Pose = crazy???

Ok. You are probably right. What I actually meant was that the ground or the shoes might absorb a part of the energy. This would probably also reduce the force working towards the ground and therefore the resulting force into the opposite direction.

Why should I apply a force to the ground? As long as I have ground contact there is force which presses me against the ground and I can actively work against this force by applying a force into the opposite direction.

I think you are at least partly right with this statement. At least when running I feel some sort of push-off from muscle elasticity mainly in the calves. But I can actively pull my foot from the ground with my hamstring while getting sort of a recoil from the calf muscles.

"As long as I have ground contact there is force which presses me against the ground and I can actively work against this force by applying a force into the opposite direction."

YES YES YES YES YOU ARE CORRECT... let me explain

there is a force that pushes you agains the ground, its called gravity. you can activly work against this force by applying a force into the opposite direction, in this case up. You can either apply enough force to raise your leg "pulling up" or your body "pushing off" if you use only enough force to raise your leg, however, good ol' gravity CONTINUES to work (as the force that pushes you against the ground) on the rest of your body, lowering your center of gravity. You cannot get this back unless you apply an EQUAL or GREATER amount of force against the ground. There's no way to use this force in any other way unless you are going downhill.

Jim Fiorre,

"Let me be very clear on this point. No one is saying that you don't "fall" while running or that no energy is involved in the process. What is being stated is that due to the losses in the mechanical system, the energy "gained" by the fall is insufficient to propel through the next stride. Energy must be added (in the form of a push-off) in order to bring you back to the same exact height that you had on the previous stride. If you drop a rubber ball on a hard surface, each bounce will produce a lower height than the previous due to the losses in the system. In order to have the ball bounce forever at the same height, you'd have to design a completely lossless system (not possible) or give the ball a little energy (a nudge if you will) on each bounce."

At least you try to analyze things ( contrary to Asterix, who, having taken the elementary lessons of physics, imagines he is the only one who has).

Still I see you don't understand the essence of Pose. If it could be translated to sheer physics, all of your critique would be valid, cuz there can't be any "perpetuum mobile", that is, a system that doesn't lose energy. All the analogies with a bouncing ball are limited, cuz a ball doesn't have muscles, thus it doesn't perform voluntary actions ( still the bouncing ball analogy has some merit, cuz the ball CAN bounce for some time without what can be called "active push-off". I have written earlier ( but all anti-posers in this thread omitted it - apparently they were too busy writing to care to read), so I repeat in capital letters: IT MATTERS NOT WHAT HAPPENS, BUT WHAT IS BEING DONE. From the point of physics there IS a push-off in Pose - it is generated by ground reaction force and muscle elasticity (forgive me that I won't get into details explaining what muscle easticity is - I think you don't need it, if you don't know what it is - feel free to ask). Saying that there is no push-off in Pose , Pose teaching means there is no VOLUNTARY ACTIVE PUSH-OFF. You just let the foot bounce off the ground - ideally this should be enough to regain the lost height of gravity center.

hahahaohiweoioomglolhahahah wrote:

"How silly of those NASA scientists. If only they followed the POSE method, they could make the space shuttle "fall" into space"

OH MAN that made my day ghajajajahhahahahahahahah

You beat me to it. F**king HI-larious!

I fully agree. It is wrong to claim that gravity can do the work. To certain degree it might be possible when running down hill. But even then gravity cannot make up for any metabolic energy already spent. Gravity can bring the foot down to the ground, i.e. you don't need an active landing, but only after you have spent some energy to lift it up.

Obviously we all know what muscle elasticity is and I’m sorry to tell you this, but if I wanted to know, I don’t think that you’re the one I’d ask.

As to the push off, this all does seem rather familiar territory. Yet again you seem to be shifting your ground. There is no push off – well yes, there is a push off but we call it something else, therefore there isn’t a push off. These aren’t your words exactly but I have heard this line from Dr R himself and to me it is just double talk.

I will ask you to explain one thing because I’m interested in what your answer might be. What do you think ground reaction force is and how you think you use it, because it seems to me from my non-scientific point of view that there is some confusion here? In you own words please. No quotes from Dr R and please, no analogies.

There is an interesting contradiction in your reply to Jimfiore. You commend him on his desire to analyze, but then you go on to make a statement like “It matters not what happens, but what is being done”. Well it does matter to me. It’s tantamount to saying, just do what I say and don’t question it. That might be fine for you pose followers, but most of us on this thread actually want real answers.

This is just a small point and I know it’s off topic, but it’s quite important to me. We all make typo errors and spelling mistakes etc and that’s not a problem, but is it possible that you could please stop using the word “cuz” because it’s driving me mad. Psuedo-science and baby talk are not a happy combination – or maybe they are.

JIm

\I do understand it perfectly, that is were in pose, you have the elasticity idea!

I also understand that you need something to keep going, you give the bouncing ball a little push up on the way up, and it should go to the same height I would like to think!

asterix, I never said I didnt understand science and havent studied, it, I just said i am not qualified, as it seems to be that you have to be highly qualified, ie. a doctorate or you dont know what you talking about.

that's it for me I am so bored with this it's like banging your head against a wall.

I havent contradicted myself, thats for sure.

over and out thank god oops that might be taken as a cult analogy

"I think you are at least partly right with this statement." At least when running I feel some sort of push-off from muscle elasticity mainly in the calves. But I can actively pull my foot from the ground with my hamstring while getting sort of a recoil from the calf muscles."

I think i am completely right. Anyway, when you perform the action of lifting the swing leg upward and forward, not only do you activate the muscles to perform the pull, but you also activate the muscles of the support leg to provide the force required for the net acceleration of the COM (swing leg rising without rest of body lowering to compensate).

Evidently, you are not consciously aware of this muscle activation in the support leg - and so you attribute the push you feel to some passive process - "no active push off". But in reality, these muscles are 'activated' in just the same way as the pulling muscles - you would see a burst in EMG activity.

This kind of thing happens all the time in all movements. If you reach forwards to pick up a kettle, you are voluntarily performing the reach action. Voluntary action does not equate to being conscious of the muscles being activated. You can reach for the kettle without even knowing anything about having muscles in your arm!! (e.g. young child). As well as activating the 'obvious' muscles in your arm, you are also using many muscles in your hips and back etc to subtly change your posture to avoid the arm movement unbalancing you. This less obvious muscle activity is as much a part of the voluntary action as the activation of your arm muscles - i think it would be eroneous(sp?) to describe them as involuntary, passive, or something to do with 'elasticity'.

The activation of your calf muscles are an integral part of the action you are performing during running, even if you are not conscious of it. A lack of 'active push off' is just your perception. In terms of the muscles, they are receiving impulses from the motor nerves, cross-bridges are dis-inhibited, and tension is generated in way that is indistinguishable from any more 'conscious' activation.

Also, muscle / tendon energy storage is not a passive process. Unless the muscle involved is 'active' no tension would build and so no elastic energy would be stored - the muscle filaments would just slide past each other. This seems to be a common point of misunderstanding for POSE advocates.

"Obviously we all know what muscle elasticity is and I’m sorry to tell you this, but if I wanted to know, I don’t think that you’re the one I’d ask."

Of course you won't ask me, LOL, I'm only a simple human surgeon with 20 ears of practice in traumatology. Better ask the ones with primary course in elementary physics.

"There is no push off – well yes, there is a push off but we call it something else, therefore there isn’t a push off."

Not trying to be rude , but are you that dumb, or only pretend to be? Read several tmes, until the meaning is able to enter your brain: BY SHEER PHYSICS THERE IS A PUSH-OFF THAT IS GENERATED BY THE FORCES THAT WE CAN'T INFLUENCE ( MUSCLE RECOIL).BUT WE SHOULDN'T ACTIVELY PUSH-OFF. AND WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS FOR TWO REASONS:1.ACTIVE PUSHING USES ENERGY.2.ACTIVE PUSHING INITIATES A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT LEADS US TO BRAKING IN THE NEXT PHASE OF MOVEMENT. THE POSE CONCEPT IS THAT IDEALLY RUNNING SHOULD BE "FLOATING", CONTRARY TO ACCELERATING AND BRAKING WITH EACH STRIDE. What else? Shall I start explaining what is "active pushing"?

"What do you think ground reaction force is and how you think you use it, because it seems to me from my non-scientific point of view that there is some confusion here?"

Do you think you can exam me? OK, GRF is the force the same in magnitude and the opposite in direction to the force that the support foot exerts to the ground. So what?

"It’s tantamount to saying, just do what I say and don’t question it"

NO, it means you shouldn't care if there is a push-off or there is no push-off - all you must care is NOT TO PERFORM A PUSHING-OFF ACTION. That is, you should try to influence what you can influence. And that "passive push-off" (please allow me to create a new term, it's just for YOUR convenience) that is created by GRF and muscle recoil serves to regain the lost height of gravity center that so many of anti-posers are so much worried about.

"We all make typo errors and spelling mistakes etc and that’s not a problem, but is it possible that you could please stop using the word “cuz” because it’s driving me mad."

OK, if only this prevents you from understanding simple things - I'll gladly do it.

"Psuedo-science and baby talk are not a happy combination – or maybe they are."

Admiring one's own mordacity is wasted energy ( just like pushing-off, LOL). Better use it for good.

You probably agree that it is not possible to use the quads and hamstrings together without having them working against each other. Pushing-off in my opinion means using the quads (and other muscles) to extend the leg to the rear. You need an extra effort probably involving the hip flexors to get the leg in front of the body for the next step. If you use the hamstrings instead then you already apply a force which drives the leg forward and upward and this can happen through momentum and inertia once the ground contact ends. It also permits a higher cadence.

I don't dispute that even the use of muscle elasticity requires some muscle tension and metabolic work. But using muscle elasticity is favorable in many sports because it saves energy. This is not really a Pose concept.

I think you may find that you are not the only poster on this board who has a professional qualification. So sorry, my point stands. There are people on this thread whose views I actually respect.

You can shout in capital letters all you want, but what you don’t seem to understand is that we don’t agree with you. We think you’re WRONG.

I was hoping for a better answer to the only question that I actually asked, but never mind. So what?

I almost admire you. Time and time again you have presented arguments that have been comprehensively demolished, but you keep coming back again for more punishment. On the other hand you could possibly be the most annoyingly obtuse person I have ever encountered on this forum – not trying to be rude, of course.

"You can shout in capital letters all you want, but what you don’t seem to understand is that we don’t agree with you. We think you’re WRONG"

Does "we" make you look bigger? On the side note - muslim radicals believe that all the rest are wrong, and since this is a matter of belief, and not proof, it's impossible to persuade them. Of course now you will start a-new - about that Pose is a cult based on beliefs and not on proofs. If you take your time to read what is written in capital latters - maybe you'll get it. On the other hand one must be "ripe" to understand, noone can "ripen" you by force. Meanwhile I'm starting to yawn.

You have just described a lossless system. You will "regain the lost height" only in the ideal case as the ideal case assumes no losses. The real-world case must include losses and thus the full height will not be regained, requiring an additional application of force (that which you refer to as an "active push-off") to reach the starting height. Further, you admitted earlier that a lossless system is not possible:

Therefore, your argument is internally inconsistent, i.e., flawed, and thus the debate is resolved. You seem to hedge your bets, however, by prefacing this statement with "If it could be translated to sheer physics, all of your critique would be valid", the "If" implying that perhaps it can't be so translated. Thus, the only way you can continue this line of argument is if you are willing to state that the mechanics of running do not obey the laws of physics. At that point I think any sane person would conclude that the debate is resolved once again.

So, if "you need omething to keep going", and the "ball needs a little push on the way up", what is that something? Simple. It's energy that you have to put into the system which your idealization has ignored.

Well thank you for noticing all the references I've cited to support my explanations and deconstructions of yours.

If we were to go by numerous posts by POSERs on this board and their own board, it would be safe to say they don't understand it either.

Again, this is fundamentally physically impossible and wrong. What you are describing is the body landing on the ground, muscles and tendons being stretched as they absorb the impact and then rebounding with no extra pushing to return the body (or the center of mass to be specific) to the starting height.

As you yourself acknowledge, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine or a lossless system. Your muscles and tendons are not perfect elastic devices (nothing yet exists that is) and so in order to return to your starting position, you absolutely must, without question, add an active push-off.

By your very description of involuntary return of stored elastic energy, it should be impossible for one to jump off a 2 - 3 foot height and land on the ground on your feet without endlessly bouncing up and down. Since I've yet to see anyone bopping around all day after jumping down the last two stairs, I think it's safe to assume this doesn't happen and that any height achieved after ground impact is the result of voluntary active push-off (which can make use of stretched muscles and tendons, as demonstrated by high and long jumpers).

Can you show me where I said one had to be highly qualified to understand what we're talking about? Everything discussed so far is basic physics as covered by a high school level course.

If that's how you feel, that's your perogative. But you've failed to provide any substantive evidence or rational explanation to back up your concepts, so I don't see how that could be like banging your head against a wall. If you're bored, you could try explaining things using Newton's laws. If nothing else, it could make for some interesting creative writing.

Like the concept of gravity, that too is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

Gatorade wrote:

On the side note - muslim radicals believe that all the rest are wrong, and since this is a matter of belief, and not proof, it's impossible to persuade them. Of course now you will start a-new - about that Pose is a cult based on beliefs and not on proofs. If you take your time to read what is written in capital latters - maybe you'll get it. On the other hand one must be "ripe" to understand, noone can "ripen" you by force. Meanwhile I'm starting to yawn.

I think it's been explained several times right above how what you wrote, both in CAPITAL LETTERS and not, is wrong.

And the whole thing of muslim radicals is a glaring red herring. Remember, we're talking about logic and substantiated proof. You've been provided explanations of proven physics. You've been provided documentation of contradictions and changing statements. You've been provided links to authoritative explanatory sources.

That you somehow think this is synonymous with religious fanaticism is telling of your own perceptions and understandings. Given you've yet to provide anything other than references to the POSE site to back up your claims, I guess that is not surprising.

Am I supposed to rise to that bait? No, the “we” does not make me feel bigger. In case you hadn’t noticed there are quite a few people on this side of the argument. I can’t even be bothered to comment on your views about Muslim Radicals.

I have already written extensively about my own experiences with pose and believe me, I have heard all the claims made by pose advocates many times over. I don’t need your capital letters – I’ve heard it all before.

As I have already stated at least twice I don’t think that pose is all bad. Some of the fundamentals I would agree with, but much of it I believe to be deeply flawed and some of it plainly ridiculous (in my opinion of course). However, what I do object to most strongly is the arrogance expressed by you that you are right and everybody who disagrees with you, does so because they are too “dumb” to understand what you are saying. I’m beginning to think that you are Dr R . The characteristics are all there.

Read some of Alex s’s posts. He actually has something to say.

Yes, like you I too am beginning to yawn.

"You probably agree that it is not possible to use the quads and hamstrings together without having them working against each other"

This is perhaps going off point a little as i was talking about flexing the swing leg whilst extending the support leg, not flexion and extension activity in same leg. Anyway, it does deserve comment:

Use both quads and hamstrings together is not so rare (though i'm not talking specifically about running). You must remember that the hamstrings group also has a hip extensor action. Contraction of both would lead to knee extension and hip extension - the quads would generally 'over-power' the hamstrings at the knee which would increase the hip extension action of the hamstrings.

"Pushing-off in my opinion means using the quads (and other muscles) to extend the leg to the rear."

Not necessarily. Due to the geometry, in the correct position, it is possible to extend the leg without contraction of the quads. To demonstrate the principle, try a press up with a very wide hand placement. Your arms will straighten as you come up despite not using the triceps.

"You need an extra effort probably involving the hip flexors to get the leg in front of the body for the next step. If you use the hamstrings instead then you already apply a force which drives the leg forward and upward"

As mentioned above, the actions of the hamstrings are knee flexion AND hip extension. If you were using hamstrings only, both of these would occur and your foot would end up high behind your butt rather than under it. The fact that you bring your foot under your butt but think you are using only hamstrings is further evidence that you are performing a voluntary action (the pull as you call it) without being aware of the muscles involved. You are already using other muscles such as hip flexors to counter the hip extending action of the hamstrings and sartorius which acts to flex both knee and hip. All of these muscles have slight rotating actions on the femur too, so no doubt even more muscles (the deep rotator muscles?) are activating to balance the rotating forces. All of these are part of the voluntary 'pull / lift' action that you are performing, along the the extensor activity in the supporting leg i discussed earlier.

Driving the knee forwards and upwards increases the power in the stride - it is akin to swinging the arms in the take-off of a standing jump - perhaps we can all agree on that? But still the force to perform this must be transmitted through the leg(s) to the ground, which requires muscle activation, which is an inherent part of the voluntary action. If the activation in the supporting leg did not occur (and the force was not transmitted through the leg to the ground), the supporting leg would 'buckle' as the swing leg was accelerated forwards and upwards.