Hi, good to see you here!
8 years ago by A Pianist
I just posted this in the Technique & MEthods category but thought it may actually belong here - a post from Hans Holter Solhjell, a Norwegian Feldenkrais practitioner... Some time ago said I would write a comparison on the POSE model of running, vs what is normally thought in our community, using a lingo of push, drive, toe off and so on. I wrote several emails earlier today under another topic, and stitch them together here, to get the whole argument in one place, and too separate it from the other topic. One basic question in relation to running mostly not asked is the question of what kind of physics model one apply to running. What is the driving force in running? One way to see this is about how we relate to gravity, something we as feldys should find interesting. I will suggest two models, mostly based on my reading to the founder of the POSE method, Romanov, and his latest book, on triathlon technique. The drive push work to conquer gravity model Commonly used words and principles used in teaching running technique, also in our community are, push, drive, toe off, knee drive or lift and others of this nature. A push and drive model imply, in my intepretation, that we are working against gravity, to propel ourself forward by musculary pushing of from the ground, and by that effort pushing the body forward. The task of the technique oriented runner, coach, or feldy, then becomes a question of how to create a better coordinated push and drive. This understanding has been the basis for most coaching on running, as far as I am aware of it, and has also been the one that has influenced our community. The flow with gravity falling rod model An other model would be to see the body being propeled forward by gravity, using a falling rod model of motion. If you take a rod and place it in a close to vertical position, with a forward lean in one direction, the top of the rod will fall to the ground in a circular path, and the fall will acelerate as the lean increases. Running can be seen in this perspective as well, and this is the basic theory of the POSE method of running. Romanov also discusses other principles of physics that apply to running, as well as biomechanical aspects, but the falling rod model is enough for the purpose of this argument. Pose, lean, pull vs drive push The basic formula for running in the Pose model is Pose, Lean, and Pull. The Pose is the basic stance from which the runner leans forward. The leaning ideally happens as a release from the ancle, keeping the forefoot, knee, hip, shoulder and head in alignement. The knee is bent, but no forward lean from the hip, ideally. The angle of the lean determins the speed. The Pull is the the removal of the foot from the ground, with no active pushing off. A push disturbs the alignement and balance, and is wasted effort. Although some push occur, mainly because of ground reaction forces and muscle elasiticty, but according to theory, this "free energy" push of works better as a result of a well timed pull, a shorter time on support, and not trough a push. Even the idea, and the word, of a push creates the wrong mental picture and hinders the ideal timing and coordination of the pull, and the following transition into the next Pose. So this is basically a movement of the center of mass forward, driven by gravity. The arms and legs then more or less follows along in a well timed and coordinated fashion, and do not actively drive or push. From the outside, there can appear to be significant movement happening in arms and legs, but most of the movement is mostly allowed to happen, and not activly done. Even the pull of the foot from the ground ideally happens more as a reflexive movement, and not as an active effort. The experience of this, both internal and external I would characterize more as a flow, rather than a drive or a push. So what actually happens as we run? This also raises the question of what is actually going on when a person runs. Is the person who tries to drive and push actually moving forward because he is driving and pushing, or is he actually moving forward because there also is a forward lean, and that all the driving and pushing is actually counterproductive? This also implies that any percieved and actual improvement that ocuers from trying to improve on driving and pushing, actually happens because the person now more or less by accident happens to pose and lean better. And the arms and legs coordinate around the core and center of mass better. It is easy to see this happening as a result of Feldenkrais lessons designed to increase alignment, toeing off, shifting weight and so on, and in general reducing the efforting the person did previously. Unfortuanatly, because of the intention and image of pushing, his pull will most likely be late, and feeding back into the overall coordination in a less than optimal way to utilise gravity optimaly. My personal experience is that this effort can be reduced even more so by changing to exploring movement patterns that directly facilitates a flow with gravity, pose, lean, pull. What do great runners actually do, flow or drive and push? There is also the question of what great runners actually do. When looking at video of the best runners, for instance Michael Johnson, Bolt, or I see very little push and drive, and more flow, letting the arms and legs move to facilitate forward motion, as the center of mass is propelled forward by gravity, as a falling rod, and not muscling forward, as a drive and push gives more of an asociation to for me. Typically, the runners behind them will drive and push a lot more, with less flow. At least as I see it, and how I intepret these words. Regarding gravity, and its role in running, this has been a topic of debate, and for some time the consensus in the scientific community was that no, gravity pulls downward, so it can not drive you forward. All other views where ridiculed. The falling rod models says otherwise, and Romanov discusses the arguments and counterarguments over a whole extra chapter in his latest book. As a curiosity, Leonardo da Vinci wrote that gravity was the driving force in forward motion in humans. I am not a running coach, and study and reflect on this entirely for my own purpose, and intellectual enjoyment. Still, my experiences in developing my own running form, and studies into this so far has led me to feel that the later model is superior to the former. I also find it to be more in tune with what I consider the core of the Feldenkrais method, both in theory, and as a practice. The current model thought in our community came into being by trying to improve on the drive push work to conquer gravity model available at that time, and did not really think trough the whole picture of running. The vocabulary used also gives more of an association to efforting, rather than more economical, elegant flowing, which would be more in tune with how we view good movement in general. I also think a feldy trained person would be able to take the later model, and the practical applications of it in terms of excersises, explorations and so on, and teach at least as well as the POSE community and trainers are doing. Does not hurt to study that model properly of course, with a coach or in a train the trainer program, and learn what they do and improve, a lot, on that. Would it sell well? I dont think so, at least not on a mass scale. Most people are happy with just doing, and are not to concerned with learning and improving. Hans Holter Solhjell øvnskolen.no Konventveien 5 0377 Oslo 41318627
