Pose = crazy???

Fine, words have precise meanings when used in certain contexts. Is the context of Romanov's statements unclear? No of course, not, so all you said above is besides the point, so to speak.

You do realize that by playing the games that you are playing, there is absolutely NO WAY to say Romanov or ANYONE ELSE on this thread (or any person who has ever lived for that matter) has said anything wrong, don't you? Wow, what a relief. If anyone tries to correct something I've stated on this thread, or anywhere else, I will refer them to the "ST defense" stated above, which is:

if I said/wrote something wrong, I didn't mean it/you misunderstood me. What I really meant/actually said, was something entirely different (ie, whatever is considered the correct statement). Flagpole Willy uses this defense all the time.

Great, that's a load off my shoulders. I can never be wrong again!!

All kidding aside, THAT is what you are saying!!!

Let's cut to the chase.

Here is the link:

THIS is what he says:

WHAT IS POSE METHOD®?

The Pose Method is a system for teaching of human movement, by determining the key poses, and a model of working with the laws of nature instead of against them. In running, this is achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy.

Please, be truly fair and genuine here, and explain to me or anyone else how my underlined sentence above could have any different meaning than what I, Jim, and others are intepreting it as?? Because he not only said gravity is the "PRIMARY force" in running pose, but he added "instead of muscular energy" leaving out all doubt that he was claiming anything other than: in pose running, gravity will play the biggest role in powering you forward, ie be the PRIMARY FORCE in moving you forward, more so than than muscular energy. And the clear implication of this statement is that: people who don't run POSE have to rely on muscular energy as the PRIMARY FORCE in moving them forward, but if you run POSE, gravity will take over and do most of the work for you.

THAT Is what he is saying, there are no two ways about it, and he is wrong. This "misintreptation" or "didn't express himself well" garbage is insulting. And it is not just some throwaway line from some article he wrote somewhere, but the opening lines of the page of his website on "WHAT IS POSE?", and the central tenet to his POSE philosophy. And it is the main "hook" that he is using to sell his products!!! And THAT is what makes it particularly egregious for him to be so wrong scientifically about what he is stating.

HE IS SELLING A LIE.

Jim,

I was aware of Gatorade's answer, but it seemed to me that he had moved the goalposts once again with his new definition of "recoil". Obviously his answer should still be the same if he is consistent in his beliefs but I just wanted to see it for my own bloody-minded satisfaction. I didn't mean to blur all the efforts you have made to pin down precise awswers. In fact as far as I'm concerned you won your argument in the first few pages of this discussion and I can only thank you and others for clarifying in very clear black and white terms what I knew to be the case intuitively.

Here is a thought that I'd like everyone to consider, because the logical consequences of it create an impossibility:

IF, as pose states, "gravity is the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy", AND

Gravity can only produce a force dependent on the mass, height, and gravitational attraction (PE=mgh and max KE=PE), AND

Running faster requires a greater energy output,

THEN

How is it possible to run faster than some base speed?

If someone is running at 7 MPH and doing so using "perfect pose", then supposedly, all of the energy of falling is being used to recoil back to the same height and repower forward movement. Supposedly, they will be using no muscular energy. Well, if all of the energy of the fall is accounted for, then how is it possible to run "perfect pose" at anything faster than 7 MPH? Where would the extra energy come from? I can see only two possible solutions to this, both of which are nonsensical: 1) It doesn't take any more energy to run at, say, 11 MPH than it does at 7 MPH, and 2) "Perfect pose" only occurs at maximum sprint velocity, and slower speeds occur because energy is being wasted in greater and greater amounts as the runner slows. But logically, then the runner would be wasting energy by the truckload when he was going for an easy jog. O2 uptake measurements do not corroborate either of these.

Gatorade wrote:

About controlling reflexes - agreed, you can to some extent control some of them. But when your foot lands, you can't prevent muscles from reflectively contracting, maybe you can make them contract with less force (e.g., "soft landing" vs "hard landing", but again this is the matter of perception ). And this contraction generates force that acts together with passive elasticity of tissues. My point is that they both can't go without one another, that's why they are labelled as "recoil". Maybe it's a bad term since it makes so much confusion - you are free to offer another term to define a sum of passive tissue elasticity and reflex muscle contraction. It appears that the word "recoil" in mechanics and in biology have different contents.

Maybe we can just call it "elastic recoil AND reflex contraction". Because of the degree of control of magnitude we agree exists over the reflex, i wouldn't like to lump it into a single term.

What is the POSE view on pre-activation of the lower leg muscles (i.e. in the time approaching foot contact)? I would like to hear about the physical actuality rather than the perception, but of course you can comment on whichever aspects you wish - but, for the sake of avoiding confusion in this discussion, its probably best to make it really clear when you are talking about actuality, and when you are talking about perception.

Sir lance alot,

"QUOTE" WHAT IS POSE METHOD®?

The Pose Method is a system for teaching of human movement, by determining the key poses, and a model of working with the laws of nature instead of against them. In running, this is achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy."Quote"

Here is the theory behind the statement:

Pose believes that there is a point in the gait cycle where gravity is propulsive, redirecting from downward to forward. The point in the gait cycle where this is possible is from maximal vertical ground reaction force until toe off. At this point(at peak vertical ground reaction force), the CM begins to move over the support foot(ball of the foot). The body(CM) rotates forward and upward, while the foot acts as a pivotal point. Rotational movement of the body created by gravity appears as a gravitational torque, so that the body can fall forward.

Again, this is not just a perception it is an actual occurence. However, perception is reality. If you do not believe this can happen you will never see it or feel it. I feel this take place while I run on a daily basis. I am posting this information so that other people can experience this ease of running that I do. If you don't believe me fine, have it your way and I hope you enjoy your running anyway's. Good day!

I think Isee what you are saying Jim, I hadn't thought of that (leave it to you). Let me see if I comprehend what you saying by offering.....

Isn't there a 3rd possibility to your question? If one running is Xmph and running perfect pose, and needs to go faster, then they must recruit more and more muscular energy(since they can't recruit more gravitational force than they are already recruting), until muscular energy takes over from gravity as the primary force of movement(even in the POSE paradigm, it would have to happen at SOME point......right?).

So..... in short, POSE would only be useful for Xspeed, but when running faster than that, one has to abandon POSE and use another method.

Does that make sense in the realm of what Romanov says it true and referring to your question? (correct me where I am wrong). Perfect POSE would not be possible for a theoretical maximum speed?

Lance- Yes, that's one way of looking at it. I looked at it from maximal velocity down, you're just starting at the bottom and then working up. Either way, it shows that the scheme is non-sensical.

jHuffman- This has been stated many times in the past, but one cannot achieve a net gain from a force that is perpendicular to the intended direction of travel. This is very basic vector mathematics. If you want to move in the horizontal direction, then the applied force must have a horizontal component. While it is true that one can create a torque by pulling the center of mass over a pivot point, and thus, a horizontal deflection of that mass, there is no net gain as you continue the cycle. You end up with the center of mass below where it started, and energy needs to be injected to return the mass to the starting position. You can't ignore that energy requirement. Granted, some of that can come from energy stored on the landing, but it is insufficient by itself to bring the mass back to the starting position. Something has to be added back.

To tie these together:

The maximum energy that can be stored on landing is a function of how far the mass falls. That's a constant, and does not depend on the horizontal velocity, assuming the runner doesn't bob up and down more as they speed up. So, in order to run faster, one needs to apply a greater horizontal force. You can't get that additional force through gravity unless you A) change your mass mid-stride, B) change the mass of the Earth mid-stride, C) change the universal gravitation constant mid-stride, D) go through some manner of spatial folding which allows your downward deflection to be greater than your upward deflection while running along level ground.

This has nothing to do with perception. It's a simple matter of energy balance. You might "perceive" that you're gaining something from gravity but you're not, anymore than someone who "perceives" that they can communicate with the dead really can. If it makes you happy, that's fine, but there's no basis for it in science.

Jhuffman wrote:

Again, this is not just a perception it is an actual occurence. However, perception is reality. If you do not believe this can happen you will never see it or feel it.

BUT, just because you BELIEVE that something can happen does not mean that it CAN.

Further, objective measurements have made believers out of skeptics for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Just because I don't believe that something can happen does not mean that I won't change my mind if presented with solid, contravening evidence. That's what any good scientist does.

I understand the concept of our perceptions coloring what we call reality, but one can take a metaphysical argument a tad too literal.

Jhuffman wrote:

In running, this is achieved by using gravity as the primary force for movement instead of muscular energy."Quote"

Here is the theory behind the statement:

Pose believes that there is a point in the gait cycle where gravity is propulsive, redirecting from downward to forward. The point in the gait cycle where this is possible is from maximal vertical ground reaction force until toe off. At this point(at peak vertical ground reaction force), the CM begins to move over the support foot(ball of the foot). The body(CM) rotates forward and upward, while the foot acts as a pivotal point. Rotational movement of the body created by gravity appears as a gravitational torque, so that the body can fall forward.

If there is one thing I have taken from the exhaustive physics discussion of this thread is that no, it it no an actual occurrence because it defies the laws of physics. This has been shown to you repeatedly and still you insist upon this ridiculous point.

Again, this is not just a perception it is an actual occurence. However, perception is reality. ![/quote]

This is priceless. In one sentence you exist that this phenomena (physically impossible) is not merely perceived it is REAL. In the next one you state that it is real because it is perceived that way. Having our cake and eating it too.

Wrong, ding dong. Perception is NOT reality. Reality is reality. I might not perceive that each stride is using energy from my muscles but it is indeed doing exactly that. Doensn't matter if I'm running with POSE or any other technique. That's why we all feel so tired at the end of a marathon even though we perceived at the start that we weren't using any energy.

Nothing is being papered over. I maintain that you, Asterix, and others have constantly twisted Gatorade and Jeremy's words.

So that the record could be straight once and for all with no more twisting, misinterpretation, etc. I asked for these people to have an opportunity to say you do not have to apply energy. They did not say it.

If you don't like that then I will behave like you and Asterix and 'interpret' your response to mean that you are trolling for a fight and "you can't take the truth"!

ST wrote:

...They did not say it...

Oh please, ST. With that response I think you've lost a boatload of credibility.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the fact that they will not now say what has since been shown to be demonstrably false, inspite of the fact that they've described exactly what you're talking about in prior posts, makes it a moot point? And then you have the audacity to say that the folks who have pointed out the problems and inconsistencies in their arguments are "trolling for a fight" and we "can't take the truth" because we don't agree with this crazy "blinders-on" assessment of yours? What kind of drugs are you on? (And just so there's no confusion, I mean that figuratively.)

I have just reread some pages, and all in honesty, you CAN claim that pose advocates have claimed that there needs to be additional energy input because they have in fact said so. Unfortunately, they have also said that additional energy isn't needed and described a lossless system (although again, I think you can find quotes that say that the system isn't lossless). The one consistent element in their arguments has been a lack of consistency! Just look at the responses from 8/24. Here's a quick example from Mr. Gatorade, in response to my queries:

You say: "Whatever it adds on one stride is taken away later". I say: but you have made the stride " for free", that is, you have moved one stride forward - and isn't moving forward the purpose of running? And on the next stride it adds again.

He is clearly describing a concept of so-called "free energy". Good luck with this. He has completely ignored the cost of returning to the start position (else, why would it "add again"?)

JF: "Therefore, you either believe that the stored energy is sufficient by itself (which is what Jhuffman has said), or you believe that there is another component to this. Is it the former or the later?"

G: I believe in the former.

Here he is describing a lossless system. He doesn't SAY "This is a lossless system", but the description is apt nonetheless. If a system is lossless, there's no need to apply additional energy.

G: And the less you are pushing-off - the closer you are to "perfect Pose" ( I mean, if you reduce your push off to 5% - you should try to reduce it to 1% and so on). When I see someone who is running good Pose, I can say that his "push-off is approaching near-zero level".

This states that perfect pose = no push-off, which means no additional energy. Someone who knows calc certainly understands the concept of a limit, right? What's the logical conclusion?

But I also find this:

G: One thing: Pose doesn't claim that "gravity is enough to continualy drive the system".

This is completely at odds with other comments. Which is it? Do you need to add energy or not? So, I guess although one CAN say that they have claimed as much, all it really does is point out the lack of solidity in their arguments.

But I'm willing to brush that all aside. Instead, I'd like someone to explain the little problem that I outlined a few posts back regarding the fixed potential energy of falling versus the need for increased energy to run faster. If gravity is indeed "the prime mover", how do we solve this conundrum?

That is better and that is what I have been trying to explain. It is not necessary to argue it anymore. We all agree.

With regards to Gatorade's statements about recoil and the pushoff. He has given a detailed explanation of what he means when he uses these terms. He was very specific and said there is muscular effort (i.e. energy) involved in the recoil. Unfortunately, it was at the time when everyone else was hung up about voluntary and involuntary. Which we both know does not matter.

It is okay if you do not like his definition of recoil. Just remember that when he uses the term he means there is a muscular energy element involved. I don't have a problem with this as my goal is to understand what is in his mind even if he uses words differently than me.

I understand your frustration. I can only tell you how I would interpret that statement so it does not violate what I think is physically possible.

If you want to know precisely what he means without your or my interpretation you have to ask him. He may be using a slightly different definition of the words than you or me. Considering his background with English as a second language, that is quite likely. It is okay if you or I would say that is not the proper use of the word, so long as we ultimately can understand what he is trying to tell us.

My very good friend is in the process of writing an Algebra text book for the california school system for hispanic students for which english is a second language. It is necessary for him to explain concepts in a manner much different than for those of us who grew up speaking English.

Please, do not be offended when I tell you the art and goal of teaching is helping the student understand your thoughts.

I taught Algebra to a hispanic audience for 8 semesters part time. My lectures were much different with them then for the students who grew up with English. I grew up in agriculture. I used many of my experiences from my teenage years on labor crews to reach them. It worked. Students that thought they would never learn Algebra told me I made it seem simple when I used concepts they understood.

LMAO

Even though I know you meant that as an Insult I think the "ST Defense" is funny.

You have my permission to use the "ST Defense" if you will do one thing. You must be right. And that means you must be able to show a logical chain of causal relationships that is correct using your definitions for your words. No bullshit here.

A common statement from my math professors was "you are going to have to tell me what you are trying to say before I can agree with this statement"

ST wrote:

It is not necessary to argue it anymore. We all agree.

No, we don't. Just because we can find statement X doesn't mean that we agree if we can also find statements Y and Z that contradict statement X. If I said "Tin is more dense than lead", you said "Lead is more dense than tin", and I also said "Lead is the most dense metal" (without recanting my other remark), can we honestly say that we agree in any meaningful way? No. I think all we can say is that I'm confused about the properties of tin and lead.

In conclusion, I think that there is no need to continue this thread. I think anyone who was on the fence has gotten a more than ample view of the arguments and there will be no changing the minds of the adherents. My goal in this thread has always been to show the newbies that the "gravity gives you free energy" argument is specious. I think we have shown that conclusively.

That lead thing was a little to heavy for me. But, I will agree that it is dense.

I said we agree that the posers have said in some of their posts that energy must be put back into the system. Or did you misunderstand me on that.

Sorry, if that blows out half of what has transpired here but, it is 'forward movement' on the issue...LOL

Within the context of each of the articles/lectures that use the word gravity, after all of this posting, I have a much better understanding of what Romanov is trying to say. And I can see situations where I would use his metaphors about gravity. Maybe they aren't perfect but, they are not as imperfect as you want us to believe. The basic message in all of his writings is learn how to efficiently interact with the forces that act on you when you are running. Sometimes you need to play the Devil's advocate to understand what is really there.

P.S. "you can't take the truth" was a movie joke and should have read "you can't handle the truth". Did you really think I was serious? It did get the reaction out of you I that I anticipated.

I forgot the question.

How old are you, j/wondering.