I read that article and couldn't make a lot of sense of it. You just explained it a bit better. Could you elaborate more.

I am a crappy runner. Some of the problem is that I hardly ever run since so being lousy at it, I don't like it. In a typical sprint or Oly tri I can barely manage 5 min kms. My thing is the bike, where I can be one of the fastest in my AG and then blow it on the run as everybody passes me.

In high school I was a good sprinter in the 100 m and anchor on the 4 x 100m relay. When sprinting I ran on my toes. I never ran any long distance in my life until I started my training for my first tri at age 49 after not running at all for thirty years. I've since trained myself to heel strike first because everybody told me to get off my toes.

Last summer our tri group went to the track to do some sprints. These are mostly AG'ers in their 30's and 40's, some of which are capable of sub 40 minute 10 kms. At 52 I was the oldest and slowest there. We ran some 200m sprints and I reverted to running on my toes and I was the fastest in the group. I was more shocked than they were since I hadn't ran sprints since high school and was a much slower 5/10 kms runner than these folks. A running coach was there and he told me that I had beautiful sprint technique but my slow pace running is awkward looking.

I really don't get why I have so much trouble with running with anything except a sprint. I can go for hours on the bike or x-country skiing at a good clip but after an hour of running at a slow pace I'm exhausted. I can easily beat my wife on the bike or x-country skiis but can't come close to her on the run unless it's a sprint in which case I'm quite a bit faster.

My tri running isn't getting any better. Maybe I should find out more about this fella. Can you supply his website.

I too, have never been to a Pose clinic, but was made aware of Dr. Romanov (and his philosophy concerning running) by my brother that had done such. So I'm not going to elaborate much into detail, as most of what I do know is either passed-on information and/or from the Pose Tech web sight...and I'd rather not provide misinformation. However you can check-out the Pose method at the following web sight and make your own judgments based upon Romanov's own words:

www.posetech.com

An interesting article on the same web sight: www.posetech.com/library/article1.html

From personal experience, I must admit that I am not 100% proficient at the technique. I have been applying it's principles to my running for about the last three years. However, prior to trying the Pose method I was plagued by constant shin splints. Old photos of me running, showed me planting my heel into the ground (my foot was almost at a 45 degree angle toes pointed upward). Currently, my running style is somewhere between the second and third photos that follow. Trying to emulate the Pose method has at least worked for me, in terms of eliminated my shin splint problems.

Here are some photos from various web sights that show different "types" of running (foot plant/landings).

Heel strike/landing (similar to what my running style was):



Mid foot landing (notice how foot is generally parallel to the ground):



Pose Method (notice how the landing foot in each picture has moved "backwards" in relation to the runner's vertical body position. Also, the Pose method photo does not show a "toes landing", but rather a forefoot landing):



I hope this has helped. Again, I suggest obtaining any further detailed information about the Pose method directly from the Pose Tech web sight and/or Dr. Romanov to reduce chances of misinformation.

Regards,

Jeff

I almost posted about Drozd's article and got lazy, but reading the couple of threads on the board got me over the activation barrier. If gravity can't aid forward movement, why do things roll forward down a hill? Now that I've interjected the requisite allusion to science and posed a pseudo-cosmological question, allow me to climb the virtual soapbox and have my say. At the same time, I will come out of the closet as one of the 100 lurkers who read all of Tom D.'s posts without replying.

If you want to learn what Pose is all about, you need to make an investment. It would be $35 for the book or $25 for the VHS video. DVD will set you back another six-pack (or a little more if you drink Bud, a little less if you drink imported French beer). If you are not willing to make this investment, you will never understand what the buzz is all about. www.posetech.com gets you to the shopping mall. You will never get enough information about the technique from internet articles and posts. Never, never, never. I know because I've gone through the whole adventure from reading everything on running I could find, to curiosity about Pose, to buying the book and video and working on it seriously. I increasingly "got it" as I worked on the drills and thought about what I was doing. I tried a bit but didn't have enough information or focus to get it from internet articles and discussions. Maybe Pose won't be for you once you've understood it enough to make the judgement. But a couple of articles isn't sufficient detail to allow you to make that decision. It would be analogous (admittedly on a less complex level) to learning how to swim from a couple of internet articles. You may end up spending $30-60 and get nothing out of it, but at least you will have had a fighting chance.

There was some implication in the article that it takes attendance at a clinic to "get it". I would have to disagree, since I haven't attended one and think I get it. If the people attending the clinic had no previous exposure to the technique and were firm heel-strikers preceding the clinic, it doesn't surprise me that they didn't get it in one weekend. One cannot make a drastic change in running stride and adjust to the new form in a few days. I can think back to my experience after 1, 3, and 6 months and recognize the continuum of progress occuring over that time. But I can't think of a point in time where I stepped over some line and got it. (All of the preceding being said, if there was a clinic locally I would attend it.) I'm still learning pieces of the puzzle with each run, just as I learn small pieces of the puzzle every time I jump in the pool. The journey is many small steps, made with constancy of purpose, yada, yada. I better quit before I start sounding too Zen-like ;-) (but I did enjoy Christopher's article - give us a follow-up in three months).
Dan

Thanks for the info everyone. I will definately investigate this further. There is a clinic in Toronto this weekend. Too bad that I hadn't heard earlier, as I could have attended.

If you could only get one, would you get the book or the video?

I can say that the DVD is not worth paying extra for unless they have indexed it since this past fall (or unless you only have a DVD player). The version I watched in October had no chapters. This is very unfortunate given that the DVD would be an ideal format for this information because the presentation itself is divided into chapters based largely on your progression in the technique. Thus, as you get more proficient, you can move to the intermediate and then to the advance drills, and the DVD format should let you simply select these chapters whenever you want a re-fresher. Instead, you are stuck with a digitized video, and given that you are not buying this for its sound or image quality but rather for the information, just get the VHS and save a bit of cash.

If you're only getting one, I would suggest the video. I think the visual part is quite beneficial. If that rings your chimes, get the book, too. Note that the drills are emphasized movements to "drill" a point home (particularly the amount of leg lift toward the butt), and a few people have posted that during the clinics Romanov indicates that one would use a less dramatic leg lift in pure running. Just enough to get the job done, no more.
Dan

After a long run concentrating on landing on the ball of my foot, and keeping the contact point directly underneath me, my calves hurt. Do I merely need to adapt or am I doing something incorrectly?

I had a chat with Andrew some days ago, as we are both big mid and long distance running fans.
Quite interestingly, looking at London marathon, if you check the strides of Gebreselassie, Tergat and Kannouchi, they are respectively forefoot, mid foot and heel striker.
However they all lean forward quite a bit.
Some of Romanov's points make sense, but then it is an individual matter. Pretty much like cadence in cycling...
Use gravity to propel yourself forward, then see which strike works best for you.

You will need to allow some time to adapt. I've only been doing Pose for about a month and the calf soreness I experienced at the beginning is all gone. At first I also experienced a loss of speed as I was adjusting to the new stride technique. Now that I'm starting to get it what little speed I have has returned and then some. I'm now averaging 30-45 seconds per mile faster on my long runs at a lower HR. I focus on keeping the feet under me, landing on the balls of the feet, and keeping a high cadence. The shorter stride and higher cadence has been especially effective going uphill.

You have to differentiate between <I>forward</I> movement and <I>downward</I> movement. In running, forward (i.e. parallel to flat ground) acceleration of a runner's body is caused by the frictional force exerted by the ground on the runner's shoe. Downward (i.e. perpendicular to flat ground) acceleration is caused by gravity. When a "thing" rolls down a hill, the net force on the thing is parallel to the downward sloping ground because the component of gravity perpendicular to the ground has been canceled out by the ground's force on the thing (Newton's third law). I first heard of this Pose approach from the article here on slowtwitch, and I went to the Pose website to investigate further. While they might be on to something in terms of increasing running efficiency, they have made some very misguided statements about the basic physics underlying the situation. I made a post on their message board about this, if you're interested:

http://www.posetech.com/...resh#Message00000377

Nate

I don't know much about physics so I don't doubt that you're right in a technical sense, but I recently adopted Pose, and my kinesthetic sense of what happens when running feels exactly like what they state. Let me explain:

If I stand on my left leg, with my right foot held off the ground at about knee level (like a stork), and I lean forward enough so that I start to fall while simultaneously allowing my right foot to drop straigt down, my right foot will land a few inches forward of my left foot. I didn't move or push off with my left foot, but yet my right foot made a tiny bit of forward progress.

If I do this again, while continuing to alternately and very quickly lift my feet straight up, while maintaining this falling sensation, I will make forward progress. As a result, the sensation of running this way, really does feel like gravity is doing much of the work. You do not feel like you're exerting frictional force to go forward, maybe you are, but the sense is that you are landing very lightly and lifting your leg very quickly (using your hamstrings) straight up with no noticable push-off. Your calves do get sore at first, but that seems to be more as a result of their function as a shock absorber and not because you push off with them.

When you practice it and do it, the Pose statements don't seem misguided as you suggest. Maybe you're right, but don't discount the method based on an overly technical analysis of the laws of physics. All I know is that I am running faster at a lower HR and without the knee pain that has bothered me for years.

Barry,

I completely agree that the Pose method might have a lot of merit, and I plan to look into it further. I just have to be a bit suspicious and take issue when they choose to explicitly claim that Newton's laws imply that gravity can do the work of propelling a runner forward--it simply can't, in any real sense. Though I understand it might sound otherwise, this is a very simple and nontechnical (in that it doesn't require detailed justification) conclusion. My impression is that what they are in fact accomplishing is a reduction in the counterproductive deceleration forces of footstrike. This seems like a worthy goal, and more power to them in achieving it. They would be better served, though, by not making false physical claims along the way, which is what I've tried to communicate to them! :)

Nate

Nate, would you please explain more clearly how gravity fails to contribute to a runner's forward motion?

I'm no Nate, but here's my succinct take on this.

Basically, if you were to try to POSE on a perfectly frictionless surface, you'd face plant before you're done with your first step. The reason POSE works is because your support foot has traction. Tilting your body forward makes gravity "push you forward" because your support foot cannot slide back. If you were to try to POSE wearing skates, or RollerBlades(TM), I suspect you'd hurt your nose.

What contributes to the runner's worward motion is a component of gravity applied against the support leg, which is at some slight angle "towards the front" thus creating some kind of force making you go forward.

Gravity pulls *down*, period. Your center of mass falls straight "down", but if it happens to be "ahead" of your support foot, you're moving forward. You still need to apply some force to move forward, but you don't need to "pull" yourself, thus the claim that gravity makes you go.

Actually ... it's not succinct at all! Sorry.

Dre'

christopher wrote:
> Nate, would you please explain more clearly how gravity fails to
> contribute to a runner's forward motion?

Technically, gravity is only a vertical force. All it can do is bring
you down.

But I think Nate may be misunderstanding. From what I've read, the
issue is whether some vertical kinetic energy (which can't be avoided
entirely) is going to be converted to energy that drives forward or
not. The conversion is via frictional contact with the ground. If you
are skiing down a gentle slope and want to pole to go faster, you
don't stick the poles way out in front of you; it would provide a
braking force, which is not what you want. Instead, you plant the
poles in such a way that by the time you are applying your weight to
the poles, they are at least vertical, if not beyond vertical. In this
way, any force at the contact point will be guaranteed to drive you
forward and not backward. Same with running. The difference in running
is that you are not consciously transferring weight to the 'poles';
you are descending (after your hop) and landing on one 'pole' (leg).
If it is stiffly pointing forward at impact, it will generate brake
force. How? Gravity has generated kinetic energy downward, which, via
the mechanical setup of the leg and the fixed point afforded by the
contact patch of the shoe, is converted into a horizontal component
which is pushing you backward. If the leg is stiff and not driving
backward at impact, it had better be beneath you.

A good parallel would be the pole vault. Horizontal speed, is
converted into a vertical speed (with associated reduction in
horizontal speed) by means of an appendage (the pole) that gets stuck
to the ground (via the box). Instead of continuing forward, you tend
to go slower and up! That is good for pole vault, but (so the theory
goes) not so good for running. Don't let your legs be pole vault
poles, sticking forward when they land! Put them under you so you
drive up less and thereby maintain your speed. To compensate you need
an increase in cadence.

Dr Dre', that's it exactly. Better than I said it. :-)

There are two things to note:

1. You don't get something for nothing. If you 'fall' to move forward,
you have to get back up in order to 'fall' for the next step. Falling
sounds great until payback time. ;-)

2. There is simply no other viable way to move ourselves than by this
mechanism! If you can move, you are 'falling' ahead, because you can't
push forward unless gravity is giving you a frictional base to push
from. The exception is driving upward (which is why sprinters start
low); but that is really just taking a downpayment on gravity, and
only applies during the first step or two.

NOTE: I am not saying this is all there is to the Pose method! I am
ignorant of it. But I suspect the method is all about recognising that
running has to do with how we manipulate our body in relation to
graviational forces (and bio-elastic forces) to make the operation
maximally efficient.

As covered in the article, there are several aspects to the Pose Method, gravity being just one. Here are a couple of points I consider valid. I'm not a physicist but I've investigated this a bit...

1. a unicyclist uses gravity to move forward. his cadence increases as he leans forward to accelerate. running is similar.

2. remember the moon "falls" around the Earth, not onto it. Newton noticed this a long time ago. Gravity is effectively more than just vertical force.

And...

The main component of the GRF (ground reaction force) in running is vertical. I saw a runner using the Pose Method to run on an ice rink, slide on his running shoes to a barrier, stop, turn around and begin running again. Acceleration certainly wasn't from any kind of frictional push off, or posterior component of GRF.

I thought I'd laid it out fairly well in the article. Maybe not. What I get from the Pose Method is that gravity provides acceleration, GRF keeps us from falling down, a quick cadence ensures we're able to exploit the above two constituents plus inertia and muscle elasticity and forefoot landing (beneath the GCM -- general center of mass) allows us to avoid more of the braking force of the anterior component of the GRF. It all adds up to efficient running.

Romanov "pioneered" this Method in the 1970s. There's nothing I've seen documented (so far) that convincingly refutes his argument. Please refer me to whatever specific literature you have so I can revise my position, if needed.

I think that poor Newton would be pretty upset to be part of this discussion. On the surface of the Earth, gravity pulls "down". Gravity is a force that acts between two masses. The moon doesn't fall onto the Earth as it had some initial velocity when it first approached, and the conditions were such that it now orbits the Earth. Stop the moon and let it go: it'll fall straight at the Earth, the same way an orange falls straight down from your hand if you drop it.

About the ice. I mentioned "skates". Shoes give enough traction to allow exactly what I'm mentioning in my initial post. I've played broomball long enough to know that anybody can run on ice, wearing sneakers (and stop, turn around, and score goals). Acceleration *has to be* from frictional force, as the initial motion after turning around had no component in the "horizontal" direction.

Specific litterature that refutes your point about gravity has been published by Newton a few centuries ago.

As a fan of the POSE method myself, I know that gravity plays a big role in my running. i just don't think it happens as simply as what Romanov states on the web site. There's no need to revise your position.

Dre'

The moon does not fall around the earth. There are two forces acting on the moon... the centripetal (center--seeking) force from the earth's gravitational pull, and the centrifugal "force" (tangent to the orbit, the one you feel when you take a fast turn ion your bike) which arises from the momentum of the moon (an object in motion will stay in motion). These forces are exactly balanced when the moon is 380,000 km away--more than even Francois can ride during Spring break.

Gravity only acts toward the center of the earth, we'll call that vertically. Since you have to run a 10k in the horizontal direction there is no component of gravity which will help you--these two directions are orthogonal. I guess when Julie Moss crawled across the finish line in Kona she got a tiny boost from this center--seeking force. For all intents and purposes though, it is your job to provide all of the forward (horizontal) motion. How can you do it?

Well some runners (like me) heel strike and then toe off. Let's say I start by toe-ing off with my right foot. I exert some force at an angle to the road surface. Some of that force fights gravity as I lift myself of the ground to land on my left foot. The other part propels me forward. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, we need to recognize that the force I exerted in the forward direction was opposite to the force of friction between my shoe and the ground before I took off. I need traction to toe--off. In an frictionless world I can only jump straight up. When my left heel strikes, my shoe needs to grab onto the pavement so that I can push myself forward again.

How does the pose(u)r go forward? It's still true that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but sometimes we forget about isometrics---those terrible squats that Coach Troy seems to like. Newton would remind me that an object in motion stays in motion. If I start to squat I don't necessarily end up with my a$$ on the ground. There are no outside forces acting on my rear end, but there MUST be some force that allows it to stop in the squat-ing posture. Similarly while gravity is pulling my butt toward the ground, there must be some equal and opposite force that keeps me squatting. If you've done the squats you have a good idea which muscles are responsible.

It's my understanding that the pose method uses the posers own muscles to help achieve force balance. Posers lean forward, they don't push forward. In doing so, they have pairs of muscles expanding and contracting to provide this forward posture. Lifting a leg during this leaning motion moves the center of mass and distorts the force equilibrium. The body falls further forward but is immediately caught by the leg as it touches the ground. This process is repeated when with the other leg. This falling action may mean that the poser's center of mass drops, the recovery phase will require the center of mass to be lifted to the starting point. Gravity only helps any runner half of the time...

I think that the heel striker depends more on traction, and the poser more on body position (isometrics). As such, the poser is a little more adept at running on ice since the reduced traction is less of a liability.

---

Meg.

Maybe the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory's interpretation can assist us here...

From http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf3-2.html


"Newton's Principles of Mechanics
Isaac Newton realized that the force that makes apples fall to the ground is the same force that makes the planets "fall" around the sun. Newton had been asked to address the question of why planets move as they do. He established that a force of attraction toward the sun becomes weaker in proportion to the square of the distance from the sun.

Newton postulated that the shape of an orbit should be an ellipse. Circular orbits are merely a special case of an ellipse where the foci are coincident. Newton described his work in the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (often called simply the Principia), which he published in 1685."

Continuing...

"There are three ways to modify the momentum of a body. The mass can be changed, the velocity can be changed (acceleration), or both.

Acceleration
Force (F) equals change in velocity (acceleration, A) times mass (M):
F = MA

Acceleration may be produced by applying a force to a mass (such as a spacecraft). If applied in the same direction as an object's velocity, the object's velocity increases in relation to an unaccelerated observer. If acceleration is produced by applying a force in the opposite direction from the object's original velocity, it will slow down relative to an unaccelerated observer."

And here, it applies to our running discussion.

"If the acceleration is produced by a force at some other angle to the velocity, the object will be deflected."

Gravity accelerates. GRF deflects. We run.

I doubt Newton would have taken much issue with this exchange.
"Be courageous and steady to the Laws and you cannot fail."

There have been some good and insightful comments made here; I'll try to add a couple more.

Pedaller: I think we are on the same wavelength, so I hope I'm not misunderstanding. Your analogy to the skiier with poles is a good one, and is exactly what I was getting at when I said that the Pose method is probably really trying to reduce the deceleration forces of footstrike and thereby provide a boost to efficiency. Your discussion of the pole vault is also interesting. The difference between a pole vault pole and a runner's leg is that when the pole is jammed into the ground, it converts the vaulter's initial kinetic energy into potential energy and then reconverts it to kinetic energy with velocity in a new direction (up). The leg, when jammed into the ground, is not so efficient--much of the runner's kinetic energy will be dissipated as sound, heat, vibrating flesh, etc. Your comment that "you don't get something for nothing," is also right on the money--it's a practical way of stating the law of conservation of energy. In this case, it's important to remember that if there is no net vertical displacement of a runner's body (which we hope there won't be when we're running on flat ground), then gravity, being a force in the vertical direction, has done zero net work. In the cycle of a running stride, gravity does work to pull our center of mass down, and then we do an equal amount of work (i.e. negative work done by gravity) to push our body back up. If it was possible for us to glide along forward without bouncing up and down, then gravity would never do any work on us, and, by the same token, we would never do work against it--wouldn't that be nice! If we add up all the work we do to push ourselves up during a run, that is the total energy expended to "fight" gravity. And, to bring the focus back to the claim by Pose that we should let gravity do the work in moving us forward, we can see since gravity in fact does no net work that this claim carries no weight! ;)

Dre: You are absolutely right about the moon. If a giant hand was to suddenly stop it in its orbit, it would then fall toward the Earth (and indeed the Earth would "fall" toward it a bit too). As the moon orbits the Earth, the only force exerted on it is gravity pulling it down (or radially inward); so, it is always undergoing a resulting "radial" acceleration toward the Earth. But, there is no force on it in the tangential direction, so it goes along with no change in its tangential velocity. As with the hypothetical runner, since there is no change in the vertical (radial) position of the moon, gravity does no work on it as it orbits. The moon's energy doesn't change at all--rather, in this case, gravity is simply continuously steering the moon in a new direction.

Meg: I think you've made a really good analysis too. If we were riding on the moon, we would indeed experience the centrifugal "force". This "force" is only a perceived effect (and for this reason it's called a "pseudoforce") due to the fact that the moon is being steered out from under us by the constant redirecting effect of the Earth's gravity. It is indeed what you feel pressing you toward the outside of a curve when you go around it on a bike or in a car, and it is directed radially outward, not tangentially. You also make a great point about there being no net help to be gotten from gravity--it's only on our side for half of a stride. Your discussion of how we can provide the horizontal force needed to sustain forward progress leads me to think about one idealized example, which perhaps captures the essence of what Pose is trying to attain: if we push forward (horizontal friction force between shoe and ground), we will accelerate to a certain forward velocity. That velocity will remain unchanged (Newton's first or second law--take your pick) until a new horizontal force acts on us. Ignoring the drag force of the air, which is probably relatively unimportant at running speeds (at least at my running speeds!), such a new force can only come from the next interaction of shoe and ground. If there was no such interaction, we would glide happily along at our forward speed indefinitely! So the whole trick is to make sure that each footfall does as little as possible to decelerate us. Any deceleration that does occur, due to shoe-ground force in the backward direction, will have to be compensated for by a subsequent application of shoe-ground force in the forward direction which accelerates us back up to our desired forward velocity. This acceleration requires work to be done (i.e. energy to be expended), because, as mentioned in the pole vault comparison, our bodies can't recover the kinetic energy that is lost in the deceleration part of the footfall. It's my feeling that the teachings of Pose are in large part an effort to minimize the decelerative effect of footstrike. For there to be no deceleration upon footstrike, the foot must be traveling backward with respect to the body at the same speed as the body is moving forward with respect to the ground--that is, the foot must be stationary with respect to the ground when it comes in contact with it. I can see how the Pose foot position and turnover might lend itself to that.

christopher: I hope all of these comments made by others and myself have helped to clarify why gravity can be of no help to us in running (except for the important role of providing a means for there to be friction between shoe and ground). Gravity is at best a neutral party and at worst an energy sink that we pay into each time we push upward in a stride. You might also want to look at that link I posted above (if you haven't already done so), if you want to see an answer from Dr. Romanov himself. Thanks for your patience to you and to anyone else who bothered to read this long ramble! Maybe Dr. R was right after all when he suggested that it's best to "try not to think of it now, just enjoy your running." :) And one final comment now that I see your most recent post: Gravity accelerates us up and down, shoe-ground force accelerates us forward and backward, "deflection" is an irrelevant, complicating term, and Newton would have been appalled by the claim that gravity helps us move forward when we run!


Nate

Since I started this thread off, I figure I'll amplify a bit on my earlier statements given the number of in depth posts analysing the technique based on the laws of physics. I have 2 degrees in Engineering, but I really don't need to analyse this technique to know that it works. My track coach in the early 80's was an English teacher who taught us to run the same way. Again, I have not gone to any of Romanov's clinics nor bought any of his products. You can just read his web site and quickly pick up the major elements.

Just a few points though. Some friction is required to roll forward. Think about it this way: a wheel cannot roll forward without a zero coefficient of static friction. It will slip. The point is that you don't need a lot of friction to initiate the "falling forward" motion. If any of you does XC skiing, you will know that with limited kick wax you can initiate forward motion and then sustain forward motion with a slight lean of the body and efficient weight transfer from one leg to another (falling from one leg to another), even without using poles. In fact, that is how kids are taught to XC ski.

Once you lean slightly forward there IS a component of gravity working in your favour. It is mgsin(theta), where m is your mass in Kg, g=9.8m/s^^2 and theta is the angle made between the vertical and the lean of your body. For example for a 64 Kg athlete (me), leaning 2 degree forward, there is a force of ~23Newtons pulling me forward at all times. Straighten up to vertical and you lose this 23 N of gravity assist. Lean with your head and shoulders pulled back 2 degrees and you have 23N working against you. Next time you watch a track meet, look at the winner of a 200m race and the loser. At the Atlanta Olympics, Merlene Ottey had a huge lead and with 10 m to go tightened up, head and shoulders rolled back and suddenly Marie Jose Perec of France blew by like a typhoon for the gold with proper running form.

Anyway, I always believe that in all sports you have to work with nature, not against it. Heel strike is something that is only made possible by modern running shoes. If you don't believe it, try running across a football field bare foot with heel strike. You will quickly start running on your forefoot. This is the most natural way of running. We naturally have more padding in the front of our feet because this is how evolution made it happen. So you may as well work with how your body is naturally meant to work. To take this point one step furthur, I don't believe the anyone needs all those boat anchor running shoes with all kinds of support etc etc. All they do is hide you body's latent defficiencies. Better to strengthen the body to handle the workload. I have never seen a kid needing shoes with tons of support. They just go. Phil Maffetone has a good chapter on this in his book, "Training for Endurance Athletes" (I think that is what the book is called).

Anyway, happy training to all. Just work with nature and reap the benefits. I hope to apply the pose method at the Boston marathon in 4 weeks. Last year, I squeeked in at 2:59.52 running/shuffling as an upright heelstriker ! We'll see what happens this year :-)

so if i pose run will it cancel my over pronation? please god say yes.


staying sucka free in 2003

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.