure reflex like patellar need preactivation"

No, a reflex does not require pre-activation. But i don't see what you are getting at here.

"focusing on hip flexors will bring it more forward which leads to landing in front"

I probably focus on knee lift more than POSE advocates. I then simply CONTROL the limb's forward motion using my muscles to prevent over-striding. Knee lift does not NECESSARILY lead to over-striding.

"Of course it is not limited to the foot - the whole body is anticipating landing. But I don't see how this contradicts Pose teaching, and what does it have to do with proving that Pose is wrong?"

I was very careful not to say that you had said it was limited to the foot - i said i was unclear on your belief. Normally, i probably would have assumed that you believed it was far more widespread, but this thread has shown me that others sometimes have a very different 'logical flow' to me - i just didn't want to chance an incorrect assumption.

My aim is not the contradict POSE or prove it wrong at every turn. I post about running - what happens and how it is controlled. Where there is a really clear, direct contradiction to POSE, i often point it out, but whether there is contradiction or not is more often dependant on one's personal interpretation of POSE material. Even if i have not contradicted POSE at any point, i think i at least have provided clarification of points that are far from clear from Dr. R's writings.

Here is something to consider, this person is running Pose.

Accroding to the Pose site, this is JHuff in the flesh running ~58 400m pace. This is the last 100 taken this July.

Enjoy.

Alex S

You raised some interesting points. Some of which I discovered in my own way by trial and error when I was trying to break away from pose running.

The happy medium between “quiet muscles and pre-activated muscles was something I was never able to find satisfactorily when concentrating on pulling and in fact one occasion this actually caused an injury, which was compounded by the drills Dr Romanov advised me to do. It was only when I began to focus on what you call the drive that I was able to find this automatically. I think what a lot of pose people regard as a “push off’ consists of a dorsal flexing of the foot as when heel striking, but I would consider the ideal push off to be an extension down and back from the hips. In this sense “drive’ is a much better word. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to accomplish well and took me a great deal of practice. I’m only just getting somewhere near this and in reality I’ll probably always have a sort of hybrid form. I really like your idea of driving when the foot is nearly down and will use this as a cue in future.

I have never found not concentrating on landing to be a problem, and would think this to be a good thing in general.

It may be that some people can actually isolate different muscle groups, but I have found this to be another cause of injury. I know I when want my foot to be under my hips and I don’t care which muscles get it there. It’s the movement that matters to me.

As far as the so-called falling, I was always aware through my own perception that it was costing me more energy than it was saving and I have reduced this to a considerable degree in the hope of eventually eliminating it altogether.

The main point that I am trying to make is to demonstrate through my own experience that a "one size fits all" method can be a disaster.

I am unashamedly a layman so before someone like Gatorade jumps down my throat for getting some term or other wrong please bear this in mind.

"Whether you think pull or think push, you are performing a 'whole body action' that is far more than just the pull or push you are thinking of"

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

Yes, but the prime movers shift significantly. For example, do a drill: stand with both feet on the ground, have someone place his hand on your knee, and lift the foot under your hip, while the hand presses your knee down. Now - do the same, but ask someone to hold you by the heel and pull it down while you lift the foot under your hip. Feel the difference? Meanwhile you are performing the same movement - raising the foot up to your hip.

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

"For some people using the conscious cue of focusing on the pulling aspect might help them get the action optimal."

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

At least for me it was a huge break-through. I remember 20 years of running I had the feeling of struggling against the ground, with Pose it is gone.

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

"I don't agree with the POSE one-size-fits-all approach saying that focusing on the pull is the only way to arrive at the correct action"

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

Of course you are free not to agree. I see one-size-fits-all approach as a huge plus, because it enables to work all components into one system of teaching. Let me give an example: when a coach in karate or boxing teaches you to perform a correct sraight blow with the rear hand, he tells you that the motion should start with turning your rear heel a bit, then the turning motion is continued by your hips, then the trunk, the last is the shoulder - all this makes your hand "fly" forward as if by itself, without even engaging arm muscles. Now someone can say that it's better to start, let's say, with opening your mouth, then closing your eyes and sticking your ass back - and I have no problem with it, if it allows you to perform a sharp, quick and strong blow. But this other teaching technique should also be worked into a system, because a system is more than the sum of its components - you change one thing, and all the rest falls apart. That's why I'm in favor of orthodox Pose.

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

"For me running, yes, not focusing on the landing is helpful, but i focus on the drive rather than the pull"

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

Please, explain your understanding of "drive", to avoid confusion.

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

"Its not a main point here, but why does a more rigid landing lead to more time on support - i don't see any definate cause-effect relationship."

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

"Rigid landing" means more how the foot is planted physically, I would rather use the term "active landing" since it puts more emphasize on HOW THE ACTION IS PERFORMED. Active landing is unncessary movement involvement: the foot should drop to the ground by gravity with no additional muscle work, this enables you to pick the foot of the ground as soon as it is physically possible ( the moment when you get unbalanced and the support foot is unloaded). If you perform the movement as if pushing the ground back from under yourself, means you are involving antagonist muscles than the ones you use to pick the foot up, that means you have two actions that can't be executed simultaneously, one must preceed the other - hence longer time on support. Besides, active landing in most cases is reaching out with the foot, means you have a good chance to be landing in front ( and landing in front means braking, thus longer time on support). This is especially visible when you are tired and try to accelerate - the faster you want to run, the bigger range of motion you execute, and the less efficient you are ( because range of motion has nothing to do with stride length). Pose teaches not to lose compact stride regardless of effort level.

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

"Landing with quiet feet - as in making little sound - i agree is entirely desirable."

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

This is what Pose calls "quiet feet". But making little sound is the result, if you concentrate on running with the least possible sound, you'll end up running on you toes like a ballet dancer, reaching forward with your toes - it's quite incorrect.

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

"The runner who over-activates landing 'jams', the runner who under-activates 'collapses'. Get it right and you 'spring'."

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

You should "spring", but shouldn't consciously push off (according to Pose, of course).

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

"The motor impulses associated with the pre-activation arise as a result of activity in higher brain centres - you are anticipating foot-ground contact, reflexes do not anticipate."

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

Yes, but anticipation is one thing (it's PRIOR to landing), and what happens after ground contact is a reflex to a great extent (of course, it by no means can be confined to pure reflexes). This all makes a complex whole-body response, which can be dissected to and fro for scientific purposes, but for practical reasons I think it's good to use the good old term "recoil": in practice all the complexities can be divided into: 1. What we give command to execute. 2. What happens by itself. So Pose tells us that if something can happen by itself - don't MAKE it happen, because it will happen nevertheless.

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

"I probably focus on knee lift more than POSE advocates. I then simply CONTROL the limb's forward motion using my muscles to prevent over-striding"

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

From Pose standpoint you are doing too much work. A Pose coach would tell you - lean forward and move your limbs so that they don't get in your way. From Pose standpoint, you should try to use your muscles to get from pose to pose, and not to propel you forward.( I guess again I openend a can of worms with this statement, LOL).

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

"Knee lift does not NECESSARILY lead to over-striding"

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

It may not at lower effort levels, but when one does that final kick at 5000 m, it more often than not does.

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

"My aim is not the contradict POSE or prove it wrong at every turn."

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

Hahaha! Means you admit that you are off the topic - since it is about whether Pose is crazy or not? I'm glad that after writing 33 pages we started discussing, LOL.

Gatorade wrote:

Let me give an example: when a coach in karate or boxing teaches you to perform a correct sraight blow with the rear hand, he tells you that the motion should start with turning your rear heel a bit, then the turning motion is continued by your hips, then the trunk, the last is the shoulder - all this makes your hand "fly" forward as if by itself, without even engaging arm muscles.

Sorry to interrupt, but this is just wrong on so many levels.

I don't think thats a good example - of course applying different external forces will change the muscular activity.

My point is that whether you think 'pull', 'push' or whatever, you are actually performing an action that is much more than that - much too much to 'think' about every aspect. I agree that focusing on different aspects will likely make subtle changes to the action - probably emphasising the aspect you focus on. This relates to my other point about the one-size-fits-all approach. What if you have a runner who doesn't drive enough, or doesn't lift their knees enough or some other shortcoming? For them, focusing on those aspects might be more helpful in attaining the optimal action. If we all had the same shortcomings in our technique for the same underlying reasons, then one-size-fits-all might be ok - but that just isn't the case.

I know what you are saying, but your terminology (Dr. R's terminology - but no-one else in the scientific world) gives plenty of scope for confusion. I'm sure most people would assume the word "active" in the phrase "active landing" was referring to whether muscles were active. You go on to confound the problem further by saying "the foot should drop to the ground by gravity with no additional muscle work." when we have already agreed that muscles pre-activate in anticipation of the foot-ground contact. These pre-activating muscles will be the ones that support the body weight - extensor muscles. The pre-activation in these muscles probably does move the foot toward the ground (but maybe only very slightly - i.e. it does not simply fall under gravity.

Perhaps what you meant was "the foot should FEEL like it drops to the ground by gravity with no PERCEPTION of additional muscle work."

I think Dr. R's 'unique' use of terms is a large part of the problem. I'd guess he is aware of this by now, but if he were to re-write things more clearly, POSE wouldn't appear nearly as new, exciting, innovative, 'paradigm changing' or whatever that likely attracts a lot of customers.

But we've previously agreed that a push does ACTUALLY occur. You actually push and then pull, yes? So you are talking about a problem perceiving a push and pull at the same time rather than the actual muscle activity? I just think about the push, and happily my brain doesn't explode.

Applying a downward/backward force to the ground.

I don't think you can be so absolute in some of these things you say. For me, trying to run quietly leads to soft midfoot / forefoot landing rather than a 'high on the toes' landing.

The activity after contact is the summation of voluntary (though perhaps not consciously attended) activation (that began prior to landing) and reflex activation (with the inherrent ~50ms delay). I'm quite happy to say that reflexes contribute, but would be wary of saying that the activation is reflex 'to a great extent'.

I simply disagree that its a 'fault'. Its like swinging your arms forwards to aid a standing long-jump. Yes it no doubt increases energy cost per stride, but if the extra distance gained is sufficient then efficiency per unit distance could actually be enhanced. I feel this is the case.

Alex S, Gatorade, Terryh:

I have been too busy to participate and, not interested in all of the prior confrontational behavior. I have been reading your posts. I am glad you have been able to have a productive discourse. Thankyou, for continueing, I have learned things of interest to me from your discussions.

Over the holiday weekend I had an opportunity to visit with some of my former training partners including the olympic athlete (former track & field female athlete of the year). They were aware of Romanov, said his is just one method of teaching efficient technique, and they don't care about the physics stuff.

"What if you have a runner who doesn't drive enough, or doesn't lift their knees enough or some other shortcoming?"

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

In Pose you don't have to think about lifting your knees, or driving. I like Pose because it teaches you to focus on just ONE thing: pull the foot from the ground, everything else should happen by itself. You are right - the more things you have to focus on - the more chances you do something wrong. In Pose you have ONE thing: pull.

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

"I'm sure most people would assume the word "active" in the phrase "active landing" was referring to whether muscles were active."

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

"Active landing" in Pose means what you ( I guess) would call "over pre-activation". Although nowhere in Pose literature I found the word " pre-activation" ( or maybe I forgot), in my personal understanding pre-acitivation is what happens without your attention, if you give it some attention ( focus on how you land, trying to influence your landing)- you already have "over-preactivation", or rigid landing. So as far as I'm concerned, "active landing" is about focusing attention to landing, and "rigid landing" is the physical result of active landing. And of course neither me nor Pose mainstream would try to claim a stupid thing like that landing without muscles being active is possible.

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

"You go on to confound the problem further by saying "the foot should drop to the ground by gravity with no additional muscle work." when we have already agreed that muscles pre-activate in anticipation of the foot-ground contact"

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

"With no additional muscle work" means: you don't perform a conscious movement down and back. Like if you stand on a high wall and have a stone in your hand, you can throw it down, or you can let it fall down on its own. From Pose standpoint you should let it fall.

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

"These pre-activating muscles will be the ones that support the body weight - extensor muscles. The pre-activation in these muscles probably does move the foot toward the ground (but maybe only very slightly - i.e. it does not simply fall under gravity."

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

Agreed, and I have no problem with it.

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

"Perhaps what you meant was "the foot should FEEL like it drops to the ground by gravity with no PERCEPTION of additional muscle work."

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

Stand in running pose and let the foot drop down. You will FEEL that it drops by itslef - and in reality this is what happens. Of course, you may say that some muscle activity takes place, and I won't argue, but you should avoid conscious muscle activity - if you stand in running pose and push your airborne foot down, you'll clearly get quite different feeling. In general your above statement is a rather good one.

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

"But we've previously agreed that a push does ACTUALLY occur"

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

Yes, but we also agreed to distinguish "push-off" from "pushing off". "Push-off" is what happens ( tissue elasticity, reflex contraction, pre-activation - all the things that we can't influence), "pushing off" is what we execute. And we shouldn't perform the latter.

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

"Gatorade wrote:

Please, explain your understanding of "drive", to avoid confusion.

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

Applying a downward/backward force to the ground."

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

From Pose standpoint it's incorrect. This is the main element of power running. Pose doesn't say that power running is impossible -in fact lots of elites run this way and show results that we could only dream of. But applying downward/backward force to the ground has drawbacks: by doing so you are inevitably late with the pull ( having in mind that in every technique of running the pull is present - just like the running pose), so when your foot lands, the rear leg is still trailing behind you. When the leg is behind you, you must accelerate it somehow in order to catch up with the next stride, means you are pulling it FORWARD with your hip flexors. The foot, being lighter that the core, gains more speed and flies forward, so you either land in front, or have to add effort to prevent it from doing so. Not to speak that this whole process takes more time on support. When you drive down/bacwards, you engage muscles that are antagonists to those who pull up/forward, and you can do the pull only when you have finished with the push, this is time lost staying on suport. With Pose technique when your foot lands, the other foot is already under the hip.