Dr. Romanov and Pose Running

This is about the 30th time some type of "Pose" issue has come up. Do a search and you will see. I find it remarkable 1) that there are so many experts out there who can scientifically produce evidence of proper foot plant and each piece of evidence they expound on is different from the other. 2) Running isn't all about science, so I find it quite interesting why proper running form is addressed in this manner (all scientific analysis). Running is the melding of style and form, thus incorporating proper biomechanics, rhythm and flow. Compare running to dancing and you will understand what I mean. 3) Romanov's running on ice doesn't prove anything to me. Runners run on a surface that doesn't slip or slide, so trying to duplicate how one negotiates running on ice and saying this is how to run properly is a concept I can't comprehend.

4) In my mind one must keep things very simple. Don't put your support foot in front of your center of gravity at point of impact. Push your body forward as your support foot begins to leave the ground and get your knees up high enough so your leg can come through and land in the proper position for the next step. 5) The landing position of your foot to allow for keeping your support leg under your center of gravity is dependent on how fast you run. Distance runners run almost flat footed and as the speed of the runs increases contact with the ground moves slightly forward with sprinters landing just behind the ball of the foot. At all speeds, there is a slight contact of the entire foot with the ground as one begins the next step forward.

That's about as simple as I can state it and hopefully, clear enough to understand. Can and do elite athletes run heel-toe. Of course and many have done very well doing so. Is it the most efficient way to run and help stave off injuries? In my opinion, no.

Does Pose provide the best solution or most correct "system" of running properly. I don't think so. I conclude that, at best, "The Pose System" is a fine example of how successfully marketing something can provide someone with a nice piece of change. Connecting back to another topic, Jim Fixx made quite a bit of money writing about running and he was little more than a recreational jogger. So go figure....

All your POSE questions (and many you never thought to ask) are covered here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1468037&page=0

The final answer is "yes, POSE is crazy".

POSE is absolute nonsense.

The proper running gait has a kinetic chain that starts with the glute medius and goes to the calve then toe (something like that.) You have to "push off". If you just lifted your feet behind you your gait would be ridiculous -- your steps would be about a foot long.

Dr. Romanov did a study which conclusively supported the hypothesis that switching to the Pose method DOES NOT improve efficiency and more then likely decreases your efficiency.

tucker0429 wrote:

Hi Jim,

So do you think Pose running is the more efficient, effective and safe method of running compared to a long striding heel striker with an SPM (stride per minute) below 180?

From what I have read, I agree with you that it is important to have a high stride frequency to maintain that "springy/bouncy" step, that foot contact of the ground should take place directly below the bodies COG(center of gravity) and that your foot should have a quick contact with the ground.

Dr. Romanov also talks about ground reaction forces having little to do with forward motion during pose running, another theory I would love to hear more about. Some data that measures different running styles on a force plate could make a but statement. Thank you for posting the video!

That's silly. First of all, if your stride frequency is well below 180, you're going to have problems no matter how you strike. Too few footsteps means you have to exert more power per footstrike to maintain a certain pace. Additionally, bounciness is BAD. People say the Ethiopians "bounce," but watch their center of mass (bellybutton). It hardly moves.

Second, look at that Harvard barefoot running site. Everybody is fixated with the "impact transient," but the fact is, the peak force AND the integral of the impact curve (i.e. the total impulse absorbed in a footstrike) are the SAME no matter how you strike the ground! Heel, midfoot, forefoot, it's no less total impact. Science of Sport ran a great piece about footstrikes. They concluded that forefoot striking results in more strain on the ankles and less on the knees, and heel striking results in more strain on the knees, and less on the ankles.

Points 1 and 2 well stated. (I'm not saying point 3 isn't well stated. It's just that your comments in 1 and 2 are intriguing seem very valid to me.) They represent thoughts on the falling concept I hadn't thought of.

Jim

Then please explain the IAAF studies that actually measure changes in COM instead of just guessing at them and consistantly see a 6-8inch or so change in COM in the best runners?

Bouncing, for the appropriate amount, is good. You have to cover ground!