Training with the POSE method

bsmyman wrote:

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've got news for you. Your "regular ground" is not stationary either. The Earth is rotating on its axis, and whipping around the sun at the same time, at speeds a lot faster than your treadmill can go. When you think you are standing still relative to the "regular ground", you are still moving in multiple ways. Don't worry, you won't get dizzy as long as your reference point is this "regular ground." And when you're on a treadmill, use the belt as your reference point. It's that simple!

.

Eric Taylor wrote:

An honest read of Jim's comment can only lead one to recognize that the said lack of extra backward movement on a treadmill is in reference to the belt of the treadmill.

Thank you.

The main point of my post was regarding frames of reference. Apparently, some people cannot get past the idea of the Earth as somehow being "special" in this context. Consider the following: If you're running down the road and a bicycle overtakes you, you are moving BACKWARD relative to the bicycle.

As an aside, this reminds me of a comment I hear a lot in my freshman electrical circuits class regarding "ground". We often measure voltages with respect to ground (the third wire on the AC wall jack that literally connects to the Earth). There is nothing magical about "ground" other than that it is a convenient reference (there are also reasons of safety to use it, but that's a separate issue). If electrical circuits required a true earth ground, how would portable devices or airplane avionics work?

I just got my latest Road Runner Sports catalog and the Chief-Runner's column on the inside cover sings the praises of the POSE method saving his running. He wouldn't lie to us, would he??

I think the term falling with gravity is misleading. In reality only a very small fraction of the acceleration due to gravity is helping the runner. The slight forward lean means that gravity has a component in the direction of motion, which will be slightly below horizontal. This small component of acceleration due to gravity will reduce the force that needs to be provided by the runners muscles for a given speed, thus making the runner more efficient.

It has been proved scientifically that the POSE style reduces oxygen consumption. Everyone thought Michael Johnson had a sub-optimal style, which is ridiculous looking at his record. People thought this because he used POSE which doesn't require such high knee lift.

pose running (I refuse to use all caps for the name) is the scientology of running. How does pose work? Buy a book and find out. Want advanced training? Send us more money!

Has Carl Lewis called yet?

He's probably disappointed to know he wasn't a very good runner.

jeb wrote:

I just got my latest Road Runner Sports catalog and the Chief-Runner's column on the inside cover sings the praises of the POSE method saving his running. He wouldn't lie to us, would he??

You might ask yourself how much Romanov paid as a advertizer to get him to make that statement.

But the other question is...saving his running, compared to what?

You can probably find someone from a 5K or running club who doesn't do drills or proper warmups (because running is more important), has a slight backward lean, lands hard on the back of his heels, never does any strides or speed (because he slways gets injured when he runs fast), "races" a 5K in, oh, 27 minutes, and gets injured about 5 times a year (and doesn't get the fact that this is related to his poor biomechanics because he won't do any form work or core ab work in a gym). If you take this guy, get him to give Dr. Romanov a couple hundred bucks, and put him on the POSE thing, he may indeed see improvement. But that's like the guy doing 20 mile weeks who talks about how much weight lifting improves his 10K times: It works because what he's been doing is so bad that almost anything he does different in terms of training is going to show an improvement.

Now, if you take, say, Suzy or someone who's been with Peter Tegen or Ron Helmer--i.e., truly competitive people who have been training that way--I think you'll get a result more in line with those experienced triathletes who got worse running economy on the pose system.

Speed Kills you make alot of good points on many topics in my opinion and I respect what you say. I agree with the runnersworld / average person finding improvement through the method. One guy I know related this well in a different situation. For many years he was all about body building and trying to win those competition. When the Bowflex thing came out I asked him what he thought...he responded with it works for the average person because it was its now getting them exercising, which they were not doing before, so of course it will work. He also thought the models used worked out with free weights / more accepted equipment then just modeled the bowflex.

I'm skeptical about Pose, but at the same time intrigued. I definetly question is validity for the more seasoned athlete looking for performence enhancements / gains. Anyone who cannot see that the vast majority of people running with Pose are more fitness oriented is lying to themselves I think and I will glady retract that if proven wrong.

That being said POSE does have some hi-level triathlete support...Joe Friel and a few others if you take a look at the site. What are the thoughts on that? Those are some pretty good coaches I thought?

I am not going to profess to understand half the arguments being put forward here; but it seems to me the physicists do a good job of making Mr Romanov appear silly...

However, here's a thought: from what I understand, the POSE method would seem to shift the balance in the amount of work done by different muscle groups (somebody mentions the hamstrings play a more important role for a POSEr). Surely this could be an argument in favour of the value of the POSE method. In kayaking for instance, there is value in using the back's muscles rather than just the arms, as this muscle group is larger and thus more powerful. This accounts for the 'arms straight' paddling action of kayak racers... Could the same principle be at work in the POSE method?

Anyone with a background in biomechanics care to comment?

alexuk wrote:

I think the term falling with gravity is misleading. In reality only a very small fraction of the acceleration due to gravity is helping the runner. The slight forward lean means that gravity has a component in the direction of motion, which will be slightly below horizontal. This small component of acceleration due to gravity will reduce the force that needs to be provided by the runners muscles for a given speed, thus making the runner more efficient.

It has been proved scientifically that the POSE style reduces oxygen consumption. Everyone thought Michael Johnson had a sub-optimal style, which is ridiculous looking at his record. People thought this because he used POSE which doesn't require such high knee lift.

Please don't confuse me with this Alex.

I'm waiting for the POSE method of weightlifting:

We all know that for an action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore the gravity acting on the barbell creates an upward force equal to the weight of the barbell. By assuming the correct lifting posture, you can utilise this natural force to lift the barbell above your head without muscular exertion. Then you simply position yourself below the barbell in order to catch it. There is no need limit to how much you can lift with proper technique.

Rogerthesheep wrote:

I am not going to profess to understand half the arguments being put forward here; but it seems to me the physicists do a good job of making Mr Romanov appear silly...

However, here's a thought: from what I understand, the POSE method would seem to shift the balance in the amount of work done by different muscle groups (somebody mentions the hamstrings play a more important role for a POSEr). Surely this could be an argument in favour of the value of the POSE method. In kayaking for instance, there is value in using the back's muscles rather than just the arms, as this muscle group is larger and thus more powerful. This accounts for the 'arms straight' paddling action of kayak racers... Could the same principle be at work in the POSE method?

Anyone with a background in biomechanics care to comment?

alexuk wrote:

Everyone thought Michael Johnson had a sub-optimal style, which is ridiculous looking at his record. People thought this because he used POSE which doesn't require such high knee lift.

You have got to be kidding, right? If there was anyone out there NOT running Pose, it's MJ. He often; looked like he was leaning *backwards* (though not, just extremely upright.

Rogerthesheep wrote:

I am not going to profess to understand half the arguments being put forward here; but it seems to me the physicists do a good job of making Mr Romanov appear silly...

However, here's a thought: from what I understand, the POSE method would seem to shift the balance in the amount of work done by different muscle groups (somebody mentions the hamstrings play a more important role for a POSEr). Surely this could be an argument in favour of the value of the POSE method. In kayaking for instance, there is value in using the back's muscles rather than just the arms, as this muscle group is larger and thus more powerful. This accounts for the 'arms straight' paddling action of kayak racers... Could the same principle be at work in the POSE method?

Anyone with a background in biomechanics care to comment?

Dr. R claims that you should only pull with the hamstrings - no other muscle action.

I don't see how this would give a more favourable spread of load over muscle groups than a technique that utilises glutes, hamstrings, quads, and calves etc in a corect manner.

Alex wrote:

Dr. R claims that you should only pull with the hamstrings - no other muscle action.

I don't see how this would give a more favourable spread of load over muscle groups than a technique that utilises glutes, hamstrings, quads, and calves etc in a corect manner.

Is this what really happens though? I mean, no sport isolates only one muscle group... What Romanov claims, and what the facts are seem to be two very different things...

I am only trying to understand here what has made the POSE method so popular with some elite (tri)athletes... There may well be something to it, beyond the rather extravagant claims of Dr. Romanov?

Rogerthesheep wrote:

What Romanov claims, and what the facts are seem to be two very different things...

Bingo! And you wonder why POSE boosters aren't taken very seriously?

I am only trying to understand here what has made the POSE method so popular with some elite (tri)athletes... There may well be something to it, beyond the rather extravagant claims of Dr. Romanov?

Several people have commented on the similarities between POSE and cult-like operations like Scientology. Just because there's a sucker born every minute does not mean that something has legitimacy.

Allright, I'm trying to offer a balanced view here. Eventhough the POSE method might not work in the way Dr. Romanov describes it, there may still be something to it given its (relative) popularity in some elite circles.

I am neither trying to prove it's efficiency, nor dismiss it totally. Hence, I suggested (without any real knowledge of the POSE method, or of biomechanics) a reason why it might possibly work... I was simply hoping for someone with a shread of objectivity -and some intellectual curiosity- to tell me whether shifting the balance of work to a larger muscle group might give you an advantage, and whether indeed this is what the POSE method does?

TO ALL

I have read all your threads and this is my conclusion.

I am a very open minded runner who likes to try new things. It is my opinion that "barefoot running" creates the best of both worlds(or arguments). It seems to me that barefoot running on grass creates a environment in which your natural movement of running takes over yet I have notice that the "pose method" seems to be a natural part of this proccess. Just a thought.