Pose = crazy???

JY wrote:

I think you're referring to my comments on the muscle activity patterns seen in ballistic vs isokinetic movements.

Yes I was (found the original at

May 25, 3:54pm). Thanks for the explanation.

In the biomechanics labs of most university kinesiology/exercise science departments, one will find "force platforms".

Force platforms record the vertical, forward/backwards and side-to-side forces exerted at the foot-ground interface.

I suggest that someone who feels strongly about POSE should utilize force platforms to address this "debate". It is quite easy to record the exact force magnitudes thoughout the time a foot is on the ground in running. Thus, rather than citing the ankle and knee angles of a photo of Geb scanned from some magazine, one could actually meaure the "push-off" force or lack thereof.

Rodger Kram wrote:

Thus, rather than citing the ankle and knee angles of a photo of Geb scanned from some magazine, one could actually meaure the "push-off" force or lack thereof.

How about something like:

(I note the running profile shows the initial absorbption of the landing followed by the very distinct push-off.)

Rodger,

Actually it's been done. Not with Geb, but with subjects trained to run POSE. See Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Feb;36(2):272-7.

Results showed that 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. In my mind, these effects should naturally result from increasing stride frequency/reducing stride length. Absolutely no evidence that push off is eliminated.

I was wondering where yesterday's burst of POSErs came from. Appears there was a call to arms:

http://ww2.posetech.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=17325&start=0&rid=0

Gotta love the mindset where:

"But, every idea is always met with skepticism, denial, etc......But it's difficult to argue with scientific facts---and that's what pose is based upon. And that's why it appeals to me so much."

Yes, it definitely has been the POSE advocates who have been presenting the scientific evidence and proof to back up their assertions. I guess when you fall uphill, then everything is backwards. Up is down, evidence is fantasy and disproven assertions are indisputable fact.

Obviously these people actually bothered to read this thread before they posted on their own.

Just Run Baby

Asterix wrote:

Rodger Kram wrote:

Thus, rather than citing the ankle and knee angles of a photo of Geb scanned from some magazine, one could actually meaure the "push-off" force or lack thereof.

How about something like:

http://starlab.stanford.edu/pdfs/Giddings_MSSE.pdf

(I note the running profile shows the initial absorbption of the landing followed by the very distinct push-off.)

Isn't this study using a heel striker? If you look at Figure 2-b, the vertical component goes negative. Do have studies that show mid or forfoot strikers?

Did you read the post directly below the one to which you replied? It has the answer you are looking for.

You know you've gone too far when your name appears in a letsrun subject line.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Anyone who can provide proof of purchase of any POSE video, book or seminar will get 25% off any similar product for my run FAST methodology (see page 1 for more details).

Jhuffman, are you a native English speaker?

Why does your style of writing (or speaking) sound so weird and somewhat foreign. Also, the fact that your posts are littered with spelling and grammatical mistakes does not help.

That being said, I have some interest in POSE, and have read this thread and have a few questions. I have read a lot on POSEtech and I've seen several instances of someone talking about falling forward due to gravity.

This is a question for Jhuffman and only Jhuffman, is it possible for gravity to pull someone forward like I've read on the website?

And what would be the most cost effective way for me to learn more about POSE?

I believe you already know the answers to your questions. If you can't interpret my English then just stop reading my posts, because I don't recall directing them to you. If you are serious and have questions than email me at huffman16@hotmail.com, although your can find the answers at www.posetech.com as well. Good luck!

brawn wrote:

This is a question for Jhuffman and only Jhuffman, is it possible for gravity to pull someone forward like I've read on the website?

Don't mean to answer for Jhuffman, but if you have a slight forward lean, isn't there a horizontal component of gravitational force equal to 'mg cos (theta)'?

brawn wrote:

Simply read asterix's arguments and read the pose supporter's arguments. If you can't tell which person is making coherent, scientifically sound arguments, I pity you.

I second that. I missed this entire thread, and just read the last few pages.

Asterix(especially) and others: thanks for once and for all slamming the door on the pseudo-science of the POSE method. EXCELLENT JOB!

Dr Poseur should have left it at this:

POSE METHOD:

1) running can be looked at as a series of poses

2) the best runners in the world often look like this when running (show some pics) during each of phase of their stride

3) landing underneath one's center of body on one's forefoot (instead of ahead of the body on one's heel) can by quite efficient and decrease the braking action that occurs when one lands during each stride (ie, one can continue their momentum more efficiently this way)

4) try to imitate these runners to some degree because they are quite efficient runners

5) running in "less" of a shoe can be more efficient for many

THE END.

Of course 1000's of people have already made such statements before and if he had left it at that he would not have been able to trademark his theories or likely make any money. By introducing the pseudo-science, and creating the cult of POSEURS who think they can run via the magic of gravity, and pretending he had come up with some great original ideas, he was able to sell more of his snake oil. The good Dr has learned the art capitalism well. Maybe he should write a book on THAT instead (how to hoodwink the naive masses into buying half-baked ideas).

JY

thanks for pointing out that article. here is a link to the article.

http://www.posetech.com/library/dr-02-04-004.html

it is probably a copyright violation to post the article that way. and the reference list is not numbered but it is free.

anyhow, nice to have data instead of name calling.

The well respected and often controversial, Tim Noakes is one of the co-authors and it is in a good journal. Note that Romanov is also an author.

My quick read is that POSE involves shorter strides and is a bit softer.

That could help avoid injuries.

The changes in propulsive forces are likely due to stride length changes.

of course there are still pushoff forces. not sure why anyone would claim that there are none. the braking and propulsive impules must be equal during steady speed running.

As far as I know, the only study done on running economy and POSE showed that economy got substantially worse with POSE. see below.

the worse economy may be a direct result of short strides.

Since I don't get injured (32 years of running), and am already a midfoot striker, I see no reason to learn POSE.

Title: Effect of a global alteration of running technique on kinematics and economy

Author(s): Dallam GM, Wilber RL, Jadelis K, Fletcher G, Romanov N

Source: JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 23 (7): 757-764 JUL 2005

Document Type: Article

Language: English

Cited References: 26 Times Cited: 0

Abstract: In this study, we examined the consequences of a global alteration in running technique on running kinematics and running economy in triathletes. Sixteen sub-elite triathletes were pre and post tested for running economy and running kinematics at 215 and 250 m center dot min(-1). The members of the treatment group (n = 8) were exposed to 12 weeks of instruction in the "pose method" of running, while the members of the control group (n 8) maintained their usual running technique. After the treatment period, the experimental group demonstrated a significant decrease in mean stride length (from 137.25 +/- 7.63 cm to 129.19 +/- 7.43 cm; P < 0.05), a post-treatment difference in vertical oscillation compared with the control group (6.92 +/- 1.00 vs. 8.44 +/- 1.00 cm; P < 0.05) and a mean increase in submaximal absolute oxygen cost (from 3.28 +/- 0.36 l center dot min(-1) to 3.53 +/- 0.43 l center dot min(-1); P < 0.01). The control group exhibited no significant changes in either running kinematics or oxygen cost. The global change in running mechanics associated with 12 weeks of instruction in the pose method resulted in a decrease in stride length, a reduced vertical oscillation in comparison with the control group and a decrease of running economy in triathletes.

Author Keywords: pose method; stride length; stride rate; support time; triathlon; vertical oscillation

KeyWords Plus: STRIDE LENGTH VARIATION; TRAINED MALE RUNNERS; OXYGEN-UPTAKE; APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; FREQUENCY; TRIATHLON; MECHANICS; POWER

Addresses: Dallam GM (reprint author), Univ So Colorado, Dept Exercise Sci, Pueblo, CO 81001 USA

Univ So Colorado, Dept Exercise Sci, Pueblo, CO 81001 USA

US Olymp Comm, Dept Sports Sci & Technol, Colorado Springs, CO USA

Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc, Falls Church, VA USA

Romanov Acad Sports Sci, Miami, FL USA

E-mail Addresses:

george.dallam@colostate-pueblo.edu

I'm sorry, but this whole thing has just gotten so silly that it's humorous. It's like when my local cable access channel broadcasts a religious show called "House of Yahweh". The host is serious, but it leaves me in stitches. What else can you say when someone, with a straight face, exclaims that over 50% of all babies born today have an STD? The Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, you can use gravity to gain free energy while running, and your girlfriend never even so much as kissed another guy before she met you. Talk about gullible. Does Dr. Romanov have any beachfront property in Nevada that he's try to sell as well?

Arguing against basic physics is a losing proposition. You are flat-Earters; you just don't know it.

As a Physics major, all the "enlightened" bashers that consistently redicule the pose method for apparently being physically impossible are starting to irritate me. You all appear delighted with your one bit of information that you've retained from your high school physics class; and now are using it as your claim to be the "scientific" standpoint.

Okay, sure, the wording isn't exactly correct in pose ... but it is quite obvious what they are trying to get across. So please, I urge you to get off your high horse and stop close-mindedly dismissing something that you clearly haven't wholeheartedly tried. Oh, and please don't claim that physics contradicts pose ... there is nothing wrong with physics, just your lack of knowledge of it.

For my own part, I wouldn't say I buy into pose completely (figuratively or literally); but I do think there is alot of value in the pose method.

Edward Hoey

SR Physics Major, Math Minor

Simon Fraser University

JimFiore wrote:

I'm sorry, but this whole thing has just gotten so silly that it's humorous. It's like when my local cable access channel broadcasts a religious show called "House of Yahweh". The host is serious, but it leaves me in stitches. What else can you say when someone, with a straight face, exclaims that over 50% of all babies born today have an STD? The Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, you can use gravity to gain free energy while running, and your girlfriend never even so much as kissed another guy before she met you. Talk about gullible. Does Dr. Romanov have any beachfront property in Nevada that he's try to sell as well?

Arguing against basic physics is a losing proposition. You are flat-Earters; you just don't know it.

The sun does rotate about the earth, the earth is the center of the universe; and in the correct coordinate system, the earth is "flat".

Arguing that your skeletal knowledge of a couple physical laws gives you a knowledge of physics just makes you look foolish.

Edward Hoey

4th yr Physics Major, Math Minor

Simon Fraser University

I too agree with your assesment.

Johnson Gosyna

Professor of Physics and insertions(jhuffmans instructor)

Florida State University