POSE running method question
Notgiven
method/technique(www.posetech.com). His video claims is the method taught
by the national assoication of triathlete coaches (or some association like
that).
Do any of you use it? Does it really help prevent injuries? Make you
faster?
How long did it take you to "get the hang of it"?
Thanks!
Patrick
> I've talked to people who use this running
> method/technique(www.posetech.com).
Haven't done Pose, but I've been running barefoot for two months. Been
reading a lot of advice on form and technique from other barefooters,
many of whom have read Chi Running and a few of whom are familiar with
Pose technique. There seems to be much similarity among barefoot, Chi,
and Pose running.
Being barefoot, my form changed immediately out of necessity; heel
striking on concrete does not work. My calves were the first to notice
the difference, along with my hamstrings. It took about two weeks for
the soreness to go away, only running a mile or two every couple days.
After two months I have stretches in my runs where I feel that
everything in my form is clicking, but I am certainly still not doing
everything correctly. I still concentrate on various aspects of my form
during my runs. Downhills are of particular difficulty; my feet can't
quite keep up with gravity.
As for injuries, there is no doubt that I am lighter on my feet. About
a year ago I ran to work a couple times as a shod heel-striker (six
miles each way, on dirt and pavement), and on the way back my feet and
joints were definitely feeling tired from the pounding. I have not run
those distances recently; six miles is my longest barefoot distance. My
joints and feet no longer feel that type of pain, though the true test
will be when I can run to work again. I don't feel any shock shooting
up my legs and hips as I once did (and when I say "shock" I don't mean
shooting pain, just an awareness of pounding).
My ankles are almost certainly not yet as strong as they will be, but I
have had no sprains or injuries thus far. I imagine Pose puts similar
stress on the ankle, foot, and calf muscles and recommend taking things
slowly at first. My first month's runs were all under three miles.
Is it faster? I don't know... I did a small interval workout, and I
could definitely run "fast", but I can't say if I am faster or slower
than before. Bare feet or the minimal shoes recommended by Pose are
lighter than any trainers, but you may already be racing in lightweight
flats. On gentle downhills my foot cadence can be very fast, certainly
much faster than in the past. This higher cadence also helps reduce the
pounding compared to a slower bouncing-jogging stride.
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Dave Chandler
Running Research News had an article about it within the past couple of
years that indicated it was baloney. I can access it and summarize it
for you if you want to email me backchannel.
Dave
Patrick
> Notgiven wrote:
>> I've talked to people who use this running
>> method/technique(www.posetech.com).
>
> years that indicated it was baloney. I can access it and summarize it
> for you if you want to email me backchannel.
I'd like to read your summary of that article (or better, the article
itself). If you do take the time to summarize it, why not post it here?
Don't think it's off topic, and your efforts would be much appreciated.
Based on my limited knowledge, the running form recommended by barefoot
runners (Ken Bob Saxton, runningbarefoot.org), Danny Dreyer (Chi
Running), Dr. Romanov (Pose Method), and Gordon Pirie (gordonpirie.com)
are all very similar and different than the way I initially learned to
run (my "natural" form, with unatural thick-heeled shoes).
When I watch videos of olympic 5000 meter races or of Saxton, the form
appears very smooth and similar to what I imagine the above four people
are talking about. However, I'm willing to admit that I'm just seeing
what I want to see. Thoughts?
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Donovan Rebbechi
Most beginners have terrible running form. It usually corrects itself by the
time you are doing high mileage training. All of my training partners wear
these "unatural" shoes you speak of, yet all of them run pretty smoothly.
Running smoothly does not require barefoot running, it doesn't require the
"pose method" either.
As for baloney, one of the fallacies of these methods is the believe that
gravity "pulls you forward" (can't remember if that one's Pose, Chi or both).
Anyway, that viewpoint is simply ignorant from a physics standpoint. Gravity
doesn't pull you forward, it pulls you down.
The other myth they peddle is the supposed important of "landing on" the ball
of the foot instead of "landing on" the heel. Again, this is basically ignorance.
Most distance runners lightly touch down with the heel first, but this doesn't
absorb anything close to the full impact since the center of mass is still
falling at initial contact. So it's simply incorrect to say that they are
"landing on" their heel. Center of mass doesn't stop falling until the ball
of the foot touches down. The main problem with the heavy "heel strikers" is
that most of them are also overstriding (which means more vertical motion)
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Mark Hutchinson
>Most beginners have terrible running form. It usually corrects
>itself by the time you are doing high mileage training. All of my
>training partners wear these "unatural" shoes you speak of, yet
>all of them run pretty smoothly.
>
>Running smoothly does not require barefoot running, it doesn't
>require the "pose method" either.
I don't disagree with your points, but I believe there is
something to this notion of barefoot running potentially improving
your overall running style. I find the idea of it very appealing
because it makes logical sense. But after a lifetime of wearing
shoes, it's very risky to experiment with. For some people without
tight training and racing schedules, it might be worthwhile to take
that risk.
Patrick
Yes, some of their tenents sound a bit wonky from a physics standpoint.
But as for gravity pulling you down rather than forward, take a rigid
wooden plank and balance it on end. Unbalance it by nudging it forward;
the plank's center of mass moves both forward and down. Friction at the
plank-ground interface is the only force actually acting in the x
direction, but gravity might be seen as the main driving force as the
plank does not need to actively push off in order move forward. Perhaps
this would be better stated as "running is not a series of small jumps",
but I am not an expert in Pose or Chi.
I think the ball of the foot landing is overemphasized, though I have
read a blurb on posetech.com saying something like "don't try to land on
the ball of the foot; when your form is correct in other areas this will
happen on its own".
I've discovered from my barefoot running that the "ball first" is very
subtle. The entire length of my foot touches very soon after the
initial contact, almost a flat footed landing. Without a doubt my
landing is lighter than before, where I feel I did not learn proper form
after ten years of running, sometimes 40-50 mpw. I'm not sure if that
is considered high mileage, but I'm not convinced that most form
problems correct themselves through more running.
Shoes are unatural in the sense that they are not the natural foot. The
important question is whether or not various types of shoes offer an
improvement over the natural foot, not the definition of "natural". It
is my opinion that a shoe with a higher heel than forefoot cannot help
but alter the gait (and may trick a runner into heel-striking). Whether
this is for better or worse I cannot say. Clearly, people run with
thick shoes, thin shoes, and no shoes, so the effects of any particular
style are not immediately disastrous.
> Most distance runners lightly touch down with the heel first, but this
> doesn't absorb anything close to the full impact since the center of
> mass is still falling at initial contact. So it's simply incorrect to
> say that they are "landing on" their heel. Center of mass doesn't stop
> falling until the ball of the foot touches down.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, but if the heel touches
first, I don't see how the hinge of the foot can absorb any impact
unless the ball of the foot touches and bears most of the weight, all
while the heel remains just barely in concact with the ground, and then
allows the heel to catch back up, touching the ground fully, engaging
the foot's impact absorbing hinge. It's possible that what you describe
is nearly identical to what I consider a forefoot landing (but different
than how I previously ran with a definite heel-strike).
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Notgiven
news:LtmRg.1335$DQ3....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
Notgiven
news:Kc-dnbiVKbREyYjY...@speakeasy.net...
I will have to investigate this barefoot running. If you have any good web
sites to recommend, please share.
I am not a light guy, 6 feet, 215lbs. so I am doing everything I can to
prevent injury while I start running again. Injury prevention is a main
concern in my running, losing more weight is second to make everything in
the multi-sport training easier. I am looking to do triathlon. However at
this point (a newbie) I am not concerned about winning or placing, just
finishing without injury. As I progress, and lose more weight, I will try
to be more competitive. I've been injured many times as I start a sport too
eagerly so this time I am taking it easy.
Having said that...I ran my first pose tech method on about 2.5 miles
focusing on landing on the balls of my feet about 3 weeks ago and now I am
nursing achilles tendonitis :-)
So I guess I need to take it easier to start with. now that the season is
soming to a close, it doesn't look like I will be able to compete in my
first triathlon this year so I am relax and focus on overall strenghtening
and technique.
Thanks in advance for any links to barefoot running you have found useful!
Kind regards.
Donovan Rebbechi
> plank-ground interface is the only force actually acting in the x
> direction, but gravity might be seen as the main driving force as the
> plank does not need to actively push off in order move forward. Perhaps
And then what happens ? The plank hits the ground. Does it keep moving
forward ? No. This argument has actually been beaten to death on letsrun.com,
it may be worth searching that website for some of the prior discussion
on this topic.
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, but if the heel touches
> first, I don't see how the hinge of the foot can absorb any impact
> unless the ball of the foot touches and bears most of the weight, all
> while the heel remains just barely in concact with the ground, and then
> allows the heel to catch back up, touching the ground fully, engaging
> the foot's impact absorbing hinge.
Yeah, that's basically it. The point is that it doesn't really matter that
much whether the heel or ball "wins" the race to get to the ground first,
because the impact is not going to be absorbed by the heel anyway.
What is important is to avoid overstriding, because it costs a lot of energy,
and increases impact.
Patrick
> I will have to investigate this barefoot running. If you have any
> good web sites to recommend, please share.
www.runningbarefoot.org is probably the main site for barefoot runners.
The yahoo discussion group is also invaluable
<http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningBarefoot/> Keep clicking
and searching and reading everything you can. I should quote the site's
maintainer here: "Contrary to popular myth, I do NOT recommend running
barefoot. That decision, and responsibility is solely for you. However,
I do recommend THINKING. . . Think about why we have bought into the
myth that humans were short-changed by nature, while every other animal
gets by just fine without wearing shoes."
Barefoot running is certainly not to be treated casually. There are
risks involved. Take it slow. There is certainly no consensus among
runners, podiatrists, or sports physicians that barefoot running or Pose
Method or Chi running or anything will actually prevent injury. Pose
and Chi definitely sell themselves on leading to injury free running. I
personally am intrigued by the possibility that running barefoot leads
one to the body's natural running form, presumably a biomechanically
correct form that should minimize shock and injury, but I have no
evidence for this. I also find it interesting that barefoot, Pose, Chi,
and Gordon Pirie's "Running Fast and Injury Free" running forms are very
similar in my understanding. Shoes or no, I plan on continuing with
this running form.
For the record, I am about 6'3'', 180 lbs and have had only one injury
in shoes that prevented me from running (can't recall the name,
something like bad shin splints) in my ten years and have only been
running barefoot for two months.
> Having said that...I ran my first pose tech method on about 2.5 miles
> focusing on landing on the balls of my feet about 3 weeks ago and now
> I am nursing achilles tendonitis :-)
Calf and achilles pain is normal early on as your calves have likely
been shortened and underused by a liftime in shoes with a [slightly]
raised heel. Take it easy, and listen to your body. I stayed under two
miles for my first month. I did it at first too, but don't focus on
landing on the balls of your feet. It should be very subtle; your heel
will touch the ground.
I find barefoot running very fun; it has rejuvinated my motivation to
run. I also find my form to be more gentle and enjoyable. Whether you
change your form with shoes or decide to try barefoot running, take it
easy.
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Notgiven
news:slrnehe29r...@panix2.panix.com...
My goal is not to choose one method over another. It doesn't matter where
the method originated, I just want to learn propoer technique and remain
injury free - or as free as possible - while finishing races. All the
while, losing weight and feeling better.
So, really, proper technique is what I am after, not choosing one person's
method over another.
thanks for the great feedback to all.
Notgiven
Patrick - thanks. I will probab,y not actually run for any length of time
barefooted. However, and this is a big however, I think it might make sense
FOR ME , and to me, to wear thin-soled shows (racing flats) protect you from
skin injuries while letting you closely feel the biomchanical effects of
running barefoot. this coincides with the shoes recommended by POSETECH.com
as well so there might be some merit there.
That's my thought for now at least.
Donovan Rebbechi
> My goal is not to choose one method over another. It doesn't matter where
> the method originated, I just want to learn propoer technique and remain
> injury free - or as free as possible - while finishing races. All the
> while, losing weight and feeling better.
>
> So, really, proper technique is what I am after, not choosing one person's
> method over another.
The focus on technique is really misguided. What's important at this stage is
to run at a very comfortable pace so that you're not straining, and so that
you gradually adapt.
Using racing flats or similar will likely prodiuce similar ill-fated results to
experiments with "pose" -- you will put more stress on your achilles tendons.
It's much better to just run at a pace that is well within the limitations of
your body can take, keeping the training load within your level of adaption, so
that your body has time to adjust to the training stimulus instead of breaking
down.
Perhaps instead of asking questions about technique, you should be talking about
your training program.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Patrick - thanks. I will probab,y not actually run for any length of time
> barefooted. However, and this is a big however, I think it might make sense
> FOR ME , and to me, to wear thin-soled shows (racing flats) protect you from
Nah. For you, the best thing to do would be forget about this posetech garden
path you've been led on, and bring the focus back to your training.
The problem for most beginning runners is really simple -- they are typically
heavy by running standards (as you are), and they don't have the adaptions that
are needed to provide injury resistance. So they are very vulnerable. Also, most
of them don't have a good sense of where their limits are, so they're likely
to exceed them.
The solution is to be patient, go with a moderate training load at a moderate
intensity. Ultimately, you need to do that even if you choose to embrace some
cult like pose or whatever.
Posetech are a fringe group. The bulk of the running and scientific community
don't take them very seriously.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Calf and achilles pain is normal early on as your calves have likely
> been shortened and underused by a liftime in shoes with a [slightly]
The only way to "shorten" your muscles in this manner is to chronically immobilise
them (e.g. in a cast).
Nearly all a beginners running muscles are "underused" by running standards. So almost
every muscle and tendon associated with running is a candidate for injury in a beginner.
That's what makes them so vulnerable.
Charlie Pendejo
> Using racing flats or similar will likely prodiuce similar ill-fated
> results to experiments with "pose" -- you will put more stress
> on your achilles tendons.
IMO the shoes you wear during the 95% of your waking hours when *not*
running are a bigger factor than commonly attributed. This is
speculation plus my own limited experience, not any kind of
well-defined or controlled experiment, but I do believe that wearing
low-, no-, or negative-heeled shoes (e.g. most sandals, some retro
running flats, Earth shoes) in one's civilian life can help prepare
your calf muscles for the extra range of motion they'll need for
running in flats or barefoot.
Dot
>
> Having said that...I ran my first pose tech method on about 2.5 miles
> focusing on landing on the balls of my feet about 3 weeks ago and now I am
> nursing achilles tendonitis :-)
>
> So I guess I need to take it easier to start with. now that the season is
> soming to a close, it doesn't look like I will be able to compete in my
> first triathlon this year so I am relax and focus on overall strenghtening
> and technique.
Functional strengthening can be a really good idea for some new runners.
Let the achilles heal first though. After it's healed, here's some
exercises to reduce probability of reoccurrence:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0125.htm
You might also google for "functional strength".
A couple simple tips on form are to run tall (may need to feel like your
pushing your hips forward), and some find a cadence near 180 foot falls
/ min (90 touches by right foot) useful to reduce a lot of bounce that
many beginners may have. This also tends to result in a natural footfall
for that runner. The steps are too small to overstride (heel strike),
and you'll probably find a natural foot positioning on how you land.
With faster speeds you'll probably feel like you're landing more toward
forefoot than mid-foot. But be careful in how you adjust - slowly.
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
Patrick
an assumption that Pose claims that gravity powers the entire run.
Certainly, after falling forward the next step must push the center of
mass back up, reversing the work done by gravity, and I honestly don't
know if Pose ignores this second part or not. I have only read a few
tidbits here and there and see similarities between Pose, or what I
imagine Pose to be (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, eh?), and
the form I've adopted in order to run barefoot.
I also read some of a thread on posetech.com *about* the letsrun.com
thread. I mostly agree with what is stated in the first post here:
http://ww2.posetech.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&rid=0&th=16866&goto=112454
I can understand an aversion to Pose (though I'll point out that
Scientology does not have a public discussion board), but I don't
understand derision toward thinking about technique early in one's
running career. At what point, if any, should it be discussed? At
least for me, I do not feel I learned proper technique simply by running
[in shoes] for ten years.
I enjoy discussing running form, and am a bit confused that, say,
Runner's World magazine rarely talks about form, but a majority of
discussions in a barefoot running group revolve around form. For me,
it's been terrific fun thinking about how I run, reading what other
runners think, and then keeping that in mind as I listen to my body on
my next run; every run is an ongoing learning experience.
Does improper form not contribute to injuries and longevity problems?
Are all injuries simply too much too fast by inexperienced runners? I
know experienced runners who have been injured, and I know runners who
are falling apart with joint and back pain as they grow older. Is
falling apart simply a fact of aging? Are those with great longevity
merely lucky? This a big part of why I feel technique is important: not
so much to shave seconds off my 5K time or to lose that extra pound but
to keep my body healthy and running for many years to come.
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Donovan Rebbechi
> I've read one six-page letsrun.com Pose discussion... There seems to be
> an assumption that Pose claims that gravity powers the entire run.
> Certainly, after falling forward the next step must push the center of
> mass back up, reversing the work done by gravity, and I honestly don't
> know if Pose ignores this second part or not. I have only read a few
Yeah, that's the issue. The pose crowd are just off the mark on the basics
of it.
[snip]
> I can understand an aversion to Pose (though I'll point out that
> Scientology does not have a public discussion board), but I don't
> understand derision toward thinking about technique early in one's
> running career.
The issue is that it's a distraction from more pressing issues. Most newbies
get injured
(1) because newbies are vulnerable to injury, and
(2) because of training errors
Conscious efforts to alter technique will not substantially improve (1) and if
anything may distract from (2). Newbies often run with poor technique, but
conscious interventions often make it worse.
Some advice to avoid overstriding may be appropriate, beyond that there isn't
much to be gained from thinking about technique.
> At what point, if any, should it be discussed? At
Possibly never, at least not in the way the posers approach it.
Many coaches recommend a number of drills that improve running economy. There
are also certain types of interval work that improve it -- short hard anaerobic
reps, strides, and hill work.
> least for me, I do not feel I learned proper technique simply by running
> [in shoes] for ten years.
There's a big difference between "feeling" you learn "proper technique" and
running effectively. Many top runners have gaits that look pretty attrocious,
yet they run very well. Do exercises that improve running economy, and improve
comfort at fairly rapid stride rates, and both running economy improves and
risk of injury drops. And that is ultimately the purpose of technique.
"Running form" as an end in itself as opposed to a means to prevent injury and
improve economy is ultimately pointless.
> I enjoy discussing running form, and am a bit confused that, say,
> Runner's World magazine rarely talks about form, but a majority of
> discussions in a barefoot running group revolve around form. For me,
It's because the barefoot running crowd are obsessed with form, whereas serious
runners are more interested in running fast. The runners world readers are
interested in the latest shoe models and GPS watches.
> Does improper form not contribute to injuries and longevity problems?
Define "improper form". Besides overstriding, I would say "probably not". I would
also point out that the human body is really good at adapting to stresses such as
running, and that second-guessing it by out-"thinking" it is not always a great
idea.
> Are all injuries simply too much too fast by inexperienced runners? I
Almost all, yes.
> know experienced runners who have been injured, and I know runners who
> are falling apart with joint and back pain as they grow older. Is
> falling apart simply a fact of aging?
Probably. Runners don't fall apart any more than non-runners.
> Are those with great longevity merely lucky?
Yes, without a doubt.
> This a big part of why I feel technique is important: not
> so much to shave seconds off my 5K time or to lose that extra pound but
> to keep my body healthy and running for many years to come.
What evidence is there that spending more time thinking about technique reduces
risk of injury ?
IvarB
quetions in this thread. That surprises me.Anyone has personally met Romanov
would surely agree that he is in no way selling baloney.
Pose method is a methodical approach of not only running but human movement
in general, and Romanov has tried summarize it under very general
principles. You can put these in to practive yourself with the dvd or the
book if you are a more conceptual learner. It takes a few weeks and ,likely,
some muscle sores.Then you can judge for yourself if this is useful for your
running, or other sports.
Ivar
have to experience it To put it s
"Notgiven" <notre...@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:fuCRg.36598$KR1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Patrick
> There's a big difference between "feeling" you learn "proper
> technique" and running effectively.
I run lighter and more comfortably with less pounding than before, and
it was a lot of reading and thinking about form that got me there.
Perhaps my nerves are deceiving me, but that's my experience.
It seems we are both shooting from the hip with little evidence other
than personal experience. Otherwise, please share your sources on
reasons for injury. The sportssci article _Barefoot Running_ by
Warburton [1] cites Siff and Verkhoshansky, 1999, "Chronic ailments such
as shin splints, ilio-tibial band syndrome and peri-patellar pain are
attributed variously to excessive pronation, supination, and shock
loading of the limbs". I have seen shin splints and IT band problems in
experienced runners (and have had shin splints myself), but I would not
be shocked to learn these happen most often in the inexperienced if you
share evidence of such.
[1] http://sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm#_Toc535425247
This is more personal experience, but it's not uncommon to see a new
barefoot runner state something like "I had [knee problems, IT-band
pain, other pain] when running that stopped when I went barefoot
[changing form or at least footwear]". Whether the healing is due to
the change in form, more experience running, grossly inappropriate
shoes, or a rest period during the transition, is of course not clear.
I will leave it at that. Please share your evidence, I am definitely
open to learning and changing my mind. Thanks for putting up with me
thus far.
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Donovan Rebbechi
>> There's a big difference between "feeling" you learn "proper
>> technique" and running effectively.
>
> I run lighter and more comfortably with less pounding than before, and
> it was a lot of reading and thinking about form that got me there.
There are many ways to get there.
[snip]
> It seems we are both shooting from the hip with little evidence other
> than personal experience.
In my case, not just my own experience, but also second hand experience from
being involved with a large training group for years, and reading this forum
for several years.
> Otherwise, please share your sources on
> reasons for injury. The sportssci article _Barefoot Running_ by
This does not deserve to be called an "article". I would again recommend reading
first the reviewers remarks and then letsrun for detailed discussion on this,
but in short:
(1) the primary references cited in the article are articles published by Steve Robbins
who is an anti-shoe crusader, and a book by Yessis, whose book contains no
original research, and doesn't cite any research.
(2) citations of other research don't lend much support to the authors position.
> Warburton [1] cites Siff and Verkhoshansky, 1999, "Chronic ailments such
> as shin splints, ilio-tibial band syndrome and peri-patellar pain are
> attributed variously to excessive pronation, supination, and shock
> loading of the limbs".
I don't really see the relevance of this. Sure these injuries occur.
> I have seen shin splints and IT band problems in
> experienced runners (and have had shin splints myself), but I would not
> be shocked to learn these happen most often in the inexperienced if you
> share evidence of such.
Noakes discusses this in the chapter on injuries. Rapid increase in training
load (either from a baseline of zero, or even a jump from casual running to a
more demanding marathon regimen) is a factor in a number of injuries.
I would strongly recommend getting a copy of Noakes if you don't already have
one, because despite its flaws, it is the most up to date and comprehensive
book on the science of running available.
> [1] http://sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm#_Toc535425247
>
> This is more personal experience, but it's not uncommon to see a new
> barefoot runner state something like "I had [knee problems, IT-band
> pain, other pain] when running that stopped when I went barefoot
> [changing form or at least footwear]".
Moving to lighter shoes or barefoot simply moves the primary sites of
stress. It's not uncommon for people who switch to running in flats to
end up with achilles tendon or forefoot injuries, like the other poster
who tried using "pose".
Charlie Pendejo
> It seems we are both shooting from the hip with little evidence
> other than personal experience.
And that - along with plenty of ill-founded speculation - is all I have
to offer. But just for the record, I too feel strongly that
consciously attending to form has helped me improve it, and better
enjoy running and possibly avoid some injuries.
Once upon a time there was a little community of wreck.runners who
liked to discuss this running form stuff, and there may be again in the
future.
What is sometimes interesting is the relative vehemence with which the
orthodoxy dismisses the possibility that attention to form might maybe
possibly be a good thing for some runners...
Donovan Rebbechi
As a self-appointed spokesperson for "the orthodoxy", the key issues, as I
see them, which lead to the alleged vehement dismissal are:
(1) excessive and disproportionate focus on "form" may be a diversion from more
pressing concerns, especially training errors.
(2) most of the "form gurus" are simply wrong on a number of fundamental points (e.g.
elementary physics), so they have little credibility.
Addressing technique via a mix of strides, drills, and strength work is a perfectly
sensible thing to do. Taking an interest in technique is not intrinsically bad, it's
the fanatical approach taken by various cultists (Dreyer, Romanov) that is bad.
Mark Cathcart
> Do any of you use it? Does it really help prevent injuries? Make you
> faster?
Tim Donn, ITU 2006 World Champion is a well known convert to this style
of running and has been both qouted and photographed for the UK 220
Triathlon Magazine on articles about this running style.
I don't have the articles anymore as I moved house and binned my entire
collection of 220 magazines. This google search will return many
articles that include Tim and Pose.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22tim+don%22+%2Bpose
Suffice to say I don't practise it myself, with one leg 2-inches
shorter from below the knee I'd just end up on my face.
Charlie Pendejo
> (2) most of the "form gurus" are simply wrong on a
> number of fundamental points (e.g. elementary physics),
> so they have little credibility.
You ought to realize I agree with you with greater frequency than I
agree with just about any other poster here, but on this point: YAWN.
Who TF cares (well, OK, pedantic physics geeks like you do - but
recognize that you're a fringe minority, albeit still overrepresented
wherever people argue on the Internet) whether the images these guys
use is the literal physical truth? In the present newsgroup's past, a
certain O. Gontang often wrote about (OK, repeatedly copied and pasted)
having one's head, and the body attached to it, held upright via a hook
in the crown of one's head, to which was attached a line (segment) the
other end of which was affixed to an airborne helicopter.
I'm pretty sure even the oft-delusional LSmith hasn't been misled into
thinking that people are born with these hooks or have them surgically
affixed later in life, or that it'd be a good idea to become the first
to do so. But I'm even more certain that the image has been helpful to
a number of runners.
Sure, if Dreyeroff passionately argues the literal physics, he deserves
a good virtual pimp-slap. But I can't even begin to agree that a
useful, slightly metaphorical image that plays a little fast and loose
with the literal physics and which genuinely helps runners, discredits
the "guru" - any more than being so piss-poor at clearly and precisely
articulating some of the finer (and coarser) points of training
discredits Lydiard as a training guru.
Donovan Rebbechi
>> (2) most of the "form gurus" are simply wrong on a
>> number of fundamental points (e.g. elementary physics),
>> so they have little credibility.
>
> You ought to realize I agree with you with greater frequency than I
> agree with just about any other poster here, but on this point: YAWN.
>
> Who TF cares (well, OK, pedantic physics geeks like you do - but
> recognize that you're a fringe minority, albeit still overrepresented
> wherever people argue on the Internet) whether the images these guys
> use is the literal physical truth?
If it were just presented as imagery in a similar manner to Ozzie's posts,
I wouldn't have a problem with it. For the most part I don't take issue with
Ozzie's posts, even though they are loaded with bad physics.
But some of the gurus use bad physics as a rationale for doing things a certain
way. For example, many of the form gurus (especially the nutty barefoot fringe)
are obsessed with touching the ball of the foot first, largely because they
simply don't understand the mechanics of the footstrike (or physics in general
for that matter).
> a good virtual pimp-slap. But I can't even begin to agree that a
> useful, slightly metaphorical image that plays a little fast and loose
> with the literal physics and which genuinely helps runners, discredits
> the "guru" - any more than being so piss-poor at clearly and precisely
> articulating some of the finer (and coarser) points of training
> discredits Lydiard as a training guru.
Lydiard gets to be called a guru because he actually achieved something of note,
and his methods are well supported by sound scientific principles.
Believe me, if the form gurus achieved a fraction of what Lydiard did, I would
take them much more seriously.
Patrick
Wahoooo!
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
steve common
>a
>certain O. Gontang often wrote about (OK, repeatedly copied and pasted)
>having one's head, and the body attached to it, held upright via a hook
>in the crown of one's head, to which was attached a line (segment) the
>other end of which was affixed to an airborne helicopter.
FWIW to regular (or not) readers, this is the best single "strange" thing
I learned in running, ever. To understand what it does look at "Les
Chorists" film (OK it isn't BabySittor but wtf) to see the music teacher
holding the kids up straight by just touching the tops of their heads...
/même combat/ = same game.
Ozzie's "sky hook", and other pointers from his major posts, get me
through every marathon I did since I read him for the first time, at some
point, usually when it matters around 30-35k.
Please read, re-read, and read again. Feel what he put up there, it's
worth every second you'll spend, and then some. IMHO of course, but you
all new that already :oP
PS For new readers - or old readers who know better than anybody who ever
lived since Napoleon - it's worth reading the farkin rec.running FAQ too;
it's all in there already...
steve common
>But some of the gurus use bad physics as a rationale
yes
>for doing things a certain
>way. For example, many of the form gurus (especially the nutty barefoot fringe)
>are obsessed with touching the ball of the foot first, largely because they
>simply don't understand the mechanics of the footstrike (or physics in general
>for that matter).
You know I'd love to try the nutty bit but my mechanics are FOOBAR and I
can't ball strike to save my life (am I the only pervert here who thinks
of his knackers hitting the ground when they read "ball strike"?) for more
than a few decameters - well not for more than the distance I'd need to
leave a saber-toothed tiger peddling in his own drool anyway ;oP
But I don't think it's necessary to be accurate in physics to be useful
(though it would be better if "one" could, OK) if the image being conveyed
is helping runners to be aware of their bits and pieces and how to hold
'em up and to move 'em about effectively.
Patrick
been inadequately discussed elsewhere and am hoping for a variety of
comments. Links to similar discussions that my searches missed are
more than welcome. I've seen bits and pieces at letsrun.com around
April 2006 for example, including some posts by Donovan, but never
everything together and never definitive evidence in support of
shoes.)
On 2006-09-25, Donovan Rebbechi <ab...@aol.com> wrote:
> Lydiard gets to be called a guru because he actually achieved
> something of note, and his methods are well supported by sound
> scientific principles.
Donovan, I do respect what you are saying, and you appear to have more
experience and be more widely read than I. I am not much offended to be
indirectly called "nutty", but feel a need to explain myself a bit
because I feel that running barefoot is at least no more nutty than
running in shoes.
When I began running, I didn't think much about why shoes rather than
barefoot. Everyone runs in shoes, and the thought just seemed absurd
and archaic, not to mention thorns, glass and other nasties. I assume
most other runners think in a similar way, but do not know.
However, the reason "everyone is wearing shoes so I should too" is not
scientifically sound. Based on my literature searches, there seems to
be no definitive science that shows that shoes are a useful or necessary
tool for running. If I missed something, please share. Literature
typically notes three features of shoes: protection from rough surfaces,
shock absorption, and motion control. I'll add protection from cold
weather and from extremely hot surfaces as well.
A shoe's ability to protect from rough surfaces is fairly obvious, yet
the sole of the foot will adapt to handle a variety of surfaces
including concrete, asphalt, and gravel based on the experience of
barefoot runners including myself. Whether or not one wishes to allow
the foot to develop in this way is a personal decision.
Research fails to find a measurable increase in shock when running in
shoes with different amounts of cushioning. Even barefeet do not seem
to experience greater shock, though the research here is admittedly
sparse. The body appears capable of adjusting for different footwear.
Motion control is used to minimize certain stresses in an attempt to
prevent injury. However, the literature is unsure of the exact cause of
injuries (discounting training injuries). Some correlation is found
between pronation and specific types of injuries. But injury rates have
not decreased over time as shoe design has changed.
The science of shoes is not definitive (unless I've missed something
which I would read with interest); there is no solid reason to use
them or not. It is possible to run barefoot in many conditions, as
it is possible to run in shoes. Without evidence suggesting that
shoes offer a definite advantage, the choice to run in thick shoes,
thin shoes, or barefeet should be a personal decision based on
comfort, fun, frugality, or whatever. Running barefoot is no more
nutty than running in shoes.
I've been very happy thus far with my switch to barefoot running,
and that's really all that matters. Don't call me nutty :)
============
I've left out any consideration of speed. A few barefooters have
competed at top levels, and the east African stereotype is one who runs
barefoot until winning and being picked up by a sponsor. The weight of
a shoe most likely slows one down, but barefeet probably require more
effort from foot muscles, so it's unclear whether there is an advantage
either way.
I've also left out the more hand-waving argument that the human body
is possibly well adapted for distance running and thus any tools
that alter the body should be considered with care. Authors other
than Robbins have found differences in the form of runners when
barefoot versus shod. A conservative runner might favor the
evolution of the natural foot over a shoe in the absence of evidence
to the contrary. A choice to run in shoes after a lifetime living
in shoes might be seen as an equally conservative decision.
The only reason I give any credence to Pose and Chi, of which I would
normally be very skeptical and neither of which I've closely studied, is
that in my limited understanding they appear to be close to barefoot
running form, which in hand-waving arguing is the way the body evolved
to run and would run were it not for shoes, for which there is no
evidence of utility.
I should say that perhaps overuse running injuries are not as
significantly form-related as I had previously thought, due to the lack
of evidence showing cause, though research makes a distinction between
these and training related injuries.
Finally, Lydiard does have some things to say about form, including this
paragraph from a lecture:
Another thing I’m always pressing on the athletes; probably the
most important development we can get is the development of the
ankles--flexible, powerful ankles. We don’t want our runners
like weight lifters, we don’t like our runners like gymnasts; we
want them like ballet dancers. You know how ballet dancers get,
spring and bounce around with flexible powerful ankles. If we
can make our runners like that, then we’ll have speed. Both
Murray Halberg and Lasse Viren had the same running action. It
came from their ankles, they could accelerate very quickly with
their ankles. So what we do; we get on a gentle slope and use
our body weight for resistance by elevating it as high as
possible with slow forward momentum, coming down on the ball of
each alternate foot, which in turn, being on a hill, gives us an
extension to an extreme of ankles both up and down which in turn
extends both muscles and sinews in the fronts and backs of the
legs and strengthens all the muscles around the tendons,
eliminating the possibility of tendonitis. I’ve never ever had
an athlete with Achilles tendon or hamstring troubles. Because
training on hills, you get a nice balance of resistance in
muscle groups and therefore you don’t have any problem.
Take that as you will. I'm guessing he's making the connection between
his strengthening drills and lack of injury based mostly on experience.
I cannot help but see similarities between his hill calf raises,
exaggerated though they be, and my barefoot form.
--
Patrick <p...@polycrystal.org>
Donovan Rebbechi
> Donovan, I do respect what you are saying, and you appear to have more
> experience and be more widely read than I. I am not much offended to be
> indirectly called "nutty", but feel a need to explain myself a bit
Just a clarifying remark is due here -- the "nutty" remark isn't really
directed at you, it's really a swipe at the more dogmatic envangelists,
many of who make what are in my opinion fairly silly arguments in support
of their case.
As for the evidence regarding shoes versus barefoot, it's pretty sketchy.
Basically:
(1) according to Jack Daniels, barefoot running doesn't produce optimal
running economy (though very light shoes might). But that's in people who
are used to running in shoes.
(2) it puts more stress on some places and less stress on others.
Problem is, no-one has really made a serious attempt to measure long term
effects of doing this, so questions about adaptions resulting from this are
unanswered. For example, if someone trains barefoot for 6 months, will they
be more economical barefoot or in shoes ? Or will they just get injured and
be unable to run at all ? Noone has really answered this satisfactorily.
Lydiards hill running is close to the sort of training I'd recommend. It's
classic running economy training. There's a big difference between doing a few
minutes of hills each week, and running like that all the time. The difference
is more in duration than anything else. I'd also be fine in principal with the
idea of doing barefoot strides a few times a week, it's mostly fear of stepping
on something that prevents this (but I use the lightest flats on the market for
most of my speed work)
LSmith
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>according to Jack Daniels, barefoot running doesn't produce optimal
> running economy (though very light shoes might). But that's in people who
> are used to running in shoes.
so i take it you are ruling out running chicago barefoot? don't tell me
you're going to try and squeeze more miles out of those tired ass xc
shoes. isn't it about time you retire those dogs?
you racing this weekend? if so....all out? have you decided what
you're going to wear on your feet in chicago?
i'm going to race in Gel Magic Race IV shoes in the 1 mile race on Sat,
and then wear that same shoe on Sunday in the Half, but with some
sports insole device of some sort for added cushion. however i've not
yet decided what measure of effort to put forward in these events.
Donovan Rebbechi
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>according to Jack Daniels, barefoot running doesn't produce optimal
>> running economy (though very light shoes might). But that's in people who
>> are used to running in shoes.
> _
>
> so i take it you are ruling out running chicago barefoot? don't tell me
> you're going to try and squeeze more miles out of those tired ass xc
> shoes. isn't it about time you retire those dogs?
I'm thinking I'll use the Asics Magic Racers at this stage. The bright yellow
ones.
> you racing this weekend? if so....all out? have you decided what
> you're going to wear on your feet in chicago?
yes, and yes. Hoping for 1:16. If I'm slower, I need to adjust my goal for
Chicago.
> i'm going to race in Gel Magic Race IV shoes in the 1 mile race on Sat,
> and then wear that same shoe on Sunday in the Half, but with some
> sports insole device of some sort for added cushion. however i've not
Excellent choice (-; I hope you're going with a fairly generous fit though,
especially given your prior experience ! I lost both toenails as a result
of wearing a snug fitting shoe in my first marathon (it felt great in
everything up to the half.)
The magic racers I've got are half a size up, and they feel roomy, but they
don't slip around at all.
celm...@yahoo.com
Great article about it here:
http://www.socaltriathlete.com/article_8002.html
Chris
SoCal Triathlete
Elflord
> I have definitely adopted the method and I have become a lot faster.
yes, but are the two causaly related ? There are many people who become
faster without adopting it.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Tim Downie
"Elflord" <ab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrneigudo...@panix2.panix.com...
The advice might carry a little more weight if it wasn't such an obvious
plug for his website. (Check his other posts).
Tim
celm...@yahoo.com
So you view my referring to the articles as a plug. I guess I don't
understand how gathering information from very knowledgeable people and
helping it get out there is such a bad thing. The site is a free
resource.
The goal is to educate people.
Thanks
Chris
SoCal Triathlete
Elflord
> Tim,
>
> So you view my referring to the articles as a plug. I guess I don't
If the entire point of your post is to tell everyone how good your website is (without
being forthcoming about the fact that it is your website), then yes, it's a plug.
> understand how gathering information from very knowledgeable people and
> helping it get out there is such a bad thing. The site is a free
(1) you were not honest about the fact that you're promoting your website, and
(2) you don't make any contribution to the discussion besides promoting your website.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
celm...@yahoo.com
I apologize for coming across as plugging the site. The goal isn't to
tell people how good the site is but to share the information. This is
why I didn't refer to the general site, but to the exact article and I
did put SoCal Triathlete in my signature thinking it would be obvious.
The site is designed to help educate people. I am not a coach or
manufacturer selling anything. I am also not a certified POSE coach so
I don't feel I should give advise on the topic, but I know the article
is written by a certified POSE coach.
I am sorry for offending you. That is not my intension.
Chris
SoCal Triathlete
steve common
>I am sorry for offending you. That is not my intension.
I hope offense wasn't what happened to other readers, I wasn't offended
really but you were just plain old ungainly, in "Internet news" terms.
Normally, good "newgroup" etiquette calls for you to be a bit present in a
group on usenet (Internet news group, message board, call it what you
like) before posting something, especially if you're kinda advertising (OK
I know you're sharing but the difference between sharing and advertising
is sometimes quite small).
Just to turn up out of the blue is fine - there is no way to start posting
here any other way - but doing it to ask for patronage of a race / club /
website is generally considered as impolite if you're not "known"
beforehand.
Nothing against you or your site and good luck either way...
Tim Downie
I think I prefer it when you rant. ;-)
(Been reunited with any friends lately?)
Tim
steve common
>I think I prefer it when you rant. ;-)
I maybe should do more often, it may stop it all boiling over when I'm
full up and tipping over to the excessive side.
>(Been reunited with any friends lately?)
:oP