Reduced Eccentric Loading of the Knee with the Pose Running Method



O

Ozzie Gontang

Guest
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
 
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:33:06 GMT, Ozzie Gontang
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Just came across this paper today. Interesting.

In what way? Do you agree/disagree/hold no opinion on its conclusions?

Perhaps I'm failing to comprehend the true significance of this paper, but it seems to suggest that
the pose method results in an altered distribution of impact and associated stresses when compared
with heel-toe or midfoot running. That rather like conducting research and establishing that apples
have a different flavour and texture to oranges. Of course they do, what matters is which one tastes
best *to you*.

Again, perhaps I'm being especially dense, but I'd assume there are other running strategies where
you can 'reduce eccentric loading of the knee'. Whether they'd be running strategies that enabled
you to run efficiently over 26 miles or so is open to question.

I have nothing against the pose method per se (other than it's a load of twaddle) I'll simply note
here that any research paper that had to include in its conclusions a comparison with BACKWARDS
running cannot hope to sustain my interest.
 
>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
>
In other words, Nicholas Romanov has no actual evidence that his method does anything that he says
it does that a peer review committee is willing to accept. That Pose running "may" have a role
equivalent to backward running seems to me to be a VERY weak endorsement.

This is what Dr. Michael Yessis has to say on the matter:

"During the running stride, keep the trunk vertical. Neither lean forward nor excessively arch your
lower back. Leaning forward will make you lose your balance, which forces you to take quicker steps,
thus forcing you to constantly accelerate instead of maintaining a constant speed over the distance.
Having too much arch, on the other hand, develops negative or backward forces and places more stress
on the spinal vertebrae. Too much arch also interferes with your biomechanical movements and creates
pre-dispositions for trauma to the spine and to the upper hamstrings."

SOME emphasis on running form is good, given the importance of running economy, especially for
"trained" runners. But, exactly, why should anyone pay any attention to Romanov or Pose given the
lack of verifiable evidence in favor of either?

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson
 
On 14 Feb 2004 21:51:42 GMT, [email protected] (Lyndon) wrote:

> But, exactly, why should anyone pay any attention to Romanov or Pose given the lack of verifiable
> evidence in favor of either?

I think you're being too harsh. The pose method had provided a reasonable income for a number of
'experts', and the expense of learning this 'revolutionary technique' has stopped triathletes and
other gullible fools from wasting their money on Timex GPS systems or carbon framed racing bikes.
Thus the world is a better place for simple souls such as you and I.
 
Ozzie Gontang wrote:
> Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Volume 36(2) February 2004 pp 272-277 Reduced Eccentric
> Loading of the Knee with the Pose Running Metho ARENDSE, REGAN E.1; NOAKES, TIMOTHY D.1; AZEVEDO,
> LIANE B.1; ROMANOV, NICHOLAS1; SCHWELLNUS, MARTIN P.1; FLETCHER, GRAHAM2
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>

Question: Does this say that Pose method running places less stress on the knees than natural heal-
toe running? And, does it say that Pose method places more stress on the ankles? Could there be some
trade-offs that a runner could learn to use, say, to avoid re-injury of previously injured joints?

Thanks,

Steve
 
It goes beyond " what tastes best for you." certainly there are various ways to run and everyone can run from point A to B and get there. The issue isnt just arriving but in the course of body exercise function and performance, there are mechanisms inherent to the body as well as mechanisms derived because of an artificial constraint or support against which the body continues to function.
Changing the paradigm from foot constraint to non-constrained may be providing you the natural function of the foot and lower extremity.