Thanks. It is amazing how many runners I see slouched forward. It looks really hard to run that way.
Cadence Candor: "Look ma, no gears!"
- Thread starter Bare Lee
- Start date
Lee,
"""" If one's legs are relatively strong it might make sense to use them for greater force application, rather than spend energy activating (lifting or cycling) them at a greater rate."""""
Did you read some data that suggest an optimal rate(cadence) vs force application? My experience tells me that force application increases as a by product of speed rather than force application determining speed alone. As since we are interacting with other forces it would only seem logical that it is a by product working in harmony with all forces involved. Your post reads as if you are going to actively apply more force at certain speeds and less at other as if you were controlling it actively but at the same time you seem to say that you don't think about it actively or consciously. Just trying to figure out which you mean.
"""" If one's legs are relatively strong it might make sense to use them for greater force application, rather than spend energy activating (lifting or cycling) them at a greater rate."""""
Did you read some data that suggest an optimal rate(cadence) vs force application? My experience tells me that force application increases as a by product of speed rather than force application determining speed alone. As since we are interacting with other forces it would only seem logical that it is a by product working in harmony with all forces involved. Your post reads as if you are going to actively apply more force at certain speeds and less at other as if you were controlling it actively but at the same time you seem to say that you don't think about it actively or consciously. Just trying to figure out which you mean.
NickW
Guest
Lee, as much crap as I've heard you or anyone else give b&a about pose, I've rarely ever heard that phrase from him... I think he's trying to make an effort, just maybe because of the past people are holding onto his personal leanings and throwing it back at him.
What's "engaging of the core"? Never understood that with running... Wonder if I do it?
Right, in these kinds of forums, it's probably best to go on what is stated explicitly, and not worry about possible implications due to hasty writing. I was simply guessing at what I might be doing unconsciously, and the reasons why, given what I had read, when I consciously give the order: 'go faster!'
What I've read is that your body will in most cases find the optimal stride rate and length on its own--i.e., without conscious effort--provided that form and/or posture are correct, either as a result of conscious training or innate talent or prior experience. If form and posture are not good, it might be worth working on stride rate or length, but this might not be the most effective approach (according to what I read).
I don't really have anything more to say on this, and everything I know is to be found in other people's writings.
What I've read is that your body will in most cases find the optimal stride rate and length on its own--i.e., without conscious effort--provided that form and/or posture are correct, either as a result of conscious training or innate talent or prior experience. If form and posture are not good, it might be worth working on stride rate or length, but this might not be the most effective approach (according to what I read).
I don't really have anything more to say on this, and everything I know is to be found in other people's writings.
Engaging the core refers as to tighten the abs pretending that someone is pulling your belly button with a string from behind your back.
I would agree with Dama. Engaging the core would essentially be using the muscle around the core to connect the upper and lower body for proper alignment.
Nick, I think I've approached everything B&A has said with an open mind, because I know that he has a lot to teach me and has a lot more talent and experience and knowledge. I just don't think his theory is right, which is incredibly presumptious for me to say, given how recently I've been looking into this, but the other people I've read make much more sense to me, given my limited understanding.
But I do think if you look at some of his comments, that the underlying assumption is that the Pose method is the one true way, and the point of a lot of his comments is to draw you into a Pose-versus-other-methods argument. I could be completely wrong about this, and there's nothing wrong with arguing for a particular school of thought, especially on a forum as wide-open as this, it's just that sometimes the thing goes on too long, becomes belabored, and I feel a certain obligation to keep replying even though it seems like the point would otherwise have been clear enough, for anyone without this agenda. Which is not to say all his comments are like that, and I enjoy B&A's humor, and have no idea what went on over at RW as I've only tuned into its BFR forum a dozen times over the last year, and beside Jason's stickies, don't really see much of use there. I simply find it tiresome but don't want to be rude and not respond to a point that I brought up. So I can see where Dama is coming from in that regard.
Lee,
"""""I don't really have anything more to say on this, and everything I know is to be found in other people's writings."""
I am on forums to read what individuals think. I do what I do based on my perceptions and experience over time. Yes, I have and am influenced by others opinions, knowledged and experience but in the end I go with what I think is correct or best.
"""""I don't really have anything more to say on this, and everything I know is to be found in other people's writings."""
I am on forums to read what individuals think. I do what I do based on my perceptions and experience over time. Yes, I have and am influenced by others opinions, knowledged and experience but in the end I go with what I think is correct or best.
Right, but sometimes I think you keep after me when it's clear I've only quoted someone else, and have sometimes even provided the link. Nothing I say about biomechanics or physiology will be based on my experience or experimentation, so after I state something on these topics that's pretty much the end of it unless I have failed to make myself clear. If for example, you think gravity works differently than most people researching running, then you really need to take it up with them, not with me.
Lee,
"""But I do think if you look at some of his comments, that the underlying assumption is that the Pose method is the one true way, and the point of a lot of his comments is to draw you into a Pose-versus-other-methods argument"""
I do infact think that efficient running is best explained and taught as Pose Method prescribes at this point in time. I am open to anyone offering a better choice. As to whether you or anyone chooses to agree with me is irrelevent. I gain just as much with your disagreement as with your agreement. If you agree then it is likely that you will enjoy running as much or more as I do. If you don't agree and still enjoy your running as much or more than I do that is fantastic also. As I teach running technique I am very confident in how and why I do it. I have no problem defending it and sharing what that principle is. Infact by talking with people that I know disagree with me I may in the end discover something that is even better than what I already feel I know. If that doesn't happen then I can remain content and happy with what I have already discovered.
"""But I do think if you look at some of his comments, that the underlying assumption is that the Pose method is the one true way, and the point of a lot of his comments is to draw you into a Pose-versus-other-methods argument"""
I do infact think that efficient running is best explained and taught as Pose Method prescribes at this point in time. I am open to anyone offering a better choice. As to whether you or anyone chooses to agree with me is irrelevent. I gain just as much with your disagreement as with your agreement. If you agree then it is likely that you will enjoy running as much or more as I do. If you don't agree and still enjoy your running as much or more than I do that is fantastic also. As I teach running technique I am very confident in how and why I do it. I have no problem defending it and sharing what that principle is. Infact by talking with people that I know disagree with me I may in the end discover something that is even better than what I already feel I know. If that doesn't happen then I can remain content and happy with what I have already discovered.
This might be where we are having a problem with communication. I am speaking what I believe and have experienced. I thought you were doing the same.... :-(
Well, the 180 constant is used in Chi for example, I'm not sure about Pose, and the whole gravity/lean thing is Pose. The knee pull also. And I've found none of the people who make sense to me, given my limited background in natural science, subscribe to these notions, which are often of relatively recent vintage. If I were smart, I would've looked into the more scientific analyses of cadence before I posted this thread, but I was mostly interested in other people's experiences, not in technical details, at the time. Which is not to say that it is a bad thing that it became a more technical discussion--it forced me to clarify my thinking, and rule out, for me personally, the necessity of thinking about cadence in my running. So it has been fruitful and B&A's contribution has helped move the discussion along.I guess I just don't know anything about pose to know that b&a is most definitely referring to it. To my unedicated eye his comments don't seem to always be promoting one method or another, but maybe to an edicated eye....
A brief history of B&A: He first appeared on the RW forum a few years ago. He was an arrogant douche that repeatedly told us we were wrong, explained why Pose was better, then shamelessly peddled his coaching services.
Now he's a FAR less arrogant and douchey, actually listens to other opinions, acknowledges Pose's significant limitations, and I haven't seen him mention his coaching for a long, long time. Though I've never met him in person, I think he's a pretty cool dude. He's taught me quite a bit over the years. We give each other crap all the time, but it's all in good fun. It is a carry-over from the RW forums... it's just what we do. He's actually one of the few people I've met that really understands running form from multiple modalities.
Now he's a FAR less arrogant and douchey, actually listens to other opinions, acknowledges Pose's significant limitations, and I haven't seen him mention his coaching for a long, long time. Though I've never met him in person, I think he's a pretty cool dude. He's taught me quite a bit over the years. We give each other crap all the time, but it's all in good fun. It is a carry-over from the RW forums... it's just what we do. He's actually one of the few people I've met that really understands running form from multiple modalities.
Lee,
In Pose there is a "pull" but the knee is not what is pulled. It the body part would be the foot and lower leg. Since the whole leg is attached the whole thing will move via a Pull.
In Pose there is a "pull" but the knee is not what is pulled. It the body part would be the foot and lower leg. Since the whole leg is attached the whole thing will move via a Pull.
Fair enough, but I'm not always up for an extended discussion, and I feel sometimes you just won't let go of something. I understand this is your life and livelihood, and it's of vital interest for you to understand how your ideas are received, and it's worthwhile seeing how they match up against others' ideas on running, but I'm a recreational runner who already spends too much time here
. In the future if I don't reply to a further comment of yours, please do not take offense, but keep in mind these differences. I'm certainly not antagonistic to your contribution and in a sense am honored you would even take my opinions seriously, it just seems that extended technical arguments would be best pursued in a different format, like in the comments section of Pete Larsen or Steve Magness or RunningPhysio's blogs. Alls I do is say, "hey, I've read this, whadaya think?" In this instance the 180 rule didn't make intuitive sense to me, but I was wondering if it did for others, and whether they had arrived at it consciously or 'naturally.' Some of the replies were quite interesting, then I read up a bit more, and then today happened. Not for the bad, but I really shouldn't have spent so much time on this. Happy trails!
Jason,
""""A brief history of B&A: He first appeared on the RW forum a few years ago. He was an arrogant douche that repeatedly told us we were wrong, explained why Pose was better, then shamelessly peddled his coaching services."""
I understand this might be how you think things went but I will stand by your claims being very inaccurate. I still think you are a great interweb friend and hope one day you will come to my home and your bare soles will touch my floors
""""A brief history of B&A: He first appeared on the RW forum a few years ago. He was an arrogant douche that repeatedly told us we were wrong, explained why Pose was better, then shamelessly peddled his coaching services."""
I understand this might be how you think things went but I will stand by your claims being very inaccurate. I still think you are a great interweb friend and hope one day you will come to my home and your bare soles will touch my floors
Thanks for the history Jason, that's pretty much the sense I have of him. And as I've said several times, when a sub-4-minute miler takes time to listen to my nascent opinions on running, I feel honored. I just don't appreciate the underlying agenda and endless requests for clarifications when all I'm doing is quoting someone else's blog or research.
Sorry for the sloppy terminology, but I'm writing very quickly now trying to wrap things up!
Again, honestly I am just trying to understand what you are saying about the topic. Sorry that I can't understand it as it is first written :-(
