Bostonbilly wrote:
I know there are alot of critics out there, but I am sure that none of them really understand Pose. However, if I was to tell you that improving your biomechanics would increase your running performance by 2%, you might be interested in learning more. For a 3hr marathoner, that is almost 4mins of improvement. For an 18min 5k, that is almost 22 secs. Something to think about.
Bostonbilly, but running performance does not increase by 2% does it? In fact, that study that you participated in showed that running economy DECREASED by around 8% didn't it? And an increase in the vertical oscillation during the running gait of 22%. So where does this 2% improvement come from?
To take this further, lets look at the other published study of the POSE technique, done by Romanov and Tim Noakes. Unlike the performance study you participated in, this paper (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Feb;36(2):272-7) actually produces positive results for POSE, showing reduced impact forces etc. compared to heel/toe or midfoot landing. My question for the POSE supporters comes from the measures of PROPULSIVE forces determined by force plate. Compared to heel/toe or midfoot running, POSE running produced only a 17% reduction in horizontal propulsion and and a non-significant 11% decrease in vertical propulsive force.
Now if POSE running is really what it claims to be, why weren't horizontal and vertical propulsive forces reduced more? In fact, why weren't they equal to ZERO, since all the forward motion comes from gravitational forces?
JHuffman or anyone else care to address this issue?