All this talk concerning physics and its' application to running, has me pondering yet another physics impossilbility. Can someone please explain how a bumble bee can fly! I believe some years back that NASA reasearchers looked into this problem and determined that a bumble bee can't fly...hmmmmm.

I'm not a hundred percent sure of this but do remember reading some time ago that aerodynamically bumblebees do not compare favorably with fixed-wing aircraft and so do not *glide* very well.

I am however certain of gravity's contribution to running.

 
ah, the old chestnut "according to SCIENCE, bumble bees can't fly" (heh heh, those stupid scientists, what do they know?!?)

The only problem is, no one can ever produce a peer-reviewed scientific publication actually making this claim. If you can cite one, I'd love to see it.

As I run uphill, I'm sure I never land heel first. I lean forward more. I'm also sure my foot strikes the ground closer to the center of my mass rather than in front of it. I do it because it's obviously more efficient. I would think this is similar to what the Pose method would have one to do.

When running uphill, the time it takes to push off the ground with the driving leg takes longer to accomplish, compared to running on flats or downhill, so it is relatively easy to match knee-lift speed to the time it takes for the driving leg to do it's work.

Lately, though, I've been able to increase my knee lift speed, and have the feeling that I can let myself "fall" downhill if the hill is not too steep. When am able to do this landing on my midfoot, instead of heel, it is cadence that determines my speed. As long as I can lift my knee fast enough, I will continue to gain speed. At some point, I will reach maximum cadence (which changes due to my overall fatigue level), and I begin to heelstrike to slow my speed so I don't end up on my face at top speed.

I am faster when I am able to pick my cadence up higher. I can pick up my cadence more since working on my hip flexors the past three months. Consequently, I am not much faster running uphill, because uphill running was limited more by the driving leg speed, but I am faster on the flats (I think partly because as I lean forward more my recovery leg can keep up with the higher cadence demand) and downhills because I've increased my recovery leg speed.

Without invoking all the physics laws, is this partly what Pose is about?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Uphill and downhill running is still about "falling."

It's heel lift you're after -- just enough to break contact with the ground for change of support to occur -- rather than knee lift.

Cadence is always at least 180 steps / minute (15 taps of your left foot in 10 seconds).

Really good article in May,2003 Running Times on running form, "Think Fast The Psychometrics of Speed."

In that it supports some of the ideas of POSE, it only shows that the important concepts of POSE are nothing new.

Key concepts - running technique can be learned, improvements in technique lead to improvements in speed, lean forward, land under your body, keep levers short.

Most important, keep body over center of gravity with forward lean. This keeps smooth flow and prevents sharp acceleration-deceleration. Similar to maintaining smooth pedal stroke in biking. No wonder Powercranks are great tool for runners. Gets hips rolling smoothly in running motion.

People seem too obsessed about toe running aspect of POSE. Keeping body over center of gravity and landing in a way to prevent deceleration, midfoot , forefoot whatever should not be casing undue stress and pain. People with this problem seem to be doing something wrong. I don't know enough about POSE too say that this is what POSE is about.

Keeping body over center of gravity also prevents injury. Hitting leg at odd angles causes knee and other problems.

Article emphasizes use of video to compare your form to Kenyans. Higher holding of arms and extending chest out concurs with Kenyans, but seems to differ form POSE.

so will pose running help me with my overpronation?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

It seems to me that heel lift by itself won't get you diddly. Without lifting your KNEE (By using hip flexors), your foot actually ends up going behind your body, not forward. You would actually run backwards!

I'm not saying that heel lift speed isn't important, but without sufficient speed of knee lift, you will not run faster. If knee lift speed is your limiting factor in a higher cadence stride rate, knee lift speed needs to be improved. I THINK that this is a factor, after all, heel lift is being done by some mighty big muscles, and it is done over two separate joints (knee and hip), whereas knee lift is being done by the "weak" hip flexors over one joint, without the potential speed multiplier effect of a two joint movement such as used to lift the heel.

All I know is that the stonger (and/or faster) my hip flexors become, the faster cadence I have, and consequently, the faster I run...at the same heartrate. I think about heel lift as a means to shorten the lever the hip flexors have to pull forward and up. Increasing heel lift speed without a corresponding increase in hip flexion speed isn't going to make you go faster. Increased heel lift speed WILL make the knee lift faster though, because of the decrease in the length of the lever being pulled forward by the hip flexors.

Am I missing something else?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

heel lift and hip flexors are both important to running speed.

"Lifting the heel" shortens the distance of the lever arm making it easier to throw the leg forward. The leg is thrown forward, however, by the hip flexors, not the heel lift.

PC's improve the aerobic capacity of the HF's to throw the leg forward regardless of style. If one can improve "running efficiency" or "style" that is another way to improve running speed. If one can do both then speed improvements will be even further enhanced.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

The idea of the Pose Method is not to throw the foot forward it's to let it drop beneath the GCM. You use the heel lift to quickly break contact with the ground and you're done. That foot falls back to earth and you're lifting the other heel. This is a skill to be learned, for most of us anyway.

Generally, hip flexors aren't all that weak -- in my experience.

BTW -- Pose isn't new. Romanov's been teaching this since the 1970s.

After the heel lift, the foot falls back to the ground. But, you have to pick up the knee so that the foot can fall under your center of gravity. You can do this more quickly if you develop your hip flexors, and if you can lift the knee faster your foot can start it's fall to the ground sooner, so your cadence increases, as does your speed. I never thought my hip flexors were weak...until I started training on PCs. Hip flexors are probably not nearly as strong as they could be...unless you are regularly doing some well designed exercises specific to developing hip flexor speed and strenght, just like most muscle groups.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Regardless of what the idea of the pose method is or isn't, the leg must be thrown forward when one is running.

furthermore, I agree the HF's are not that weak. What the HF's lack is any aerobic capcity of any note.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Hey Dev I've been reading alot of older posts today while I am bored and stuck at work. I found this post you wrote in 2003 about Pose Running. I was wondering are you still applying the Pose techniques you mentioned and if it helped you improve you time in the Boston Marathon as speculated in the thread?

Well, in 2003, I ran a PB placing at Boston in 825th overall (or something like that) with a 3:03. My PB in Boston was in 2002 at 2:59.52. This year, was a really bad race, at 3:18. overall since the fall of 2002, when I started using the pose method (or something along those lines), I am generally running much better and recover much quicker from training and racing. This summer, I have focused more on biking, and I have been relatively strong on the bike, but surprisingly descent on the run (top 12 run splits at Peterborogh and Tupper Lake Half Ironmans (although not super fast as I am carrying extra upper body mass this year from way to much XC skiing this past winter). I did have a PB 3:44 run at Ironman LP off only 90 min runs and three 2 hour runs in the 3 months leading up to the race. I think the main reason for the descent run splits in triathlon is solid run training this past winter (all the mileage leading into the Boston blowup did yield some results...just not at Boston), followed by reduced run volume during tri season with lots of bike miles (ie hammer the bike and still have legs to use for the run). If the pose method has had an impact it is not likely faster race times this year, but certainly less recovery time (I did Muskoka Long course, Tupper Lake Half Ironman, Peterborough Half ironman and Ironman LP all in a space of 36 days).

According to steady state fluid dynamics, the size of the bumblebee wings are too small to produce enough lift to get it to olift off at the air speeds it deals with.

However, quasi steady fluid mechanics, specifically lift from shed vortices, is the missing link that explains the size of the wing.

Cecil Colwin actually has a surprisingly good discussion of shed vortices in breakthrough swimming. I'd have to note thouogh that I don't think shed vortices are a part of swim propulsion.

I think the only reason why the POSE method works is that it "forces" one to go out and run, and do specific speed/threshhold workouts, which would increase one's speed. It works for no other reason than a motivational one. If one set their mind to become a POSE runner, one lands up concentrating more on one's running in general, so workout quality increases.

The real test of whether the POSE method works or not is not in the anecdotal evidence, but by recruiting enough people to do a study. Whereby in age matched and ability matched controls one could compare one method versus another.

A proper study would equalize time training and intensity levels. Then a true comparison could be made to see which of the two methods produced results.