Asterix,
I have never said they practice using the Pose Method technique. Who has said this? I have no clue what training methods they follow. What has been said about there form while they are running, is that they have qualities about their movement that Pose Method teaches as a good attribute of efficient running. Wow, we do agree on something.
Jeremy
It never ends said:
People improve off simple training too. So not only do we need to show that the runners improved, we need to show that it was due to POSE. It is not enough to show us that some runner improved their PR. POSE is claiming that the method of running makes them more efficient. So don't you think they ought to prove that it does.
If you take someone that trains several years and has reached a peak with "simple" training, whatever that may be, then after learning pose they become faster, that is proof in the pudding. It is merely necessary to show that the athletes had trained hard for XX years and had competed to the best of their ability before learning pose.
You can't use the argument that improved PRs aren't proof merely because people can improve PRs by following other regimens. You are isolating pose by definition as invalid by that assumption.
...posting a point that contradicts what virtually every pose adherent quoted has said.
Life is subjective, we all have our opinions. What I have said is clearly not the first time it has been said on either this forum in letsrun or Posetech regarding an essential part of the pose concept being an application of perceptions in conjunction with specific patterns of motion, form, and balance defined by the pose constructs. What I said complements what other Pose posters have said, not contradicts it.
silly
I don't think anyone is laughing.
weak-kneed
I don't see any lack of connection or relevance to the topic at hand except your inability to respond to my specific points and substitution of insults for logic.
You came in here on page 37 telling us "it's all about perception" when this entire thread has been a back and forth with incredibly disingenuous adherents who claim that it is NOT about perceptions but about physics.
Actually, perceptions has also been discussed. You are the one who prefers redirecting all discussions back to physics because this topic is easy to ridicule.
they just don't understand the language they are using.
Having been on the pose site quite a bit, I would agree that use of physics is not providing any better understanding of the technique. In that sense pose proponents are their own worst enemies in this forum domain. However, that there is an actual method behind it that works for a lot of runners of all calibers, ranging from recreational, healthy, injured, competitive amateur, even to highly competitive. However, the posters on this forum have redirected every attempt at discussing form and technique, which would normally be the points of interest on other forums that aren't as antagonistic and hostile as letsrun.com.
Hehe...Hi all! Have you seen this video? It is a perfect example of GRAVITY at work!!
If anyone of you can teach me to do plyometrics like that, I'd love to learn!
That ain't plyometrics
This arguement won't get anywhere, this is the worst of American running. All people do is argue looking for some guarantees.
The only way to prove it is to go out there and try it.
hmmm, this is interesting... i have my phd in mathematics from berkeley; í've done research on stochastic differential equations, relativity, all of which I will tentatively say I get...and now you are telling us that pose is very complicated and difficult to understand... somehow you get it and we don't...I think I will leave it to others on here to see how it is somewhat amusing to me that you are telling me that you get it - and my simple mind doesn't.
Jhuffman wrote:
txRUNNERgirl,
On a serious note, I am enjoying my running and training more than every before. Yes, Pose Method is quite difficult for many to wrap there heads around. Thankfully I get it and I am reaping the benefits in my training. I encourage you to continue to explore this method.
Jeremy
http://www.therunningman.ws
notkidding,
Unfortunately, mathmatics offer very little when it is time to put the body to motion and perform the task of efficiency. I am sure you are a very brilliant person as are many others that do not understand how to apply the Pose Method technique to their movement.
Jeremy
Ok
Jhuffman wrote:
notkidding,
Unfortunately, mathmatics offer very little when it is time to put the body to motion and perform the task of efficiency. I am sure you are a very brilliant person as are many others that do not understand how to apply the Pose Method technique to their movement.
Jeremy
I know it isn't real plyos...meant to be a light-hearted insertion. Maybe it's complex training then? Depth jumps with a roll and then running? Hehe...But it certainly is falling from gravity.
A poster said:
I would agree that use of physics is not providing any better understanding of the (Pose) technique. In that sense pose proponents are their own worst enemies in this forum domain. However, that there is an actual method behind it that works for a lot of runners of all calibers
A useful analogy here is that if someone packaged Tylenol inside a bottle and labelled it "Mystic Snake Oil", then no one would believe it works and that there is no sound underlying medical reason that the product could possible relieve headaches. However, if you get a headache and try using this "Snake Oil", then you would find most of the time that it is effective.
As a second useful analogy, you could claim that since people got rid of headaches previously using other products, therefore that implies "Snake Oil" necessarily is not more effective than the other product alternatives.
agree with disagree to agree wrote:
A useful analogy here is that if someone packaged Tylenol inside a bottle and labelled it "Mystic Snake Oil", then no one would believe it works and that there is no sound underlying medical reason that the product could possible relieve headaches.
That analogy is only useful in deflecting attention from the glaring flaws of the POSE methodology. As you quoted someone else: "pose proponents are their own worst enemies in this forum domain". Every time JHuffman and cohorts post, they inevitably dig themselves deeper and deeper.
Tylenol can provide a detailed list of ingredients that it contains. They can also provide scientific experiments showing how those ingredients combined as the product 'Tylenol' can address the characteristics of a headache. They can also provide scientific studies showing the measurable results as experienced by human beings.
The scientific explanation for POSE is where? (I'm talking an explanation that doesn't require proponents to then say "that's not REALLY what they are saying. It's all about cues or perception.")
The scientific studies showing measurable results for POSE are where? (Surely something so beneficial must have been seized upon by one of those coaches scooping up 15 year old Kenyans and used over the next 4 - 5 years to produce a 19 - 20 year old Kenyan who will kick everyone's butt.)
For a 'revolutionary' method of movement that has been around for 25 or so years, doesn't it strike you as strange (or maybe just telling) that these don't exist?
It's not like running and exercise physiology has been a field not looked at by the scientific community.
Or is POSE immune from rational examination because it is 'special'?
disagree to agree wrote:
You can't use the argument that improved PRs aren't proof merely because people can improve PRs by following other regimens. You are isolating pose by definition as invalid by that assumption.
Sure I can. Requiring POSE to prove what it claims does not isolate it as invalid. Unless of course it is unable to do that. The improvements of simple training are measurable in the human body. Larger heart, greater stroke volume, more capillaries, mitochondria, greater VO2 Max, etc. If POSE claims it makes moe more efficient, such a claim should be measurable and verifiable or it should be rejected.
Especially when someone is trying to make money off it.
I don't see any lack of connection or relevance to the topic at hand except your inability to respond to my specific points and substitution of insults for logic.
(You don't see any LACK of connection? So then you DO see a connection? . I'll assume you meant you "don't see any connection". Otherwise you just contradicted yourself.)
I don't see any connection between your hypersensitivity to my choice of language except your inability to defend the staggering inadequacies in pose arguments presented here with anything more than calling me a "meanie".
Having been on the pose site quite a bit, I would agree that use of physics is not providing any better understanding of the technique. In that sense pose proponents are their own worst enemies in this forum domain.
And that's where we hit an impasse. It had damn well had better provide an understanding. Someone, somewhere has to be able to explain this silly technique using the language of physics. Until they can, and until they can actually DEFEND it using such language, it remains just so much snake oil.
This is not some great, free, humanitarian aid to runners that's being provided here. This is a product. It is being SOLD to runners with claims that it cannot verify. Sure the "information" on the pose site is free. But if anyone really wants to understand it, they are directed to the courses and material. And yet even the very people who have paid money for this stuff -- hell even the people TEACHING it -- cannot for the life of them explain it in terms of simple physics.
So what do we have? They cannot prove it and they cannot explain it. But they sure can sell it, can't they?
good post
it never ends wrote:
So what do we have? They cannot prove it and they cannot explain it. But they sure can sell it, can't they?
Pose has proved itself on an individual level just as much as other famous coaches have proven their worth. Other coaches just haven't attached a catchy name to their program of study.
If a famous running coach starts a commercial training program, writes a book, and launches a website, lists endorsements by specific elite athletes who were trained by that coach and attest that the coaching improved their performance, then no one would doubt that that coaching method worked or that the biomechanic form and technique being taught didn't work.
Yet Pose has done exactly that yet it is being held up to a higher standard of proof than other coaches.
There is nothing wrong with the coach or coaches of pose providing training for a fee or selling books/materials. Actually, compared to most other coaches and methods of running technique available on the market, Pose offers one heck of a lot MORE FREE MATERIAL so anyone can test the water with free training videos, free video analysis of your form unlimited times, free instructional materials, on top of a free Q and A forum. Most coaches would not do that -- it's either "trust me and pay me your money" versus, "your loss, take a hike".
That's a specious argument. Pose is NOT being held to a higher standard. Instead, people are demanding that it be held to the SAME standard. For example, consider the popular Daniels' Running Formula book. Jack doesn't just say "do this workout". He says "Here are the sorts of things you need to improve your lactate threshold or aerobic capacity or whatever" and then he indicates how SCIENCE has shown how this particular item is tied to a certain race distance and how a certain workout stimulates that particular aspect. Others (like Lydiard) may have had a more empirical approach, but their work can be verified by science (and besides, his athletes proved themselves on the world stage and that's ultimately what matters). The same cannot be said of pose.
Oh yeah, and Jack only asks like $15 or $20 for his book and that's it.
Jim -
Do these people you mention in the post above use science to prove running technique or mechanics? I was under the impression the science only covered things like lactate threshold or aerobic capacity.
Where is the science for running technique or mechanics?
Isn't one of the premises of POSE is that gravity is involved? So you want to involve gravity but not mathematics? Does this make any sense to anyone?
?,
Re-read my post. I did not say that you can't use mathmatics to explain gravity. When one performs the act of running thinking about mathmatics will not help ones performance in any way.
Jeremy
So the Pose book price is MORE than Jack's book and the concepts are poorly explained scientifically. That I can't argue with, valid point. Pose may or may not be the crowning achievement for a particular runner in improving performance, but anyone can try it out because the drills and steps in training are VERY well explained.
Incidentally, I am getting my money's worth out of Pose whether or not it ever makes me any faster. I didn't learn this method to get faster, so I could care less about running economy, PRs, etc.
Specifically, I learned Pose to reduce knee impact shock after I tore a meniscus (not caused by running). A scientific study has PROVEN Pose greatly reduces knee impact shock. However, others have developed different injuries to the lower legs during the transition, so knock on wood.
the day you can bend my foot in the middle is the day i wear a racing flat for a 100 mile run.
all coaches are capitalists wrote:
Specifically, I learned Pose to reduce knee impact shock after I tore a meniscus (not caused by running). A scientific study has PROVEN Pose greatly reduces knee impact shock..
Which study is that?