Pose = crazy???

"Here, i was proposing a situation where a runner already has a good pull, but needs to improve some other aspect of their move"

-----------------------------------------------------------

I agree. Depends what you call a good pull. In Pose a good pull is to pull the foot UP ( and not FORWARD, so that the feet can move in circles, not ellipses), and the main thing is not to over-pull. From Pose standpoint a good pull is not powerful, but very quick, because the pull must be timely: you give command to pull before the foot reaches the ground, and when it contacts the ground - it should leave it as if it has been burned (Pose suggests to visualise it like running on hot coals).

If one has a good pull - he should address other aspects of his technique, and Pose has its priorities of these aspects. But practice shows that the command "pull" should be ingrained into one's brain so that it becomes a second nature, and it takes a good amount of time and dedication. In the begining stages even if you are advanced in Pose, once you stop thinking "pull", your brain again reverts to concentrating on landing. I don't know why, but I'm inclined to think that's because the body and mind has inherited the fear of falling, and in Pose you should overcome it and teach yourself to fall forward ( falling is from leaning forward), because concentrating on landing IMO originates from our instinctive desire to stop falling.

---------------------------------------------------------

"I understand and agree with your 'intended meaning'. I'm just making the point that the way you and Dr. R write won't express that meaning very clearly at all to the majority of readers."

----------------------------------------------------------

Do you think that's why people don't bother to go deeper into the essence of Pose teaching and say that "it's crazy"?

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Again, you write in a potentially confusing way. So 'just dropping IS what you FEEL, but it IS NOT what happens in REALITY. Again, i think this is a communication problem rather than your intended meaning - but surely you must see the huge potential for confusion and misunderstanding when POSE advocates write things like this?"

-------------------------------------------------------

When you let your foot drop, the following things happen:

1. The foot physically drops down ( this it what happens in reality)

2. You FEEL that it is dropping down (this is your perception).

When you drive the foot down/bacwards, you add effort to something that would have happened by itself. Of course, this gives you force for propulsion forward ( otherwise power running would be impossible), but from Pose standpoint it's inefficient, because you are fighting against gravity, instead of harnessing it.

----------------------------------------------------------

"I just simply disagree with the POSE standpoint - i do not think it is incorrect."

---------------------------------------------------------

LOL, so you no longer think that Pose is crazy???

The main problem with Pose is this: in order to get it you must master it, and in order to master it you have to undertake steps from step one and further, with patience and dedication, and in order to do so you must believe in it from the get go. If you don't believe in it, you will not be motivated to stop your running and go the long road of drills and short runs in order to re-learn your ingrained movement patterns. And if you haven't mastered Pose, you can't say if it works or not. But once you "get it", you feel that the work done was worth it. When I first got that feeling of "free floating", it was the proverbial A-HA moment, I didn't want to go home for fear that I will lose the sensation and will not be able to reproduce it tomorrow.

“The main problem with Pose is this: in order to get it you must master it, and in order to master it you have to undertake steps from step one and further, with patience and dedication, and in order to do so you must believe in it from the get go. If you don't believe in it, you will not be motivated to stop your running and go the long road of drills and short runs in order to re-learn your ingrained movement patterns. And if you haven't mastered Pose, you can't say if it works or not. But once you "get it", you feel that the work done was worth it. When I first got that feeling of "free floating", it was the proverbial A-HA moment, I didn't want to go home for fear that I will lose the sensation and will not be able to reproduce it tomorrow.”

This is entirely subjective. I could just as easily say that when I learned to execute the drive correctly I had my own eureka moment. In fact I would go further than that and say that in my opinion Pose is actually an integrated system of movements to allow for a good landing, but at the expense of a lot of efficiency – i.e. it bypasses the necessity to learn how to drive correctly. The massive cost in energy caused by falling and having to constantly regain the height lost is something that I could actually perceive when running. The physics of this has been exhaustively demonstrated over thirty pages of this thread, unless you continue to believe that Pose exists outside of the physical world.

This whole thing about having to spend years learning Pose before you can understand the deeper meaning of what it is about is just part of the exaggerated mystique that Pose uses to sell what is essentially a product. I spend two years learning Pose. I could do the drills in my sleep, and yes, after that time I could run in a Pose style reasonably well, but quite frankly I felt that there was something better. I note with interest that Joe Friel, that one time advocate of Pose is now endorsing a method that focuses on the drive.

However, if Pose works for you I’m glad, but don’t insist to me or others that it’s the only correct way to run when it quite demonstrably isn't.

TerryH,

I must respectfully disagree with you. Though I am but one example I have personally gone from the traditional power running technique to the Pose Method technique within a years time. After 14 years of training the Traditional way I acheived by most peoples standards elite times. However, I have always felt that though my running form was better than the average runner it could definetly be improved upon. After reading Dr. Romanov's philosophy on technique I immediately realized his view of running matched that of mine, only he had been developing and teaching his technique for years and exhausting all that science had to offer on the subject.

My experience with the Pose Method technique has been one of amazing efficiency. The thing that stands out the most to me is that I can recovery so much quicker than ever before and I am now 30 years of age. The only thing left for me is to break my personal bests on the Track in my events which are the 800m to the 1500m. I am very confident that I will now achieve these because of my focus using the Pose Method technique. I know if you truly were running with Pose Method efficiency you would realize why it is most efficiency. Unfortunately, our minds complicate the simplicity of movement. I do wish you the best of luck with your running even if it is not as efficient as I think it could be.

Jeremy

Yes, i do think that is a large part of why people think its 'crazy.' Perhaps once you understand the 'essence of POSE' you can go back and see some sense in what Dr R was intending to say in his writings, but what he actually writes, the most apparrent meanings to an unfamiliar reader ARE 'crazy.' And i'm still not 100% sure that none of his intended meanings aren't 'crazy' anyway.

So you are saying the the foot falls to ground without ANY muscle contribution at all??

But if the additional drive is directed such that the horizontal component of the ground reaction is increased (i.e. greater forward propulsion) but the vertical component remains unchanged, how would this be 'fighting against gravity?'

I still find the term 'harnessing gravity' a little odd. We've agreed that some physical push off must occur. During the flight phase there is net downard acceleration, therefore to balance over the whole gait cycle there must be net upward acceleration during the support phase (i.e. 'against gravity). So you have to work against gravity to some degree - POSE (and any other good technique) is just trying to get you to do the least amount of necessary work against gravity. The phrase "fighting against gravity, instead of harnessing it" implies that POSE is qualitatively different - that in other techniques you do work against gravity, whereas as in POSE gravity does some work for you. That is of course false - is just a quantitative issue of how much work you do against gravity - it is > 0 no matter what technique you use.

I wrote:

"I just simply disagree with the POSE standpoint - i do not think it is incorrect."

But that i meant "i do not think DRIVING is incorrect".

Do I think POSE is 'crazy'?

Much of Dr. Rs writings are crazy - a communication problem.

Some aspects of the POSE intended meaning may still be crazy - we are still working through things.

Some aspects of the movement POSE is trying to achieve may not be crazy, but i would say they are not optimal.

Some aspects of how POSE attempts to teach optimal running movements may not be crazy, but again i think may be sub-optimal. How much of this is simply a consequence of my disagreement with the actual movements its trying to teach - i'm not sure.

Some aspects of POSE are entirely sensible and are common to wider opinion of 'good technique'.

I too have that feeling of effortless running - but i'm driving, not POSEing.

Alex,

I think you have amazing patience. It occurs to me that it is very difficult to argue logically with someone who is using vague terminology (as you have noted) and who shifts their stance (Is pose a form or a methodology? Is it all perception or do you really get extra physical work out of gravity?).

Consider this item from Mr. Gatorade regarding foot fall:

"With no additional muscle work" means: you don't perform a conscious movement down and back. Like if you stand on a high wall and have a stone in your hand, you can throw it down, or you can let it fall down on its own. From Pose standpoint you should let it fall.

Gravity works on all masses with the same acceleration. Although "from the pose standpoint" you should simply let gravity do the work, you MUST do the equivalent of "throwing it down". Why? Because given the much greater distance that the foot has to traverse (10's of cm versus the 4-6 cm of the center of mass of the body which pose advocates), a greater force has to be added to get the foot to the ground in the given time. If this was not the case and gravity could be used to do this, then pose runners would have highly UNDER developed quads (perhaps with correspondingly OVER developed hamstrings as they are constantly thinking "lift the foot").

This discussion reminds me of talking with people who believe in astrology: Very vague and sometimes confusing terminology coupled with what sounds like science but isn't. Of course, you can present a very cogent argument as to why astrology is a sack of dung, but the adherents will only shift the argument and retreat to some other vague corner (my favorite being "the stars do not COMpel, they IMpel").

Jeremy,

Obviously you are a very gifted runner. I on the other hand have no pretensions about being anything other than a recreational runner.

However, we are still on very subjective ground. I could go on to describe how my heart rate is now lower at any given speed since giving up Pose and adopting what you call “power running” and so on and so on. It’s all anecdotal and doesn’t really prove anything.

I am very reluctant to talk about “flaws” in the technique of elite runners but it may be that Pose did address some fault in your own technique. Or maybe you were able to work out what Dr R is actually saying rather than what he appears to be saying. Just simply reading the confusion expressed in some of the posts of Pose supporters on this thread it would seem that very few of them have.

The main point is, as Alex-S has already stated I do not believe that “a one size fits all” approach to teaching any running technique Pose or otherwise is appropriate or correct.

I hope that do achieve your goals and Pose gives you what you want.

Jim:

Say what you want about other peoples efforts to have an informative discussion and non confrontational discussion.

All of your posts make me believe that you are more interested in being a 'dissident' voice then you are in being a teacher and a student (the two are inseparable or else you are a lecturer)

ST - what the heck does your post mean?!

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I know there have been threads about Pose, but I usually ignored them. I overheard a (fast) guy at a race the other day try to explain it to a slow guy and that got me intrigued. I went to the website and read about it, but it seems kind of crazy. It goes against everything I thought I was supposed to do (injury-wise). No orthotics, no cushioning, etc. is supposed to PREVENT injuries? Then again, I wear orthotics, cushioned shoes, etc., but am still having problems with a tibial stress reaction. I was just wondering if anyone who has had stress fracture(s) uses Pose and if it has helped. Or is is just a bunch of crap? It seems shady to me.

Is this you in a running pose?

Is that doofus actually running with a cell phone clipped to his shorts?

JimFiore wrote:

Gravity works on all masses with the same acceleration. Although "from the pose standpoint" you should simply let gravity do the work, you MUST do the equivalent of "throwing it down". Why? Because given the much greater distance that the foot has to traverse (10's of cm versus the 4-6 cm of the center of mass of the body which pose advocates), a greater force has to be added to get the foot to the ground in the given time. If this was not the case and gravity could be used to do this, then pose runners would have highly UNDER developed quads (perhaps with correspondingly OVER developed hamstrings as they are constantly thinking "lift the foot").

I am sure you are right Jim. The speed with which an objiect falls to Earth is exponential until terminal velocity is reached. That means that the initial gravitational pull on the falling leg is not fast enough, it needs to be given some help by the muscles.

if that is her the stress reaction could be solved by losing a few pounds

Can you believe she started a marathon, in New Orleans, with that many clothes on?

She may have sweated some lard off if she wasn't running at a 12 minute pace.

No, that isn't me.

,

,,,,,,,,, wrote:

,

How dare thee bump this up!

Hi guys!!

Well, I only managed to read till page 12 of this thread and I learned plenty from it. I'm glad you guys decided to debate the Pose method because it troubled me a great deal these past 2 weeks that I've been trying to execute pose from reading posetech.com.

I fully agree with many contributors in here that it is impossible to keep falling forward with no push off. In fact, this is what threw me off and I couldn't get it right or figure it out. We would simply descend lower and lower if we didn't straighten out. I'm so glad that writers like Asterix asserted this without giving up.

After thinking the debate through till page 12, I think I have figured it out. This evening I went out running using this new figured-out method and it cut 2-3 minutes off my 9 Km time inspite of having sore hamstrings from working them out on the Swiss Ball on Wednesday.

Well, I've been plagued with injuries especially to my hamstrings and glutes/external rotators for the past 5 years so I haven't really been able to run. But guess what, I really enjoyed my run today despite getting tired trying to perfect my new figured out running method.

I used to advocate landing on the balls of the foot with a powerful push-off. But now I see the point that the Posers are prolly trying to make: They are saying don't do a powerful push-off. I do not agree that elastic energy is sufficient to restore the CGM to its previous height after falling. Hence, the only solution is to push-off AT LEAST until the CGM is restored to its previous height, in fact, just tipping over the base of support to perpetuate the falling over effect. So there is a push-off and then a quick pulling up of the foot under the hip.

I think the Posers are trying to eliminate pushing explosively beyond the previous height of the CGM, so they say, 'Don't push off.' But obviously we have to push off to restore at least the previous height if not go slightly above it although I'm not sure which is more efficient (Anyone would care to comment?).

The posers are trying to emphasize pulling of the foot up quickly once the previous CGM height is restored or passed, before the leg straightens out to full knee extension and plantar flexion, hence they emphasize keeping the knee bent through-out.

Also, what I benefitted alot was the description, prolly from Gatorade, that the forward lean can be effected by pushing our solar plex forward. I've been having trouble with my forward lean for a long time as I couldn't duplicate the effect of leaning towards a wall in a wall push-up, once I am on the road running. I was able to do that this evening thanks to Gatorade's description. However, I had trouble breathing later on during the run when I did this. It seemed my abs were stretched and pressing against my organs and then my lungs. Or is it simply because now I've gone from less than 5% body fat to 15.9%??? Any tips from Posers on this would greatly help as I can't maintain the solar plex forward position while breathing comfortably. I am 162 cm (5'4") so my CGM doesn't easily go beyond the base of support as most of you taller runners out there.

The emphasis in Pose seems to be pushing off till the point we can create and maintain sufficient imbalance to fall forward as opposed to pushing off explosively like a missile at a 45 degree angle above the CGM.

I wanted to ask this earlier: I watched Jeremy Wariner on TV running the 400. I thought he didn't have full knee extension, or was it my mis-observation? Same with Michael Johnson, but that is only in my memory now. Anyone has photos/clips of them proving otherwise?