Gravity & Running Related To Arm Weight Piano Technique

I came across this in Feldy Forum and thought I would pass it on, especially to Andrew - might this shed some light on the ongoing conundrum of arm weight? This is from Hans Holter Solhjell, a Feldenkrais Practitioner living in Norway: 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

"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." Sorry to be blunt but, while there are many interesting things there, with the way the above is stated, it degenerates into pure nonsense- scientifically speaking. I'm not saying that perceiving it this way would be a bad thing. But mechanically it's pure nonsense. lean almost surely contributes, but to basically REPLACE the legs? It's this kind of polarisation that I object to. It's simply absurd to state it as if it were literal, even if it may be a valuable impression. There's a very simple premise in running. Your foot moves backwards and the friction generated allows the ground to push you forwards. this is like the idea of gravity REPLACING finger activity- rather than fuelling it in the context of a whole. However, if anything, it's a lot more absurd. A rod cannot fall ad infinitum. It falls DOWN and then stops. Or not at all. He's basically describing a perpetual motion machine! Honestly, the idea that a push from the legs is unimportant and that the whole thing is an extended (sideways!) fall is the biggest load of irrational pseudo-science I've heard in a long time. The legs don't "facilitate"! They generate movement by applying force to the ground, so the ground returns a force that moves them forward! This is why I'm so interested in the rational approach. I think that there should be a clear distinction between fact and subjective impressions. You don't have to favour one or the other and make them separate issues. I'm tremendously in favour of perception based work, but it really needs to be informed by factual understanding- if such nonsense as legs 'facilitating' running or 'double rotation' in fast scales is to be avoided. The article falls in to the trap of trying to be scientific half of the time, but then writing utter clap trap alongside it. It's important to be clear what is scientific fact and what is sensation- and then both can have value. But I could never support the idea of portraying nonsense as if it were fact, rather than potentially valuable imagery. Imagery really ought to be declared as such, if understanding is to progress. Incidentally, I've been experimenting with a kind of self-righting finger. most people think of the finger moving from the arm. If you turn it around and allow the arm to react freely in response to the finger, the finger literally realigns itself and the arm. This is as sure an interaction between finger and mass as is possible. however, it's a great way of judging weight release. The finger's friction on the key is dependent on weight. Too little and you'll slip. But too much and your arm will not feel movable in response to the finger. Would you agree more, with this explanation in terms of the movability of the arm? Literally speaking it certainly uses some of the weight. But it doesn't necessarily have to be explained that way. If the finger joins with the key and the arm is movable in response to its pull, the weight will have done its job, whether you consciously view it that way or not. The weight is vital for the natural action to occur there. A natural action introduces backwards pull. That means you need friction, to avoid slippage. In order to avoid needless arm pressure, weight has to be present for the friction- just like how gravity permits the friction in running. If you remove all weight, the only way to avoid slippage is to aim the finger through the keys exact path. This has no backwards/forwards component so friction is no issue. But that means abandoning the stronger grasping functions. I cannot see any credible explanation that would divorce the finger action from the arm's mass. It's like an assisted chin-up. You don't pull the whole mass. But the percentage that you do pull on is integral to the equations.

Just to add to that- the strange thing about this is that it resembles minimal finger activity on the exterior, yet works my fingers more than anything I have done before. It's very cold at the moment, which had always troubled me, but right now I feel more blood pumping around my fingers than I would usually expect in the summer. By attempting to drag some of an arms mass forwards, the finger's natural action can apply collossal forces and the muscles engage clearly through the entire motion. Making the arm feel movable allows the fingers to pull very hard indeed. Yet the movement is so slight that they scarcely appear to do anything at all. I can very much see how armweight people focus on the weighting side of the equation. I feel much more in terms of the finger's action being enabled by a proportioned counterforce (created by the movability of the arm's mass), but it makes perfect sense to view the gravitational element in how much the finger can pull. Mechanically speaking, a finger cannot only pull a key. Unless the arm is fixed, it pulls the arm too.

I was thinking more about this concept earlier while walking back to the train station from work. I realised that the "falling" aspect can easily be disproven- even without necesarily mentioning the simple fact that gravity cannot create energy. I have a strong suspicion that the guy who wrote the article may be substantially misattributing the original guy's method- when he claims that the falling occurs of the legs inputting energy. In terms of energy, this is obviously nonsense as only the legs could input the gravitational potential energy that would have to be translated into movement. As energy cannot be created, anything from gravity would immediately be used up- unless the legs kept replacing the potential energy. So they would still be the source of everything, not falling. However, as a more simple practical illustration- imagine balancing a tall pole on your hand, that's tipping forward and is about to fall over. If you start moving forwards, it's possible to keep that pole from falling over, despite its centre of gravity being in front of the pivot. It can stay at the same angle, if you move at the right speed. Is that pole moving via its gravity? Of course not- your hand is pushing it. However, the moment you stop pushing it. the gravitational potential energy finally does translate into movement- so it falls over and lies on the ground (just as a runner would if they were really to start translating gravity into 'falling' forwards). It was interesting to think this through though. While walking I realised that if you lean forwards, you put your foot in a position to try to pull/push the ground backwards. Basically you're alignment to propel yourself forward- rather than to land too vertically downwards. It's a very simple case of aligning yourself better to push off against the ground- which may well create a greater feeling of ease and the illusion of falling rather than straining to produce a force. I could certainly feel the greater flow when I leant forward (although while walking now- not running). So I can see how the method may very well work in practical terms. It's an interesting illusion. But the 'science' about supposedly generating perpetual motion with a finite gravitational potential and legs that are basically incidental to the movement is utter bullshit. The reality is that is just aligns a person so they can more easily make a notable force in the intended plane of motion- hence it will likely feel less effortful than trying to push off from a fully upright position. "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" The above passage is totally wrong and easily disproven. The lean helps improve the action against the ground- not vice versa. Even if there were elements of falling before replenishing gravitational energy in preparation to fall again, only the legs could input that energy via the driving and pushing. Much as I admire so many things about the Feldenkrais method, I can't believe that this guy has sincerely tried to come up with a theory in scientific terms- that is refuted by such basic mechanics of energy conservation. This is why I think that it's so valuable to add focus to perceptive work, via rational concepts. Rational and perceptive issues really need to be used to complement each other. Without integration between the two, either approach can have gross limitations. How can this guy have true self-awareness, if he doesn't even realise that it's only by exerting backward forces against the ground that it's possible for a body to be propelled forwards? Surely understanding such simple premises ought to be fundamental to self-awareness- before grasping at such wildly subjective (and ludicrously refutable) notions?