Catalyst Athletics Forums - Efficacy of POSE running technique

Catalyst Athletics Forums (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/index.php)

- Endurance (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

- - Efficacy of POSE running technique (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3996)

Efficacy of POSE running technique

When searching for information on POSE running technique, I came across this info today.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007...conomythe.html

Which references this study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

Quote:

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

The loss of efficiency isn't as big a concern of mine here as issues with ankles / calves, which are mentioned in the first source (which is not a journal or peer-reviewed article itself).

My understanding prior to seeing this was that POSE was generally understood to be a superior running technique, although I found it odd that it would be so out of synch with what the body naturally falls into, as the body is usually prejudiced toward efficient movement (admittedly, this is not always true for various reasons; not wanting to belabor that here).

My own conclusion would first be that when you are moving away from a pattern where you are pounding onto your legs and muscling yourself forward, of course you are going to lose spring. However, if elite LSD runners use the natural technique with success and have since before the invention of POSE, this calls into question the idea that conventional running causing your legs to have to muscle you forward. I'm also skeptical about greater skeletal impact from conventional vs. POSE running.

Any other experiences with POSE vs. conventional running? I might be better served asking in an Endurance community, but not sure what kind of exposure you all have had.

Thoughts?

This was from one of the comments on one of the Sports Scientists' blog entries:

Quote:

I just came across this discussion of Pose running and reference to the study I did on that topic and published in 2005. Let me make a few points in that regard.

The majority of the subjects were very experienced runners with only a few exceptions. They were pre-screened for an existing heel striking pattern as well. The Pose Method group clearly became less economical during the training period, however 7 of 8 also anecdotally reported improved running performances (races, training splits , etc) during the learning period. This was intriguing to us and so we did a little follow-up likert scale survey after the study which confirmed those observations - not publishable science as we had not planned on doing so in the original investigation design. Those results were distributed to the USA Triathlon certified coaching group in a coaching report at the time. Most treatment subjects also experienced some degree of calf soreness in the first few weeks which resolved in most cases by the 3rd-4th week. One athlete clearly struggled with the technique and had additional physical problems - interestingly enough he was also a marginal attendee at the practice sessions. 7 of 8 treatment subjects showed worse economy, however the least experienced athlete in the group improved. The follow-up surveys with the treatment group also suggested that some injuries had resolved with the technique change (in particular two cases of plantar fasciitis of long duration) and that 7 of 8 would continue using the new method in spite of the conflicting economy data. Finally one should consider that we tested the athletes on treadmills . After long term analysis I feel like the pose method effectiveness overland is negated to some degree in treadmill running because the moving belt makes it more energy efficient to stay on support longer. An early treadmill based economy study from the Cavanaugh group actually showed the most economical runners to be heel strikers on the treadmill. Finally I think we have to remember that large scale motor skill changes in highly "trained" individuals clearly take years versus days, weeks or months to become the dominant motor pattern. This might imply that large scale changes also introduce worsened economy even as they enhance mechanics and external work capacity in the short run. In my own experience it took several years to make this technique "automatic" meaning I did not have to think about it to produce it. In retrospect we should have included a performance trial and used overland economy analysis.

Finally I will point out that Graham Fletcher,a member of our research team, has since produced and replicated a relatively simple study illustrating the beneficial effect of pose method technique change on running peformance. Basically they show that a week of pose method training improves 1.5 mile run time in experienced runners using a two group design. As his dissertation work the data is not yet in publication but will be eventually.

For my own purposes I have found that the change in technique can be created more quickly by using barefoot running in small amounts combined with regular use of the key pose method drills. Barefoot or minimalist shoe running appears to create a condition whereby the technique occurs without much need for conscious regulation - I believe because it actually represents the way we have evolved and become hard wired to run over the span of human evolution.

George Dallam

That last paragraph is hugely important.

Running barefoot is free and teaches exactly the right habits. POSE running is an attempt to re-create the instinctual barefoot running patterns while wearing shoes.

A little knowledge about POSE plus some Vibrams goes a really long way, IMO.

I did a 5k today (treadmill) and did heel stroke, though I did some barefoot practice beforehand. My knee (which has had nagging issues for years now) always bothers me after running, which is what mainly spurred my interested in POSE. I don't have the ankle and calf strength, or close to technique, to pull of a 5k POSE right now, though.

The barefoot advice is great - I'll take that to heart. I'm going to try to shoot for about 5 mins of barefoot POSE work on my treadmill and work up from there to see where it gets me. I've studied some video and hope to at least emulate that with some semblance of competence.

Could you please define "running economy?" What's it measured in? Economies per minute?

I get the feeling the study is referring to the absolute oxygen consumption, but that doesn't really measure the efficiency, since the muscle recruitment changes so dramatically.

Patrick, I believe they are saying that a reduced running economy is a higher submaximal oxygen consumption at the same running speed. From the above, cut-and-pasted:

Quote:

a mean increase in submaximal absolute oxygen cost (from 3.28+/-0.36 l.min-1 to 3.53+/-0.43 l.min-1; P<0.01) ... at 215 and 250 m.min-1

The most telling parts are these, at least to me, from the researcher's review of his own study in the second part:

Quote:

The majority of the subjects were very experienced runners with only a few exceptions. They were pre-screened for an existing heel striking pattern as well. The Pose Method group clearly became less economical during the training period, however 7 of 8 also anecdotally reported improved running performances (races, training splits , etc) during the learning period. This was intriguing to us and so we did a little follow-up likert scale survey after the study which confirmed those observations - not publishable science as we had not planned on doing so in the original investigation design. Those results were distributed to the USA Triathlon certified coaching group in a coaching report at the time. Most treatment subjects also experienced some degree of calf soreness in the first few weeks which resolved in most cases by the 3rd-4th week. One athlete clearly struggled with the technique and had additional physical problems - interestingly enough he was also a marginal attendee at the practice sessions. 7 of 8 treatment subjects showed worse economy, however the least experienced athlete in the group improved. The follow-up surveys with the treatment group also suggested that some injuries had resolved with the technique change (in particular two cases of plantar fasciitis of long duration) and that 7 of 8 would continue using the new method in spite of the conflicting economy data. Finally one should consider that we tested the athletes on treadmills . After long term analysis I feel like the pose method effectiveness overland is negated to some degree in treadmill running because the moving belt makes it more energy efficient to stay on support longer. An early treadmill based economy study from the Cavanaugh group actually showed the most economical runners to be heel strikers on the treadmill. Finally I think we have to remember that large scale motor skill changes in highly "trained" individuals clearly take years versus days, weeks or months to become the dominant motor pattern. This might imply that large scale changes also introduce worsened economy even as they enhance mechanics and external work capacity in the short run. In my own experience it took several years to make this technique "automatic" meaning I did not have to think about it to produce it. In retrospect we should have included a performance trial and used overland economy analysis.

He basically is saying that his study was worthless in trying to evaluate actual benefits to health or performance--and the athletes self-evaluations showed a strikingly different conclusion than a cursory review of the study abstract would show.

Running economy is basically minimizing the amount of energy it takes to go a certain distance.... running large distances is a function of how much oxidative energy (aka "aerobic" energy) is being used which can be directly measured by O2 usage.

I personally always thought it was VERY obvious that switching "elite" or "sub-elite" athletes who have been running for YEARS with heel strike would result in increased running economy. I mean, you're drastically changing a movement pattern. But it's interesting that most people FELT better with better running technique AND often did better. This should tell you something.

With enough running with better movement patterns, running economy will drop as well.

Anyone can come to my running seminar....for only $1000...I take your shoes off and send you running....you'll figure it out after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Low (Post 52658)

I'm confused...its it more economical to do more, with less? Therefore doesn't economy improve? If you run faster, using less oxygen than before, aren't you being more economical?

Steven you've said they had increased economy but then decreased. I believe based on the use of the word economy...its the other way around. They had decreased economy, but then later an increase in economy - in both motion and oxygen usage. The real term we should strive for is efficiency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Mounce (Post 52662)

Oh whoops.

Whatever the case, O2 consumption increased which means that the efficiency there decreased (or decreased running economy).

But as I stated I don't think that matters as long as performance improves & you feel better + less injuries.