Pose = crazy???

oh really, which university did you go to?

SFU has an enrollment in the region of twenty to thirty thousand, and is one of the top 5 ranked universities in Canada.

"This article is very clear of the relationship between push off and pull in regards to the POSE METHOD position on running. Again neither I or anyone associated with Pose Method as said that there is no pushoff, but you don't seem to be listening to me."

http://www.posetech.com/training/archives/000286.html

Asterix,

This is a very good article, you just have to have patience to read it thoroughly without a bias. Pose method is not a METHOD OF RUNNING, but A METHOD OF TEACHING TO RUN BIOMECHANICALLY EFFICIENTLY. If you would be able to place some kind of a dynamometer under the ball of the rear foot just a fraction of a second prior it leaves the ground, I'm sure it would register some kind of applied force increase that physically can be called "a push-off", but this force ideally shouldn't exceed what is generated by muscle elasticity. The essence of pose teaching is NOT TO APPLY VOLUNTARY MUSCLE FORCE to push off. Pay attention to the thought in the article about that it's more important what is done, and not what happens.

If pose is so useless,

Why is it then, when I do pose, I run faster with a lower heart rate?

I have run on ice, uphill, against a cyclist and won?

Asterix,

"If that shot of Geb and company in mid-flight (with their center of masses siginficantly higher than at rest)"

"Significantly" - must mean a measure in inches above the ground, or what? How much is "1-significantly", 2- significantly"? Who told you that Pose claims that the graviy center in flight phase is the same as at rest? You say "significantly", I say - "insignificantly", so we both may be right or wrong. Talking about a straight knee is another pair of shoes - there is only one way to be straight, anything else is a bent knee.

"bothers you so much, let's just ignore that one. "

Let's, so that you don't have to be "grasping at straws" trying to prove that a bent knee is a straight knee.

"There were several others cited that specifically shot Geb when his leg was fully extended and his ankle fully flexed."

Are you talking about that front view pic? LOL, the support knee looks bent to me.

"You very specifically said to look at frames to prove that Geb NEVER straightened his leg. That was factually incorrect and telling me to look at frames preceeding that or following that will not change it."

I told you to "look at the motion frame by frame". Just that, not a still shot taken out of context.

"The POSE concept that the 'pose' itself is when the center of mass passes over the point of ground contact is by no means unique to POSE. From the moment they learn to walk, babies pass this pose. Showing pictures or video that Geb or others are in this pose certainly does not prove they run POSE."

This statement of yours clearly shows that you haven't got a clue about what you are arguing. Did I say that the fact that a guy is in pose means he is running Pose? You must be joking! On the contrary, I said that every running person (even that fat lady in your photo), passes the pose phase.The difference between "pose" and "non-pose" running is how and when he gets into the pose stance, and what movements preceed and follow this phase. The main thing is - how quick is the transition from pose to pose. That's why I told you to watch MOTION FRAME BY FRAME: the correct technique is when you front foot lands, the body must be already in pose stance. This is the key of correct running. And the teaching to "pull" and not "to push" is the INSTRUMENT to achieve this. Do you fail to understand this, or don't want to?

For those who missed the famed POSE method of running earlier in this thread, here's a recap:

http://www.posetech.com/video/index.php/weblog/vibram_fivefingers_review/

Right, you can stop laughing now. Not really, stop! Yes, you too at the back. It's not funny......!

What I want to know, is where does the 45 degree foot ankle come into things? Is the angle the same when you're falling uphill? What about falling downhill? So many unanswered questions.

Asterix et al., keep up the good work.

And really now, it's time to stop laughing.....!

A video is made from a series of still shots. No still shot could possibly be “out of context”. Produce a video of Geb actually running fast and then see if your argument stands up. Unfortunately, you have already demonstrated that you only see what you want to see, not what's actually there.

sfu'ed wrote:

The sun does rotate about the earth, the earth is the center of the universe; and in the correct coordinate system, the earth is "flat".

Arguing that your skeletal knowledge of a couple physical laws gives you a knowledge of physics just makes you look foolish.

Edward Hoey

4th yr Physics Major, Math Minor

Simon Fraser University

Hey, I thought "hooey" was spelled with a double "o".

Back in the dark ages of the 1970's when I was studying engineering, they taught us about co-ordinate systems and translations, although they were much more simple in those days (indeed, triple digit numbers had yet to be invented and we still didn't have a satisfactory "17"). It was then, with a moment of solipsist clarity, then I realized that the entire universe moved about my center of mass. The fact that some of those motions were described by reasonably complex interactions and equations only served to heighten my own grandeur. In fact, it was not until the invisible, omnipotent, ethereal dragon who lives in my garage (and a few other letsrun threads with an occasional sidetrip to Canada to say hello to Asterix) reiterated this fact that I was truly sure that I had found the answer.

You see, Pose violates my religion. Consequently, it is heretical and those who practice it, heretics. Therefore, they must be burned at the stake because that's what we do to non-believers and because it's my religion you have to respect this process because that's what you're supposed to do with religions and religious people. (Although maybe we can try to build a bridge out of them to verify guilt. Well, certainly they're guilty if they weigh as much as a duck.)

Well golly, I see you bothered to read the replies to JHuffman's post you quote above, specifically the ones posted at 9:29am and 9:33am where his quote was rather pointedly contradicted.

But since you guys insist on constantly referencing the POSE site, from the article:

"Vertical displacement in running happens by utilizing muscle/tendon elastic property, which lifts the body just 4-6 centimeters above the ground, just enough to shift the body weight from one support to the other."

Remember from your high school physics all those problems dealing with perfectly smooth surfaces and such? They make the solutions easier by neglecting the fact that nothing in the real world is perfect. This includes muscle elasticity.

There is no way that 100% of gravitational potential energy can be transferred to be stored as elastic potential energy and then completely transferred back to gravitational potential energy (which is what would need to occur to return to your starting height, either running or dropping a superball).

The only way to continue constant repetitive motion is to continually add further energy to that system by consciously pushing off.

Back to the picture of the three Ethiopians that greatly offended you. Geb's leg may not be straight, but look at the center of mass of each of them. It is "significantly higher" (at least 10cm but all we really need to see is a non-zero difference to support my explanation) than when they are at rest. This can NOT be achieved by successive elastic rebounds on their own and can ONLY be achieved by all three runners actively pushing off.

This is further supported by the force diagrams previously referenced that show a second peak at a higher level than the initial absorbption loading. The only way this would be possible without actively pushing off would be to subscribe to the concept of 'free energy'. I've yet to see any legitimate proof that 'free energy' exists but you are welcome to introduce me to it when you find it.

Please re-read the thread. I have not said "POSE is useless". I have consistently made the case that the descriptions of POSE provided both by certified experts and certified 'experts' is useless. POSE may very well enable some people to run injury-free, but it is certainly not the way to run if you want to run fast (or FAST if you'd like to sign up for one of my seminars).

As for your efficiency when running, if that is the case, more power to you, but the good Dr R has co-authored a study that shows running POSE is less efficient so you are obviously an exception.

As to your last line, I'm not sure if you are asking me if you won or not. I really don't know since I wasn't there. Maybe you're asking me if you ran on ice uphill? Or maybe you're asking me if you ran against a cyclist? I have no idea. Maybe the cyclist was just passing by and didn't know you were racing him/her.

Who told me? You and everyone who claims that there is no active push-off in POSE. See above for the explanation that there is absolutely no way to raise your center of mass significantly or even insignificantly above its position at rest with no push-off without bringing 'free energy' to the table. Even the POSE logo shows that the runner's center of mass is higher at mid-flight than it would be at rest.

[Are you talking about that front view pic? LOL, the support knee looks bent to me.]

I don't possibly understand how you see a bent knee in either of the two front shots. You are looking head-on to the top of Geb's shoe, which means it is completely perpindicular to the ground at the instant it loses contact. I'll see about digging up a good side shot for you (check out Limo's picture in my 'run FAST' post). Perhaps you could provide a shot where someone's ankle is fully flexed as Geb's is but their knee is not straight at moment of last contact with the ground.

It appears you are still not grasping what a video is, or at least you are doing a very poor job of explaining your question.

There is no way a still shot is any different than a frame from a video. There is also no way to take a still shot out of context when it comes to demonstrating whether Geb fully flexes his ankle and extends his knee at any point in his stride. Either he does and one can provide a frame showing this, or he doesn't, and no photographic evidence is available.

I provided a few links to show that at the moment he loses contact with the ground, his ankle is flexed and his knee is extended. What he does in the frame before that or after that does not cancel out the proof of what he is doing in that original frame (whether it be a video frame or a still shot).

Fair enough, we'll take this as an agreed point.

This was covered nicely by Sir Lance-alot at 3:46pm Aug 2 (near the bottom of page 8). What you describe is the basics of just about every description of efficient running (don't land too far in front or you will break, be light and snappy on your feet).

If that is all that POSE is, then why not come clean and just say so? Why all this messed up talk of falling forward, falling upward, "don't push", don't extend the knee or flex the ankle? I think Sir Lance-alot hit the nail on the head as to why you don't.

sfu'ed wrote:

You all appear delighted with your one bit of information that you've retained from your high school physics class; and now are using it as your claim to be the "scientific" standpoint.

Okay, sure, the wording isn't exactly correct in pose ... but it is quite obvious what they are trying to get across.

"one bit of information"? Which "one bit" are you talking about? Their insistence on gravity pulling forward or maybe even upward? Or maybe their insistence on not pushing off? Or perhaps the "one bit" you refer to is their attempts to cite numerous elite athletes as running POSE when they obviously do not follow all the POSE descriptions?

If you'd read this and other POSE threads, you'll see that their wording is a little more than "isn't exactly correct", it is plain out wrong and otherwise misleading. If you can obviously determine what point they are trying to get across by such statements, then maybe you've been exposed to excessive amounts of BC bud.

Lara,

I’m really pleased for you that your running is going so well.

I know that there has been at least one study, which contradicts your statement. I also know that many pose supporters have rejected this study on the grounds that it was too short term. All right, I’ll take that point, so all the evidence so far is anecdotal. However, if you tell us your running has improved we have to believe you.

I think there are a number of factors here:

Firstly, there is the typical heavily heal striking, recreational runner, whose running form was probably so bad to start with, pose has to be an improvement. I think here that the most important factor here is probably the landing and the change to flatter shoes.

At the other end of the scale is the naturally talented runner, and obviously you come into this category, who might nevertheless have some basic faults in their form. I have never claimed that pose is all bad and maybe it did address some of your problems, but I think that the real reason that your running has improved is because you’re talented.

Then there is the much-quoted statement that triathletes turn to pose because they are more open minded towards learning skills. In my own experience of triathletes, this is far from the case. It’s much more simple than that. Many triathletes come from a swimming or cycling background and they are simply terrible runners. They’ll try anything. It’s exactly the same as the bad swimmers who turn to TI – although I have to say TI’s has a lot more credibility than pose.

The problem is that what’s right about pose is all fairly basic and in no way original, but alongside that are some truly ridiculous claims. All of this is couched in pseudo-science, vague arguments in which are constantly shifting and a completely blinkered outlook. There are people here trying to tell us that black is white.

This is what asterix, alex s et al have so succinctly pointed out.

There are SO many pictures out there of world elite runners with a fully extended rear leg. To suggest that they do not do it is ridiculous.

I agree that to land in something like the POSE position is ideal (and i believe a lot of elites do this) - but that position merely supports the body weight and provides no propulsion. Simply transferring from pose to pose will not inherently propel you forwards.

The POSE position is the beginning of the leg drive which, ideally, ends with full extension.

In my opinion, the 'success' of POSE comes from learning to land in the correct position (i.e. forefoot, and not overstriding) and through trying to run relaxed rather than forcing and straining.

However the explanations of where the propulsion comes from in POSE are simply wrong as has been argued extensively. Either on this thread or others people associated with POSE (though not all) HAVE explicitly stated that there is no 'push off', and/or that gravity provides the propulsion for running.

Also, for some people (maybe those who are too good at isolating muscles), following the POSE method could lead to excessive inhibition of the drive and of stabilising muscles as they try to simply pull using the hamstring only.

POSE may well be an approach that helps some people. A perfect model of running technique it certainly is not.

Asterix wrote:

I don't possibly understand how you see a bent knee in either of the two front shots. You are looking head-on to the top of Geb's shoe, which means it is completely perpindicular to the ground at the instant it loses contact. I'll see about digging up a good side shot for you (check out Limo's picture in my 'run FAST' post). Perhaps you could provide a shot where someone's ankle is fully flexed as Geb's is but their knee is not straight at moment of last contact with the ground.

Just to further help Gatorade out, how about:

(Geb is just about locked but he's not quite as far into his stride as Bekele is who has one heck of a straight knee. Also note the position of Bekele's shoe, which matches that of the head-on shots of Geb which were previously complained about.)

(looks pretty darn straight through the knee here too)

(Geb's straight knee is a little harder to see behind his lead leg, but it is there, as is Tergat's)

(another side shot with Tergat in full knee extension and Geb almost there - note his slightly earlier position in his stride by virtue of the ankle flexion and position of the lead leg)

I'd be open to hearing why these frame-by-frame analyses do NOT show that Geb never straightens his knee of fully flexes his ankle.

Just remember:

Gatorade wrote: Are you talking about that front view pic? LOL, the support knee looks bent to me.

Asterix wrote:I don't possibly understand how you see a bent knee in either of the two front shots.

Because Gatorade sees what he wants to see - what he NEEDS to see. Geb's leg is obviously straight as an arrow, but unfortunately that completely counters gatorade's statement. Deny, deny, deny is the only tactic this ding-dong has left to him.

Some pics:

Full extension from Daniel Komen

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_athletics/KOMEN_Daniel_19990825_GH_L.jpg

Wilson Kipketer

A frame or two after full extension - but still very extended

http://www.oztrack.com/kip2.JPG

full extension on this one

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_athletics/KIPKETER_W_20000925_GH_L.jpg

Mckean and Cram:

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletics-heroes/displayhero.asp?HeroID=159

El Gerrouj in inset:

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_athletics/BEKELE_K_20040828_GH_L.jpg

sfu'ed wrote:

oh really, which university did you go to?

SFU has an enrollment in the region of twenty to thirty thousand, and is one of the top 5 ranked universities in Canada.

Any "ranking" of universities is subject to some dispute, but very few Canadians would consider SFU to be in the top five in the country.

In 2005, Maclean's listed it as tied for 3rd among "comprehensive" schools, behind Waterloo and UVic and equal with Guelph. This list does not include any of the "medical/doctoral" schools, like McGill, UofT, Queen's, Western, and UBC--all of which would be considered better than SFU in any combined ranking.

Perhaps POSE is a technique for the weekend jogger. That would certainly explain the claim that there is not full extension haha.

Sign me up for some FAST ;)

POSE IS A CULT! POSE will one day rule the world.

POSE BELIEVE

The world is Flat (except for some hills and sand areas that are hard to run through)

POSE BELIEVE

Gods lived on the Earth before Humans; that they MADE man; and that Gods hear your prayers and respond quickly;

POSE BELIEVE

Your leg motion should be up-and-down like one piston, not forward and back like one ski-poll.

POSE BLEIEVE

If you run 250 miles each week for six months you can rule the world of running.

Ya'll ought to read the book (www.gerrylindgren.com) I think it must be a book on POSE

Runs Like A Duck wrote:

What I want to know, is where does the 45 degree foot ankle come into things? Is the angle the same when you're falling uphill? What about falling downhill? So many unanswered questions.

And really now, it's time to stop laughing.....!

Just FYI (I'm just lurking) Based on their website, Dr. R's splayed foot is due to an improperly set bone from a previously injury. (Back to lurking)