Pose = crazy???

Here is a video clip discussing what falling should be in our running:

http://www.posetech.com/video/index.php/weblog/2005/10/

Averagebum wrote:

I wanted to ask this earlier: I watched Jeremy Wariner on TV running the 400. I thought he didn't have full knee extension, or was it my mis-observation? Same with Michael Johnson, but that is only in my memory now. Anyone has photos/clips of them proving otherwise?

Don't know about Wariner, but as far as MJ, you're wrong. I just looked at MJ's 200 meter world record (and other races) in super slow mo, and when he pushes off the ground, his leg is completely straight just before it leaves the ground. Virtually all top runners that I have looked at have completely straightened their knee just prior to having that trailing leg/foot leaving the ground. And as far as pulling that trailing foot (support leg) off the ground as soon as possible, that is also completely contrary to what I see. The top runners I watch (Bekele, Geb, MJ), all drive their butt/hip backwards as far as possible, creating great hip extension, and then have their feet only leave the ground when leg is fully straight and their trailing foot is WELL behind their body. In fact, the seemingly most consistent characteristic that I see of the great runners compared to joggers, is how far that trailing foot remains behind the body and on the ground before it is pulled off the ground. It is incredible to see Bekele in full flight, with his incredible hip extension, and upper body so far ahead of his trailing foot just before it leaves the ground. Joggers don't have the flexibility or power to drive that leg behind them(pushing their bodies forward), and instead quickly pull their feet of the ground (which is not ideal), thus ending up with a very short stride. And if you REALLY try what POSE purports, pulling your feet off the ground as soon as you can, and don't try to drive your hip back or push your body forward at all, you will simply run virtually in place. Try it. Just lean slightly forward, and focus on ONLY pulling your feet up towards you butt as soon as you land. It will be like a common drill you see sprinters do (butt kicks, or whatever they call them). What you WON'T see is runners moving forward very quickly.

Thus, it sounds to me, like POSE method is describing one more aspect (pulling one's foot off the ground as quickly as possible) of the "perfect stride" incorrectly.

See this pic. Bekele is not even at full hip extension yet, and his foot will remain on the ground a moment longer, and look at how far his upper body is already in front of that trailing foot. And look at the runner just in front of him, incredible hip extension, and long stride. One thing they are NOT doing is pulling their foot off the ground as soon as they can, along the lines of what POSE suggests. And oh yes, note the straight knees as they leave the ground.

Sir Lance alot,

We definetly disagree about running technqiue. Regardless of technique the knee of the picture you have of bekele his knee is not locked. I will agree that he goes as far as possible with extension, but it is not fully straigthtened and extended. You claim that you believe this is ideal. I say running would be more efficient if he where to remove the foot from the ground sooner via the hamstring. It is interesting how you view a photo totally different just based on your theory of good technique.

Hi Jhuffman!

Thanks for the video clips. I have gone through what I thought was every video on the website except for the most recent 2 as they don't seem to play on my PC, but somehow I missed the falling one I think. But I was aware that this is what POSE teaches about falling. My main problem is, when I push my chest forward and stay straight without hunching, I can't breathe properly. Have you encountered any students with a similar problem?

I can understand the suggestion not to push off with any extra effort that necessary to restore the position of imbalance, but I can't agree with Romanov's assertion that elastic energy is sufficient to restore that. It just doesn't make any sense to me. When I tried for 2 weeks to simply pull up my foot directly beneath my hip without any push-off whatsover, I couldn't move far at all and was going slower than a jogger.

Sir Lancelot, thanks for all the photos. I agree most of the top runners have powerful push-offs with full hip and knee extensions. I was taught that method and have been advocating it for more than 2 decades. Yes, their trailing legs pull behind their hips. The question is whether this is as economical as if they had a much earlier and quicker pull with higher cadence to make up for the lack of stride length. The Posers say it is not.

If we push-off sufficiently to create and maintain the imbalance, we should be falling forward continuosly and not running in place as you have suggested? If I simply pull up with my hamstrings (and some hip flezors [I don't understand how else we can pull up directly beneath our hips]) while leaning forward, I don't run in place. I would fall flat on my face! Only without the forward lean would I run in place. And only with a push off can I maintain an upright position with a slight forward lean.

Jhuffman, I agree that all things eventually fall down and all running things eventually fall forward. The problem here is that there are really 2 methods of moving forward. One is propelling ourselves forward and upward like a missile before allowing us to fall forward, and the other is simply falling foward and then restoring the previous height to fall forward again, which requires a higher cadence for the same speed.

The examples given of the kangaroo were confusing. I am not that familiar with kangaroos but I imagine that the kangaroo, a cheetah, and my dog sprinting, all act like the missile with a huge push off before allowing them to fall, so I don't think they make good examples of POSE.

Even when my dog runs more slowly, he would have to first push off. This is more easily perceived because 4-legged animals do not have the high CGM that upright animals have and can hardly fall forward. They actually seem to propel themselves forward, even at a slow pace, with a high cadence. I counted the forlimbs of my dog to execute 240 strides a minute at a slow pace of about 7-8 minute/mile.

O, my dog is a mix of Labrador, German Shepherd, and Golden Retriever.

Thanks very much, All!

Yes, I read in Peter Coe's book that one of the possible reasons the Kenyans run so fast is that when they ran barefeet, the angle of the ankles could be more acute, (ie they left their feet in support longer) and thus their archilles' tendons' elastic energy could be built up, before they allowed the foot to leave the ground. When they raced, they took this longer ground contact technique with them, even when wearing shoes.

Seb Coe's video also teaches extended ground contact. But then he goes on to teach running over the ground as opposed to on the ground. This is all really confusing. Should we have more ground contact and less air float, or the other way round??? I am thorougly confused.

Good lord! We're back to this nonsense again? I'd swear this Averagebum character came on purely to goad this thread back into existence. Any reason they couldn't have taken their questions to the posetech site instead of opening themselves up to the obvious criticism that they should have actually read the ENTIRE thread before posting statements that have been definitively proven wrong many pages earlier?And of course that results in JHuffman bringing up his same tired lines all over again.

First it was Geb and now you are denying reality when it comes to Bekele?

And we've been over this ad-nauseum. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. This thread has seen physiological analysis of forces that disprove your claim. We've also yet to find an international elite anywhere that follows anything close to approximating POSE (and Gatorade's claim that Geb runs 'near perfect POSE' except for the major differences where he doesn't follow the key POSE aspects just further proves your ridiculousness).

Just as it is interesting how you "perceive" gravity to act in a different direction than straight down. You say Bekele doesn't lock his knee. Photo evidence says he does. Please refrain from making statements so easily disproven. It does not reflect well on you.

So sorry, Asterix!

I didn't mean to upset you. I waded through page 12 and browsed more pages quickly beyond that and thought that it was all about the knee extension thing and push-off. You will see that my first post was affirming that push-off was necessary to bring the GCM to its previous height and/or beyond, but not full knee extension.

I also asked about breathing while the chest was stuck out and forward and didn't think that issue was addressed anywhere on the thread.

My confusion lies in knowing which is more economical, not whether the elites are using Pose. Obviously Bekele and Geb, at least when striding/sprinting, do not run Pose. But that still begs the question whether if they did learn to run Pose and ran the same speed with a higher cadence, that it would be more economical.

I also didn't agree with the Poser that the only way to run is to fall forward. Falling or rising or any sort of vertical displacement is only an ALLOWANCE for horizontal displacement, so I fully agree that there has to be a push-off. The question is HOW MUCH push-off? Obviously the lingo of the Posers was not very universally or scientifically accurate. Perhaps it was not meant to be so. Or perhaps it's just that Romanov is Russian and his English-speaking coaches don't know enough physics to explain this point.

Whether we push-off powerfully forward and upward or we allow ourselves to fall forward with push-off to regain height, it's still the same. The former is creating upward vertical displacement to allow TIME for horizontal displacement, and the latter is creating downward vertical displacement to allow for the horizontal displacement. Both require a push-off, even in the horizontal direction, including the Pose method. If a Poser were to fall forward with rotational torque about his ground contact, then just create sufficient vertical displacement ABOUT the same ground contact (ie, no horizontal push-off), he would return to the same position.

Since he was falling and required his non-contact foot to fall in front of him, this scenario is impossible. Nevertheless, to perpetuate this motion of falling, he would have to produce push-off to regain the vertical height lost AND horizontal displacement of the GCM beyond the base of support.

By the way, Asterix, I liked very much your explanation in one of the other threads regarding this factor of horizontal forces, including the frictional forces between the shoe and the ground surface. That made me think more clearly that there has to be a horizontal component no matter what. Gravity does act only downward. The apparent forward motion is only rotational torque, as someone else mentioned in this thread, but that has to be restored with more horizontal force.

Asterix,

Hello again,

As usual you are free to believe as you choose. I still disagree with your analysis of Bekele's running. Have a great day!

'd swear this Averagebum character came on purely to goad this thread back into existence. "

Beautiful! As usual you will spend countless hours trying to prove your point.

The rocks in your head fit the holes in Huffmans head

Sarcastic,

Thanks for your wisdom on the subject!

Jhuffman wrote:

I still disagree with your analysis of Bekele's running.

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

You say Bekele doesn't fully extend his leg.

Pictures are linked that show he does lock his knee.

You say you 'interpret' the pictures differently.

Huh?

Averagebum wrote:

But that still begs the question whether if they did learn to run Pose and ran the same speed with a higher cadence, that it would be more economical.

Given the large numbers of elites and the length of time that the POSE method has been around and potentially available for someone fast to 'revolutionize' the sport, don't you think it says something that no one has?

Obviously the lingo of the Posers was not very

universally or scientifically accurate.

Very true.

Perhaps it was not meant to be so.

Much circumstantial evidence supports that.

Or perhaps it's just that Romanov is Russian and his English-speaking coaches don't know enough physics to explain this point.

Again, saying pretty much the same as the previous statements and therefore likely true as well.

This was all covered through the preceeding pages, no matter how much JHuffman chooses to deny it. The supporting evidence is written in black on yellow.

This is a dumb thread. There is no real "debate" regarding pose. You cannot use gravity to create a net forward motion gain when running across level ground. Period. The only "debate" here is like the so-called "debate" between evolution and "intelligent design": It exists only in the minds of the ID'ers. The scientific community ignores it because the weight of evidence against it and in support of the other is staggering.

If you want to follow pose, have a ball. Just remember that you're free to believe in the tooth fairy as well.

Asterix,

Actually no I don't believe it sounds silly. He does not fully lock his knee. He does have a very quick rate of falling and his appearence of full extension is due to that fact. He maintains a vertical position from his shoulders and hips and the support point of his foot at impact to the ground. Momentum, Ground force reaction, and muscle elasticity is allowing him to continue maintain such effortlessness and ease.

Jim,

Why do you have to be so negative?

Hi Jhuffman

Was that you in the video doing the 800 metre time trial in 1:54 using Pose method??? That was cool! Wish I could run that fast. Will Pose help me to run that fast? I am down with all manner of injuries from the hip to the knee now after an accident at a youth camp I volunteered in 5.5 years ago.

Pose doesn't purport to have you pull your foot off the ground as soon as you can; that is, when the support foot is directly underneath you.

This ties into the concept of leaning from the ankles.

When the body center of mass moves forward passing above the support foot, the pull is not physically engaged yet. Once the angle of the lower leg versus ground is somewhat less than 90 degrees, you have a lean from the ankle and gravity is beginning to do its work with commencing the fall. At the point during unbalancing where you feel the weight coming off the ball-of-foot, then you pull. Obviously, pulling before you lean does not unbalance the body and you go nowhere. But the exact timing of when during the unbalancing that you put forth the pull is an art and requires lots of practice with drills so you can be quick enough to exert very fine control over when to initiate a quick pull and the proper direction of that pull.

I am a novice (9 months), so don't listen to me, listen to others. However, it is interesting that when my Pose is working the best and I have a feeling of effortless running, it is almost as if I can feel the pull commencing when the foot is behind me, although the pull direction is upwards under the hip. However, the feeling of an invisible "wind" of effortless power seems to be associated with the sensation of (1) falling, combined with (2) the coriolis effect when my lower leg is up off the ground, closer to the hips, and then as the leg has become a shortened pendulum the knee rotates forwards automatically, like an iceskater spining faster when arms are pulled in, and (3) from the quickness of the recoil off the ground as my foot falls and automatically recoils upwards as an elastic bounce conserving momentum. That feeling doesn't last through the whole run, but it is what I strive for. Sometimes I just don't get a strong enough falling feeling coming off of the support leg as I unbalance, despite going through the motions. I believe a pull initiated without first having enough of the unweighting of the support leg happening tends to slow one down and works against the gratuitous forces which create a feeling of effortless movement.