The argumentation of Jeremy Huffman

I agree and I feel sorry for his athletes... not because he teaches Pose, but because he's so unreasonable

don't post shit like this. he thrives off of being opposed because he thinks POSE is being persecuted by the ignorant masses LOL

Thank you for inquiring about the POSE method of running. The POSE method of running will allow you to break beyond your limits and finally succeed in races and training. POSE method of running. Pleas email me for more info on the POSE method of running.

The Pose method is a raging joke among biomechanics experts. of course, JHuffman thinks he knows better than them just because he read a stupid book.

I've always wondered the same thing about POSE. Anyone who's taken high school physics could tell you that gravity cannot do the work for you because you're moving perpendicular to gravity.

The website never really addresses any of that. It just assumes that their explanation of using gravity to pull you forward is fact -- and it's not.

My guess is that if you "fall" forward (like Romanov instructs) your body's natural reaction will propel you forward and produce the running form desired with pose.

Because it is hard to change your running form, and that is their best way of explaining how to think about it. If that's the case, it shouldn't be justified with science (gravity doing the work for you, etc...) because you're always the one doing the work.

Cyg wrote:

My guess is that if you "fall" forward (like Romanov instructs) your body's natural reaction will propel you forward and produce the running form desired with pose.

Because it is hard to change your running form, and that is their best way of explaining how to think about it. If that's the case, it shouldn't be justified with science (gravity doing the work for you, etc...) because you're always the one doing the work.

Purdy good there Cygwin... I think Dr. R would agree with what you have written.

there are parts of POSE that are actaully very true, such as the fact that most propulsive force comes from the release of elastic energy rather than muscle mechanical work. It's a shame that they have to ruin their argument with idiotic claims like "gravity pulls you forward". I sometimes wonder if the method isn't valid, despite it's poor presentation.

Well, that's what I've been asking. Do folks object to the actual movements -- landing on the forefoot close to under your body (not overstriding and landing on your heel), minimizing time on support, lifting the foot with the hamstring, etc. -- or to the semantics?

it's definitely not just semantics when it comes to gravity pulling you forward. that's an important point.

I do not object to forefoot landing, though I disagree with consciously using the hamstring to pull the foot up.

Good sir,

Let me attempt to clarify your confusion. Gravity pulls us down towards the ground, but our bodies are moving in the direction that we allow it to fall. Whether it be forward or backwards or sideways. Are we clear on this understanding? In order to minimally break our falling momentum we must use our muscle efforts in the most effective way to allow gravity to work in our favor as opposed to fighting against it. Thus the need to have a comprehensive method to teach with.

Jhuffman wrote:

Let me attempt to clarify your confusion. Gravity pulls us down towards the ground, but our bodies are moving in the direction that we allow it to fall. Whether it be forward or backwards or sideways. Are we clear on this understanding? In order to minimally break our falling momentum we must use our muscle efforts in the most effective way to allow gravity to work in our favor as opposed to fighting against it. Thus the need to have a comprehensive method to teach with.

Good lord, you still don't get it. Please, please take a high school physics course so you can understand that a force can do net work ONLY in the direction of its vector. You do not get to choose which way gravity points, nor can you allow it to act in any direction other than straight down.

Gravity points, has always pointed, and will always point straight down. Any meaningful distance run will have no net vertical change in your center of mass, nor should there be from one step to the next. Therefore gravity can do no net work for you.

Until you can wrap your head around this most basic of Newtonian physics concepts, you and your methodology will continue to be justifiably lambasted on this board by people who live in the Real World.

Open your mind and do some research. It does wonders for the learning process.

Yet Doc Romanov insists on using the phrase "let gravity do the work". After all these years ... why is that JHuffman?

Jeramy Hauffman wrote:

Cyg wrote:

My guess is that if you "fall" forward (like Romanov instructs) your body's natural reaction will propel you forward and produce the running form desired with pose.

Because it is hard to change your running form, and that is their best way of explaining how to think about it. If that's the case, it shouldn't be justified with science (gravity doing the work for you, etc...) because you're always the one doing the work.

Purdy good there Cygwin... I think Dr. R would agree with what you have written.

Has anybody ever met JHuffman? Seriously, is he like this all the time? He's a sub 4 miler - somebody has to know him. I'm fascinated by him. I think I'd actually pay money to meet him just so I could see how much of the stuff he posts is serious and how much of it is him just screwing with us. He has to know what he just posted doesn't make any sense, right?

And the language, oh the language! "Good sir," "Are we clear on this understanding?" "In order to minimally break," - I mean honestly he can't be serious, right? Right....

Prarie Dog wrote:

Yet Doc Romanov insists on using the phrase "let gravity do the work". After all these years ... why is that JHuffman?

Lost in translation. If you have ever heard him speak or write, you will know what I mean. This lack of great communication has led Dr. R to rely on telling the runner how to perceive instead of explaining what is actually happening. I think if he were a great English communicator, the difference between perception and actuality would be better explained. Look at the name of Dr. R’s method… didn’t anyone tell him that is a horrible name? Didn’t anyone tell him what a Poser is? Didn’t someone tell him it is best to name it after himself if he can’t think of anything better? This exemplifies the communication and explanation problems.

if you look at in a torque situation, then gravity does cause you to fall forward. I'm not a POSE enthusiast, so don't look at this as an argument for them. I don't even know anything about this POSE business.

But the BIG question is, can God build a treadmill so powerful that even he cannot prevent Pose from making Webb fall forward on it?

I've seen much of the "pose" running form recommended at running clinics, including the USATF Level I, without the name. Instead they referred to "A", "B", and "C" motion. And without fatuous references to gravity. The one difference is that when they talk about pulling the leg up, they said the quadriceps does the work, not the hamstring. I don't see how the hamstring could raise the leg at all.

In the clinic I was at, the hamstring came in to drive the leg back down.

Also, the form was more geared to sprinting than distance - I would imagine the relative emphasis on the various phases of the leg motion would change with speed. Sprinting would be an exaggerated or extreme version of the form, distance running would not require the leg travel to be as extreme. I do find that the form is helpful for distances, too, within reason.

well...hold on there wrote:

if you look at in a torque situation, then gravity does cause you to fall forward.

Nope. Draw a free body diagram with the various forces (this is something I'd recommend Mr. Huffman try as well).

Any forward motion by the center of gravity is resulting from a force applied through the planted foot with a component parallel to the ground. This is why you push off and this is why Mr. Huffman will be wearing spikes when he POSES on the track. If there was no push, he could wear flats and do it on a smooth, frictionless surface.

Obviously you want to direct as much of that push to propel you in a horizontal direction as any vertical force (such as would be needed to pick yourself up after falling) will pretty much be wasted in terms of helping you run from A to B.

Asterix: If I place a pen on my desk at an 80 degree angle to the surface and let go, the top and middle of the pen (all but the point of contact) actually move forward (in the direction of the lean) not just straight down. That happens with no active push action against the surface. Although we are not as rigid as the pen, doesn't the same thing happen when we run, assuming that we are rigid enough and don't get in the way of that action (land with a straight leg on our heel in front of our body)? Of course, momentum plays a role in running as well.