Julie/Roger/Jo/Zero write:
That's true. There are so many fools in Yankee-land ready to believe *anything* an *expert* tells
them, and to pay good money for the privilege of being duped. Where do we start? The 'pose' method?
Just came across this paper today.
Interesting.
Ozzie Gontang
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Volume 36(2) February 2004 pp 272-277
Reduced Eccentric Loading of the Knee with the Pose Running Method
ARENDSE, REGAN E.1; NOAKES, TIMOTHY D.1; AZEVEDO, LIANE B.1; ROMANOV, NICHOLAS1; SCHWELLNUS, MARTIN
P.1; FLETCHER, GRAHAM2
1MRC/UCT Exercise Science and Sports Medicine Research Unit, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of
Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA; and 2University College of the Fraser
Valley, British Columbia, CANADA Address for correspondence: Dr. Regan E. Arendse, MB.ChB., M.Sc.,
MRC/UCT Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Department of Human Biology,
University of Cape Town, Sports Science Institute of South Africa, P. O. Box 115 Newlands 7725,
South Africa; Submitted for publication May 2003. Accepted for publication October 2003.
ABSTRACT ARENDSE, R. E., T. D. NOAKES, L. B. AZEVEDO, N. ROMANOV, M. P. SCHWELLNUS, and G. FLETCHER.
Reduced Eccentric Loading of the Knee with the Pose Running Method. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol.
36, No. 2, pp. 272-277, 2004. Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical
changes during natural heel-toe running with learned midfoot and Pose running.
Methods: Twenty heel-toe runners were instructed in midfoot running and a novel running style in
which the acromium, greater trochanter, and lateral malleolus are aligned in stance (Pose
running). Clinical gait analysis was performed for each running style and the biomechanical
variables compared.
Results: In comparison with midfoot and heel-toe running Pose running was characterized by shorter
stride lengths and smaller vertical oscillations of the sacrum and left heel marker. Compared with
midfoot and Pose running heel-toe running was characterized by greater magnitudes and loading rates
of the vertical impact force. In preparation for initial contact, the knee flexed more in Pose than
in heel-toe and midfoot running. The ankle at initial contact was neutral in Pose compared with a
dorsiflexed and plantarflexed position in heel-toe and midfoot running, respectively. The knee power
absorption and eccentric work were significant lower (P < 0.05) in Pose than in either heel-toe or
midfoot running. In contrast, there was a higher power absorption and eccentric work at the ankle in
Pose compared with heel-toe and midfoot running.
Conclusions: Pose running was associated with shorter stride lengths, smaller vertical oscillations
of the sacrum and left heel markers, a neutral ankle joint at initial contact, and lower eccentric
work and power absorption at the knee than occurred in either midfoot or heel-toe running. The
possibility that such gait differences could be associated with different types and frequencies of
running injuries should be evaluated in controlled clinical trails. Running style is described as a
learned response to a given set of anthropometric and physiological constraints (4) so that the
movement of the body components minimizes the amount of mechanical work performed (1). Running style
may be described by the overall action, body angle, arm swing, foot placement, rear leg lift, and
length of stride (19).
The biomechanical variables associated with specific running styles change with running speed (16),
inclination of the running surface (2,20), the use of running shoes (6), and the use of treadmills
(24). Biomechanical variables also differ between different running styles for example between
forward and backward running (7). Backward running is characterized by initial contact with the
midfoot, with the ankle plantarflexed (7). Compared with forward running, the knee is more flexed in
terminal swing, initial contact, and stance (7).
One of the consequences of this running style is that the peak ground reaction force is only 25-33%
of that measured during forward running, suggesting that the calf musculature absorbs more of the
impact forces during backward running (15). The peak patellofemoral compressive force is also
reduced with backward running (3.0 ± 0.6 body weight (BW) compared with 5.6 ± 1.3 BW for forward
running (8)). These biomechanical characteristics of backward running may be more beneficial in the
treatment of running injuries, as suggested by anecdotal reports (15). But backward running is an
impractical method for the treatment or prevention of running injuries.
Running in the forward direction with similar flexed knee geometry and midfoot contact to that of
backward running may be hypothesized to offer equivalent treatment benefits. Midfoot running is,
however, not associated with a lower risk of injury (3). Although the stance phase knee geometry of
midfoot running is not described, it appears that foot contact is unlikely to be the exclusive
determinant of the risk of injury.
A novel running style with a midfoot strike pattern and a flexed knee in stance has been developed
and is called Pose running. The Pose running lower-limb geometry instance is achieved by forward
lean of the trunk and vertical alignment of the ipsilateral shoulder, hip, and heel of the
supporting limb. Pose running therefore appears to have a similar lower-limb geometry to backward
running. It is intuitive that Pose running may have a role in the treatment of running injuries
equivalent to backward running.
Accordingly, the aims of this study were to determine whether clinical gait analysis can distinguish
between midfoot and Pose running in natural heel-toe recreational runners and whether the Pose
method produces biomechanical changes that might be of value in the treatment or prevention of
running injuries.
©2004The American College of Sports Medicine